been breach'd is no Judicial Opinion nor more than a gratis dictum But an Opinion though Erroneous concluding to the Iudgment is a Judicial Opinion because delivered under the Sanction of the Judges Oath upon deliberation which assures it is or was when delivered the Opinion of the Deliverer Yet if a Court give Judgment judicially another Court is not bound to give like Judgment unless it think that Judgment first given was according to Law For any Court may err else Errors in Judgment would not be admitted nor a Reversal of them Therefore if a Judge conceives a Judgment given in another Court to be erroneous he being sworn to judge according to Law that is in his own conscience ought not to give the like Judgment for that were to wrong every man having a like cause because another was wrong'd before much less to follow extra-judicial Opinions unless he believes those Opinions are right The other Case is in Coke 5 Car. Salvin versus Clerk in Ejectment upon a special Verdict Alexander Sidenham Tenant in tayl to him and the Heirs males of his body the Reversion to John his eldest Brother made a Lease for three Lives warranted by the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 28. with warranty And after 16 Eliz. levies a Fine with warranty and proclamations to Taylor and dies without Issue male leaving Issue Elizabeth his Daughter Mother to the Plaintiffs Lessor In 18 Eliz. the Lease for Lives expir'd In 30 Eliz. John the elder Brother died without Issue the said Elizabeth being his Neece and Heir The Defendant entred claiming by a Lease from Taylor and Points entred upon him as Heir to Elizabeth A question was mov'd upon a suppos'd Case and not in fact within the Case Whether if the Fine had not been with proclamation as it was and no Non-claim had been in the Case as there was this warranty should make a discontinuance in Fee and barr Elizabeth it not descending upon John after Alexanders death but upon Elizabeth who is now also John's Heir or determined by Alexander's death The Judges were of opinion as the Reporter saith That the warranty did barr Elizabeth and consequently her Heir because the Reversion was discontinued by the Estate for Lives and a new Fee thereby gain'd and the Reversion displac'd thereby and the warranty was annex'd to that new Fee But this Case is all false and mis-reported 1. For that it saith the Lease for Lives was a discontinuance of the Reversion thereby a new Fee gain'd to Tenant in tayl which he passed away by the Fine with warranty which could not be for in the Case it appears the Lease was warranted by the Stat. of 32 H. 8 and then it could make no discontinuance nor no new Fee of a Reversion could be gain'd 40 Eliz. Keen Copes C. 602. pl. 13. and then no Estate to which the warranty was annex'd and so was it resolv'd 40 El. Keen Copes Case 2. That Opinion was extra-judicial it being concerning a point not in the Case but suppos'd 3. That Case was resolv'd upon the point of Non-claim and not upon this of the warranty which was not a point in the Case 4. Some of the Judges therefore spoke not to that point as appears in the Case As to the second Question Admitting the warranty of Tenant in tayl doth bind the Donor and his Heirs yet in regard the Defendant Tenant in possession cannot derive the warranty to her self from the Feoffees as Assignee or otherwise Whether she may rebutt the Demandants or not by her possession only is the question and I conceive she may not as this Case is I shall begin with those Authorities that make and are most press'd against me which is the Authority of Sir Edward Coke in Lincoln Colledge Case in the third Report and from thence brought over to his Littleton f. 385. a. His words in Lincoln Colledge Case f. 63. a. are He which hath the possession of the Land shall rebutt the Demandant himself without shewing how he came to the possession of it for it sufficeth him to defend his possession and barr the Demandant and the Demandant cannot recover the Land against his own warranty And there he cites several Cases as making good this his Assertion In the same place he saith it is adjudg'd 38 E. 3. f. 26. That an Assignee shall rebutt by force of a warranty made to one and his Heirs only This Doctrine is transferred to his Littleton in these words If the warranty be made to a man and his heirs without this word Assignes yet the Assignee or any Tenant of the Land may rebutt And albeit no man shall vouch or have a Warrantia Chartae either as party Heir or Assignee but in privity of Estate yet any one that is in of another Estate be it by disseisin abatement intrusion usurpation or otherwise shall rebutt by force of the warranty as a thing annex'd to the Land which sometimes was doubted in our Books when as in the Cases aforesaid he that rebutteth claimeth under and not above the warranty I shall clearly agree no man shall vouch or have a warrantia Chartae who is not in in privity of Estate that is who hath not the same Estate as well as the same Land to which the warranty was annexed And the reason is evident because the Tenant must recover if the Land be not defended to him by the warranter such Estate as was first warranted and no other unless a Fee be granted with warranty only for the life of the Grantee or Grantor in which Case the Grantee upon voucher recovers a Fee though the warranty were but for life I shall likewise agree the Law to be as Sir Edward Coke saith in both places if his meaning be that the Tenant in possession when he is impleaded may rebutt the Demandant without shewing how he came to the possession which he then hath when impleaded be it by dissism abatement intrusion or any other tortious way And for the reason given in Lincoln Colledge Case That it sufficeth that the Tenant defend his possession But if his meaning be that the Tenant in possession need not shew that the warranty ever extended to him or that he hath any right to it then I must deny his Doctrine in Lincoln Colledge Case or in Littleton which is but the former there repeated to be Law For as it is not reasonable a man should recover that Land which he hath once warranted to me from me what title soever I have in it at the time when he impleads me So on the other side it is against reason I should warrant Land to one who never had any right in my warranty And the same reason is if a man will be warranted by Rebutter he should make it appear how the warranty extends to him as if he will be warranted by Voucher for the difference is no other than that in the case of Voucher a stranger impleads him in
to the King to license as he thought fit 355 2. The intent of the Act being That every man should not sell Wine that would his Majesty could not better answer the ends of the Act than to restrain the sellers to Freemen of London to the Corporation of Vintners men bred up in that Trade and serving Apprenticeships to it ibid. 13 El. c. 12 Not reading the Articles 1. Immediately upon not reading the Articles the Incumbent is by this Statute deprived ipso facto 132 2. Upon such Deprivation the Patron may present Ante 14. and his Clerk ought to be admitted and instituted but if he do not no Lapse incurrs until after Six months after notice of such Deprivation given to the Patron 132 3. Where the Incumbent subscribes the Articles upon his Admission and Institution that makes him perfect Incumbent pro tempore 133 4. But if he hath a Benefice and afterwards accepts another and doth not subscribe nor read the Articles then he never was Incumbent of the second and consequently never accepted a second Benefice to disable him from holding the first 132 133 134 1. That all Leases by Spiritual persons of Tythe c. 13 Eliz. cap. 10. Concerning Leases to be made by Ecclesiastical persons parcel of their Spiritual Promotions other than for One and twenty years or three Lives reserving the accustomed yearly Rent shall be void 2. This Statute intended that Leases in some sense might be made of Tithes for One and twenty years or three Lives and an ancient Rent Reserved but of a bare Tythe only a Rent could not be reserved for neither Distress nor Assise can be of such a Rent 203 204 3. Therefore a Lease of Tythe and Land out of which a Rent may issue and the accustomed Rent may be reserved must be good within the intent of the Statute 204 7 Jac. cap. 5.21 Jac. cap. 12. For Officers to be sued in the proper County 1. The question upon these Acts was Whether an Officer or any in their assistance that shall do any thing by colour of but not concerning their Office and be therefore impleaded shall have the benefit of these Acts. 2. Or if they are impleaded for any thing done by pretence of their Offices and which is not strictly done by reason of their Office but is a mis-seazante Whether they may have the like benefit 3. Without this Act the Action ought to be laid where the Fact was done and the Act is but to compel the doing of that where an Officer is concerned that otherwise Fieri debuit 114 4. The Statute intends like benefit to all the Defendants where the Fact is not proved to be done where the Action is laid as if the Plaintiff became Non-suit or suffered a Discontinuance viz. that they should have double costs 117 12 Car. 2. cap. 4. For granting Tonnage and Poundage to the King 1. Those Wines which are to pay this Duty according to the Act must be Wines brought into Port as Merchandise by his Majesties Subjects or Strangers 165 2. But Wines which are by their kind to pay Duty if they shall be brought into Ports or Places of this Kingdom neither by his Majesties Subjects nor Aliens they are not chargeable with this Duty ibid. 3. If they are not brought into the Ports and Places as Merchandize viz. for Sale they are not chargeable with the Duty 165 170 4. Wines coming into this Kingdom as Wreck are neither brought into this Kingdom by his Majesties Subjects nor Strangers but by the Wind and Sea 166 5. Wreck'd Goods are not brought into this Kingdom for Merchandise viz. for Sale but are as all other the Native Goods of the Kingdom for sale or other use at the pleasure of the owner ibid. 6. All Goods chargeable with the Duties of this Act must be proprieted by a natural born Merchant or Merchant Alien and accordingly the greater and lesser Duty is to be paid 166 168 7. All Goods subject to this Duty may be forfeited by the disobedience and mis-behaviour of the Merchant-proprietor or those entrusted by him 167 1. The intent of this Statute is to priviledge the Father against common Right 12 Car. 2 cap. 24. To enable the Father to devise the Guardianship of his Son to appoint the Guardian of his Heir and the time of his Wardship under One and twenty 179 2. Such a special Guardian cannot transfer the custody by Deed or Will to any other 179 3. He hath no different Estate from a Guardian in Soccage but for the time the of Wardship 179 4. The Father cannot by this Act give the custody to a Papist 180 5. If the Father doth not appoint for how long time under One and twenty years his Son shall be in Ward it is void for Uncertainty 185 6. The substance of the Statute and sense thereof is That whereas all Tenures are now Soccage and the Law appoints a Gardian till Fourteen yet the Father may nominate the Gardian to his Heir and for any time until his Age of One and twenty and such Gardian shall have like remedy for the Ward as Gardian in Soccage at the Common Law 183 Supersedeas 1. If a priviledged person as an Attorney c. or his Menial Servant is sued in any Jurisdiction forreign to his priviledge he may have a Supersedeas 155 Surplusage 1. Surplusage in a special Verdict 78 Suspension 1. A Suspension of Rent is when either the Rent or Land are so conveyed not absolutely and finally but for a certain time after which the Rent will be again revived 199 2. A Rent may be suspended by Unity for a time and afterwards restored 39 Tayl See Title Warranty 1. SEE an Exposition upon the the Statute de Donis 370 371 372 c. 2. What shall be a good Estate Tayl by Implication in a Devise 262 3. A. having Issue Thomas and Mary deviseth to Thomas and his Heirs for ever and for want of Heirs of Thomas to Mary and her Heirs This is an Estate Tayl in Thomas 269 270 4. A Copyholder in Fee surrenders to the use of F. his Son and J. the Son of F. and of the longest liver of them and for want of Issue of J. lawfully begotten the Remainder to M. here it being by Deed J. had only an Estate for Life but had it been by Will it had been an Estate Tayl by Implication 261 5. The Warranty of the Tenant in Tayl descending upon the Donor or his Heirs is no barr in a Formedon in the Reverter brought by them although it be a Collateral Warranty 364 365 6. The lineal Warranty of Tenant in Tayl shall not bind the Right of the Estate Tayl by the Statute de Donis neither with or without Assets descending 365 Tenures See Title Estates  Testament See Devise 1. A Custody as a Gardianship in Soccage is not in its nature Testamentary it cannot pay Debts nor Legacies nor be distributed as Alms 182 Title 1. When you would
in two at the same time not out of the one and yet in the other more than the same Body can be in two several places at the same time 3. If a Feoffee to use of me and my Heirs make a Feoffment to another without consideration to the use of me and my Heirs notwithstanding there is a new Feoffment the words of a use to me and my Heirs Dyer 28 H. 8. f. 12. 6. per Baldwin Chief Justice yet the use being the former use viz. to me and my Heirs this latter is no new use given to me for I cannot have that use given which I had before for to give what I had before is no gift as is well press'd by that Book And by the same necessity where I have the possession before a new possession cannot be really given me by the Statute of 27 H. 8. whose operation is properly to give to him which had not the possession but only an use the possession which he wanted before to the use which he had before in such manner as he hath the use But here the Statute cannot give the possession to the Conizors which they never wanted nor the Conizee never had ad aliquem Juris effectum though perhaps fictitiously and in order only to a form of Conveyance which was not the end or intention of the Statute of Vses but an use invented after that might be made of the Statute in order to a general form of Conveyance by which the parties might execute their Intentions wherein the Conizee is but an Instrument or Property to execute their purpose as in Cromwells Case is said L. Cromwells c. 2. Rep. but the Statute brings the new uses rais'd out of a feign'd possession and for no time in the Conizee to the real possession and for all times in the Conizors which operates according to their intent to change their Estate but not their possession Besides it hath been admitted at the Bar that if the Fine had been levied without consideration and no uses express'd the Conizors might then have distrained for the Arrear because the uses were the same as before which if granted it resolves the Question for the Attornment and power to distrain follows the possession and not the use And if after the supposed possession of the Conisee and his being seis'd to the old uses when the Statute gives the possession back to the old uses the Conizors might distrain for the Arrears before the Fine as well as for those after what hinders their distraining for them still For the possession which the Statute gives to the old uses is as new a possession as that it gives to the new uses and the privity is the same in both Cases in regard of the Tenant And it is common experience that a Fine levied without consideration or use expressed Sir Moyle Finch's Case 6th Rep. f. 68. b. is to the use of the Conizor and his Heirs who may have an action of waste after the Fine for waste committed before as well as he could before the Fine The instant possession of the Conizee notwithstanding which differs not from this Case The next enquiry is What affinity this Case hath with the second Case propos'd viz. That if one seiz'd of a Rent in Fee grants it over to a Stranger and his Heirs and the Tenant attorns if such Grantee regrants the Rent back to the Grantor and his Heirs there must be a new Attorment of the Tenant to the Regrant for the privity by the first Attornment was totally destroyed and all Arrears of Rent lost when the Tenant attorn'd to the Grantee which Case I take to be clear Law for by the Regrant a total new Estate is gain'd in the Rent and thereby he who hath the Rent as if he never had any former Estate in it And in the present Case the Estates after the Fine are wholly new and other Estates in the Conizors to which the Tenant never attorn'd than the Conizors had before the Fine in these Respects 1. Before the Fine the Husbands had but Estates in right of their Wives and now they are Jointenants with their Wives 2. The Wives before the Fine had Estates of Inheritance absolute and now they are Iointenants with their Husbands and among themselves where Survivorship obtains 3. The Women were Coparceners before and the Husbands in right of their Wives and they are now all Jointenants 4. Two of the Coparceners had the Inheritance of entire third parts and the two other of one intire third part and now the four Women and three Husbands are equally Iointenants which are Estates much differing from the Estates they had before the Fine I must agree That where persons seiz'd of a Rent-charge by granting it over with Attornment of the Tenant have totally departed from their Estate and after retake either such an Estate as they had before or a differing Estate in the Rent they must have a new Attornment and the former privity is wholly destroyed and consequently no Arrears can be distrain'd for by reason of the first privity which is not But in this Case the Conizors never were for any moment of time out of possession of their first Estate nor destroyed the first privity by any new Attornment which either was or possibly could be but only some have enlarg'd their Estate some diminish't it others alter'd it without destroying the old privity which may stand well with the Rules of Law and consequently they may distrain for Rent arrears and avow lawfully by reason of the first privity still continuing And I must observe in this Cases that the Avowants after the Fine are the same persons avowing as before 2. That after the Fine there is but one common Avowry as before 3. That there is no new person after the Fine between whom and the Tenant there was not a privity before the Fine That a mans Estate in a Rent-charge may be enlarg'd diminish'd or otherwise alter'd and no new Attornment or privity requisite to such alteration of Estate Litt. Sect. 549. A man seiz'd of a Rent-service or Rent-charge in Fee grants the Rent to another for life and the Tenant attorns after the Grantor confirms the Estate of the Grantee in fee-Fee-tail or Fee-simple this Confirmation is good to enlarge his Estate according to the words of the Confirmation Here no new Attornment to this new Estate which now is Fee-tail or Fee-simple in the Rent which was before but an Estate for life is requisite else the Confirmation were not good but by Littleton it is good to enlarge the Estate 2. Sir Edward Cook in his Comment upon this Case saith It is to be observ'd that to the grant of the Estate for life Littleton doth put an Attornment because it is requisite but to the Confirmation to enlarge the Grantees Estate there is none necessary and therefore he puts none No man can doubt in this Case that if Rent had been in Arrear to
Heirs is expresly forbidden by the Statute de Donis 374 Right See Title Action 1. Where there can be presumed to be no remedy there is no right 38 Seisin 1. THe profits of all and every part of the Land are the Esplees of the Land and prove the Seisin of the whole Land 255 2. In an Entry sur Disseisin or other Action where Esplees are to be alledged the profits of a Mine will not serve 254 Spoliation 1. The Writ of Spoliation lyes for one Incumbent against the other where the Patrons right comes in question 24 Statute See Recognizance 1. A Recognizance taken before the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in the nature of a Statute Staple 102 Statutes in general 1. Where an Act of Parliament is dubious long usage is a just medium to expound it by and the meaning of things spoken and written must be as hath been constantly received by common acceptation 169 2. But where usage is against the obvious meaning of an Act by the vulgar and common acceptation of words then it is rather an oppression then exposition of the Act 170 3. When an Act of Parliament alters the Common Law the meaning shall not be strained beyond the words except in cases of publick utility when the end of the Act appears to be larger than the words themselves 179 4. Secular Judges are most conizant in Acts of Parliament 213 5. When the words of a Statute extend not to an inconvenience rarely happening but doth to those which often happen it is good reason not to strain the words further than they will reach by saying it is casus omissus and that the Law intended quae frequentius accidunt 373 6. But where the words of a Law do extend to an inconvenience seldom happening there it shall extend to it as well as if it happens more frequently 373 7. An Act of Parliament which generally prohibits a thing upon a penalty which is popular or only given to the King may be inconvenient to diverse particular persons in respect of person place time c. For this cause the Law hath given power to the King to dispense with particular persons 347 8. Whatsoever is declared by an Act of Parliament to be against Law we must admit it so for by a Law viz. by Act of Parliament it is so declared 327 9. Where the Kings Grant is void in its creation a saving of that Grant in an Act of Parliament shall not aid it 332 10. How an Act of Parliament may be proved there hath been such an Act where the Roll is lost 162 163 404 405 407 11. An Act of Parliament in Ireland cannot effect a thing which could not be done without an Act of Parliament in England 289 12. Distinct Kingdoms cannot be united but by mutual Acts of Parliament 300 13. A repealed Act of Parliament is of no more effect than if it had never been made 325 Statutes 1. Merton cap. 4. The Statute of Merton which gave the owner of the Soyl power to approve Common did not consider whether the Lord was equally bound to pasture with his Tenants or not but it considered that the Lord should approve his own Ground so as the Commoners had sufficient 256 257 2. The inconveniences before the making of the Statute and the several remedies that were provided by it 257 1. Westm 1. 3 E. 1. The Antiquae Custumae upon Woolls Woolfells and Leather were granted to E. 1. by Parliament and therefore they are not by the Common Law 162 163 1. Westm 1. cap. 38. Attaints in Pleas real were granted by this Statute 146 1. Westm 2. cap. 24. The Quare Ejecit infra terminum is given by this Statute for the recovery of the Term against the Feoffee for an Ejectment lay not against him he coming to the Land by Feoffment 127 Statute of Glocester 1. Restrained warranties from binding as at Common Law 366 377 2. Before this Statute all Warranties which descended to the Heirs of the Warrantors were barrs to them except they were Warranties which commenced by Disseisin 366 3. The reason why the warranty of Tenant in Tayl with assets binds the right of the Estate Tayl is in no respect from the Statute de Donis but by the equity of the Statute of Glocester by which the Warranty of the Tenant per Curtesie barrs not the Heir for his Mothers Land if his Father leaves not assets to descend 365 4. If this Statute had not been made the lineal Warranty of Tenant in Tayl had no more bound the right of the Estate Tayl by the Statute de Donis with assets descending than it doth without assets ibid. Westm 2. De Donis 1. All Issues in Tayl within this Statute are to claim by the Writ purposely formed there for them which is a Formedon in the Descender 369 2. it intended not to restrain the alienation of any Estates but such as were Fee-simples at the Common Law 370 3. This Statute intended not to preserve the Estate for the Issue or the Reversion for the Donor absolutely against all Warranties but against the alienation with or without Warranty of the Donee and Tenant in Tayl only 369 4. Therefore if Tenant for life alien with Warranty which descended upon the Reversioner that was not restrained by the Statute but left at the Common Law 370 5. By this Statute the Warranty of Tenant in Tayl will not barr the Donor or his Heir of the Reversion ibid. 6. The Donee in Tayl is hereby expresly restrained from all power of alienation whereby the Lands entayled may not revert to the Donor for want of issue in Tayl 371 7. See a further Exposition upon this Statute from fol. 371 to 393 1. Wales Statute de Rutland 12 E. 1. after the Conquest of it by Edward the First was annext to England Jure proprietatis and received Laws from England as Ireland did Vide postea 9 17 18. and had a Chancery of their own and was not bound by the Law of England until 27 H. 8. 300 301 399 400 2. Although Wales became of the Dominion of England from that time yet the Courts of England had nothing to do with the Administration of Justice there in other manner than now they have with the Barbadoes Jersey c. all which are of the Dominions of England and may be bound by Laws made respectively for them by an English Parliament 400 See for a further Exposition 401 402 c. Acton Burnell 13 E. 1. 1. Recognizances for Debt were taken before this Statute by the Chancellor two Chief Justices and Justices Itinerants neither are they hindred by this Statute from taking them as they did before 102 28 E. 3. c. 2. concerning Wales 1. Tryals and Writs in England for Lands in Wales were only for Lordships Marchers and not for Lands within the Principality of Wales Vide ante 7. pòstea 17 18. for the Lordships and Marchers were of the Dominion of England and held of
is not sufficient by the Rule of the Act of 25. unless confirmed by the King It was otherwise in the Popes case before the Act. There are many Presidents in Mr. Noy's Book where in like Obj. 2 case the King after the death of a Bishop holding in Commendam after his translation to another See and after his resignation hath presented All those Presidents are since the Twentieth of the Queen which Answ 1 cannot alter the Law 2. Who knows in the cases of death whether those Presentations were not by consent of the Patrons and doubtless there are Presidents wherein the Patrons did present else this Question had been earlier But Judicandum est legibus non exemplis Vpon Translation of a Bishop holding a Commendam in the Answ 2 Retinere as long as he continued Bishop there the King ought to present for the Dispensation is determined upon his remove and then is as if it had not been and a Dispensation gives no property to the Living nor takes away any But where property is given to the Living as by Presentation Institution and Induction or by Grant as in Appropriations Hob. Colts and Glovers Case and sometimes otherwise by the King such presenting or granting for a year or six is to grant it during life As an Atturnment cannot be for a time nor a Confirmation nor a Denization or Naturalization and the like but such Acts are perfect Manwarings Case 21 Jac. Crook f. 691. as they may be notwithstanding Restriction to time as is agreed well in Manwaring's Case I shall say nothing of the case of Resignation as not being in the present Question Judgment was given by the Opinion of the whole Court That the Avoidance was by Death not by Cession Hill 19 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1785. Baruck Tustian Tristram Plaintiff Anne Roper Vicountess Baltinglass Vidua Defendant in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment THe Plaintiff declares That the Defendant vi Armis entred into 20 Messuages 1000 Acres of Land 200 Acres of Meadow and 500 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick Westbury and Looffield and into the Rectory of Thornbury which Thomas Gower Kt. and Baronet and George Hilliard to the said Baruck demis'd the First of Octob. 19 Car. 2. Habendum from the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel last past for the term of Five years next ensuing into which he the said Baruck the same day entred and was ousted and ejected by the Defendant ad damnum 40 l. To this the Defendant pleads Not Guilty And the Jury have found specially That the Defendant is not guilty in all those Tenements besides 5 Messuages 400 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow 100 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick and Westbury and in the Rectory of Thornbury and besides in one Messuage 100 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Looffield And as to the Trespass and Ejectment aforesaid in the said five Messuages c. and in the Rectory of Thornbury the Iury say upon their Oath that before the said Trespass and Ejectment suppos'd 22 Junii 12 Jac. Sir Arthur Throgmorton Kt. was seis'd in Fee of the aforesaid Rectory and Tenements last mentioned and of the said Premisses in Looffield and so seis'd A certain Indenture Tripartite was made 22 Junii 12 Jac. between him the said Sir Arthur of the first part Edward Lord Wootton Augustine Nicholls Kt. Francis Harvey Esq and Rowly Ward Esq of the second part and Sir Peter Temple and Anne Throgmorton Daughter of the said Sir Arthur of the third part To this effect That the said Sir Arthur Throgmorton did covenant and promise with the said Lord Wootton and Sir Augustine Nicholls in consideration of Marriage to be had between the said Sir Peter Temple and the said Anne and other the considerations mentioned in the said Indenture by Fine or Fines before the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel next ensuing or other good Conveyance to be levied by him and the said Dame Anne his wife to the said Lord Wootton c. The scite and precinct of the Priory of Looffield the Rectory of Thornbury and divers Mannors Lands and Tenements in the said Indenture mentioned several yearly Rents therein mentioned and all other his Lands in the Counties of Northampton Buckingham and Oxford at any time belonging to the said Priory to convey and assure To the use of himself for life without Impeachment of Waste Then to the use of Dame Anne his Wife Then to the use of the said Sir Peter Temple and the said Anne his Wife during their natural lives and the longer Liver of them and after both their Deceases To the use of the first Son of the Body of Anne by the said Sir Peter begotten and of the Heirs Males of the Body of the said first Son so to the sixth Son Then to the use of all other Sons in succession in like manner of the Body of Anne begotten by the said Sir Peter And for default of such Heirs To the use of all the Issues Female of the Body of the said Anne by the said Sir Peter begotten and the Heirs of the Bodies of the said Issues Female For default thereof To the first Son of the said Anne by any other Husband and his Heirs Males and so to the tenth In like manner to the Issues Female of the Body of Anne with divers Remainders over A Proviso That it be lawful for Sir Arthur at all times during his life to lett set and demise all or any the said Premisses aforesaid which at any time heretofore have been usually letten or demised to any person or persons for and during the term of One and twenty years or under in possession and not in Reversion or for or during any other number of years determinable upon one two or three Lives in Possession and not in Reversion reserving the Rents therefore now yielded or paid or more to be yearly due and payable during such Lease and Leases unto such person and persons unto whom the said Premises so to be demised shall come and be by virtue of these Presents if no such demise had been made so long as the same Lessees their Executors and Assigns shall duly pay the Rents and perform their Conditions according to the true meaning of their Indentures of Lease and commit no waste of and in the things to them demised The like Proviso verbatim for Sir Peter Temple and Anne his Wife to make like Leases during their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them after the death of Sir Arthur and Dame Anne his Wife That a Fine was accordingly levied c. to the uses aforesaid They find that all the Messuages Lands Tenements and Rectory in the Declaration mentioned are compris'd in the said Indenture Tripartite They find the death of Sir Arthur Throgmorton and Anne his Wife 2. Septemb.
1 Car. 1. and that Sir Peter Temple entred and was seis'd for term of his life They find he had Issue of the Body of Anne his Wife Anne the now Defendant Daughter and Heir of the Bodies of the said Sir Peter and Anne his Wife and that Anne Wife of Sir Peter died 2. Sept. 3 Car. 1. 1. They find a Demise by Sir Peter Temple to Sir Thomas Gower and Hillyard of the Rectory of Thornbury 9. Maii 23 Car. 1. for 30 l. Rent 2. They find a Demise by him to them of a Messuage in Thornbury 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Woolheads Tenement for 16 l. 13 s. 4 d. Rent 3. They find a Demise to them 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Land in Thornbury held by Roger Rogers Rent 13 l. 6 s. 8 d. 4. They find a Demise 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Nelson's Tenement in Thornbury Rent 16 l. 13 s. 4 d. at Michaelmass and Lady-day 5. They find a Demise 13. March 23 Car. 1. of Lands in Shalston Eversham and Oldwick held formerly by William Hughes Rent 15 s. 4 d. These respective Leases were made for the term of 90 Years determinable upon the Lives of the Lady Baltinglass the Defendant Sir Richard Temple's and the Life of a younger Son of Sir Peter Temple as long as the Lessees should duly pay the Rents reserved and commit no waste according to the Limitation of the Proviso in 12 Jac. which is recited in the respective Leases 6. Then the Iury find quod predicti separales reditus super praedictis separalibus Indenturis Dimissionis reservat fuerint reservat reditus de super premissis praedictis 22. dii Junii Anno Jacobi Regis 12. supradict Et quod praedict separales reditus c. in forma praedict reservat ad Festum Sancti Michaelis Arch-angeli quod fuit 1653. debit non solut sive oblat suerint super idem Festum sed quod iidem reditus infra unum mensem prox post Festum praedictum praefat Annae Roper Defend solut fuerunt 7. They find a Demise to them of the Scite and Priory of Looffield 9. March 23 Car. 1. at the Rent of 100 l. payable equally on Lady-day and Michaelmass-day demised by Sir Arthur Throgmorton and Anne his Wife 20th of May 12 Eliz. 1570. to William Hewer for 21 years Rent 100 l. Lady-day and Michaelmass with some Exceptions for the like term of 90 years and upon like Limitations as in the former Leases The Iury find quod Tenementa praedicta cum pertinentiis in Looffield supranominat tempore dict Eliz. nuper Reginae Angl. fuerint dimissa ad redditum 100 l. pro termino 21. Annorum sed dimissio terminus 21 Annorum expirati fuerunt Et dicunt quod eisdem Juratoribus non constabat quod dicta Tenementa in Looffield praedict 22 die Junii 12 Jac. aut per spatium 20 Annorum tunc antea fuerint dimissa Et dicunt ulterius quod 50 l. pro dimidio unius Anni de praedictis Tenementis in Looffield ad Festum Sancti Michaelis Arch-angeli quod fuit Anno Dom. 1653. debit oblatae fuerint Et quod praedicta Anna Roper ante Festum Annunciationis prox sequent intravit They find that Gower and Hillyard claiming the said 5 Messuages 400 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick and Westbury As also the said Messuage and other the Premisses in Looffield and the Rectory of Thornbury before the supposed Trespass and Ejectment entred upon the Possession of the Lady Baltinglass and so possessed made a Lease to the Plaintiff by virtue of which he entred and was possessed until outed by the Defendant as by the Declaration But whither the Defendant be culpable they refer to the Court. Vpon this Verdict the Questions are two 1. The first Whither the Defendants entry into the six Tenements leased to Gower and Hillyard for not payment of the Rent reserv'd upon the day of payment were lawful or not And as to that the Court is of opinion that the Defendants Entry was lawful for that the Leases were not deriv'd out of the Estate of Sir Peter Temple who was but Tenant for life and had no Reversion in him but out of the Estate of Sir Arthur Throgmorton by Limitation of the Proviso in the Deed 12 Jac. so as the Leases were not Leases upon Condition to pay the Rent at the day to which any Demand or Re-entry was requisite for Non-payment but were Leases by Limitation and determined absolutely according to the Limitation Littl. f. 235. a. For this Littleton is express that the words quamdiu dum and dummodo are words of Limitation As if a Lease be made to a Woman dum sola fuerit or dum casta vixerit or dummodo solverit talem reditum or quamdiu solverit talem reditum so are many other words there mentioned And if there be not a performance according to the Limitation it determines the Lease But it is otherwise where a Rent is reserv'd upon Condition for there is a Contract between the Lessor and Lessee and the Law evens the Agreement between them as is most agreeable to Reason and the supposition of their Intention But in the present case Sir Peter Temple had no interest in him out of which such Leases could be deriv'd but had a power only to make them by virtue of the Proviso in Sir Arthur Throgmortons Deed and the Lessees must be subject to such Limitations as are thereby made It was agreed by the Council of the Plaintiff That it was not a Condition for payment of the Rent nor could it be but they would call it a Caution A Condition to determine a Lease or a Limitation is a Caution and a material one but such a Caution as hath no more effect than if it were not at all is a thing insignificant in Law and therefore must not supplant that which in proper terms is a Limitation and hath an effect 2. The next Question is upon the Lease of Looffield which arises upon the words of the Proviso That it should be lawful for Sir Peter Temple to demise all or any the Premisses which at any time heretofore have been usually letten or demised for the term of 21 years or under reserving the Rent thereupon now yielded or paid And the Iury finding the Lands in Looffield to have been demised 12th of the Queen for 21 years for 100 l. Rent and that that term was expired and not finding them demis'd by the space of twenty years before at the time of the Indenture 12 Jac. Whither the Lease by Sir Peter Temple of them be warranted by the Proviso there being reserv'd the Rent reserv'd by the Lease in 12. Eliz. viz. 100. l. The Court is of opinion that the Lease of Looffield is not warranted by that Proviso for these Reasons 1. It is clear Sir Arthur Throgmorton intended to exclude some Lands from being demisable by that
Proviso namely Such as at any time before were not usually let and set to Farm For where a mans power is limited to lease Lands so specially qualified that is let and set usually at any time before when he could not lease at all without such special power given him he is absolutely barr'd from leasing Land which is not so qualified 2. It must be presumed Sir Arthur Throgmorton knew he had such Lands as according to his Intention were not at any time before usually set and let and had reason not to suffer them to be demiseable within that Proviso to the prejudice of those in Reversion As for example his Mansion-house Gardens Curtilages and Lands occupied in Demesne For it had been vain to provide against the leasing of Land in such manner condition'd whereof he had none so condition'd But if notwithstanding it shall be taken that any his Lands which at any time past how long soever since one two or three hundred years were demised as perhaps the scite of his House and all his Demesne were though he knew not of it shall therefore now be demiseable within this Proviso Then is the Proviso inconsistent with it self and repugnant to his meaning for he intended thereby to hinder the demising of some of his Lands But by that construction of the Proviso every part of his Land might be demised for doubtless at some time or other every part of it was demised and probably by Records or other ancient Evidence might appear so to be 3. If this were the meaning of the Proviso the word usually in it was to no purpose for it had been much clearer to say That any Lands at any time heretofore demis'd should be demiseable for 21 years by Sir Peter Temple which doubtless was not Sir Arthur's meaning and consequently this Lease of Looffield not according to his meaning 1. Now for the literal sense of the Proviso Rolls Title Power f. 261. n. 11. 2 Jac. in Banâ—o If power be to make Leases for 3 lives or 21 years of Lands usually letten Land which hath been twice letten is within the Proviso but not Land which hath been but once letten Therefore this Land of Looffield letten but once 12 Eliz. is not within the Proviso But I insist not much upon this case for the words usually demis'd may be taken in two senses The one for the often farming or repeated Acts of leasing Lands to which sense this Case doth reasonably extend But the other sense of Land usually demis'd is for the common continuance of Land in lease for that is usually demis'd and so Land leas'd for 500 years long since is Land usually demis'd that is in lease though it have not been more than once demis'd which is the more receiv'd sense of the words Land usually demis'd 2. The meaning of the words at any time is various and of contrary meaning If it be asked by way of Question Were you at any time at York It is the same as Were you ever or sometime at York So in the Question Was this Land at any time in Lease is the same as Was it ever or some time in Lease But when the words at any time are not part of a Question but of an Answer they have a different and contrary meaning As if it be asked Where may I see or speak with John Stiles and it be answered You may speak with him or see him at any time at his House There the words at any time signifie at all times and not as in the question at some time So when the words are used by way of a plain enunciation and not as part of a Question or Answer As You shall be welcome to my House at any time signifie You shall be welcome at all times So in the present Case if it-be made a Question Was such Land heretofore at any time usually letten and set to Farm imports in the Question Was this Land ever or at some time heretofore how long ago soever usually let to Farm But by way of enunciation if it be said This Land was usually let to Farm at any time heretofore it means This Land was commonly at all times heretofore let to Farm So this Land was usually in Pasture at any time heretofore signifies this Land was always or commonly in Pasture heretofore So you may lease any Land heretofore letten to Farm at any time usually is the same with heretofore letten to Farm commonly at all times And this Construction of the Proviso agrees both with the words and intention of Sir Arthur But what was not farmed at the time of this Proviso made nor 20 years before could not be said to be at any time before commonly Farmed for those 20 years was a time before in which it was not farmed But to come closer The Proviso is that Leases may be made for 21 years of any the Lands in the Deed reserving the Rents thereupon reserved at the time of the Deed made viz. 12 Jac. Which necessarily implies that the Land demiseable by that Proviso must be Land which then was under Rent for where no Rent then was the Rent then thereupon reserv'd could not be reserv'd But Looffield had then no Rent upon it for it was not let of 20 years before nor then and therefore was not demiseable by that Proviso The words or more will not at all help the Plaintiff for the words more or less are words of relation the one of addition to what was before the other of diminution for more or less must relate to something positive in the kind before and can never be a relation to nothing So more wages necessarily implies some before more meat more drink more company and in all expressions more denotes a relation to somewhat before of the kind and in the present Case reserving more Rent must imply some before reserved And therefore where none was at the time of the Deed made 12 Jac. there cannot in any congruity of speech more be reserved or intended to be reserved Quaere If the Record be mended in the point of finding the death of Sir Peter Temple and when he died In this the Chief Justice delivered the Resolution of the whole Court Hill 21 22 Car. II. Rot. 2259. C. B. Ralph Dixon Plaintiff Harts ss versus Dean Harrison Defendant In a Replevin Quare cepit Averia ipsius Radulphi ea detinuit contra vadios plegios c. Distress 21 Maii 21 Car. 2. THe Plaintiff declares That the Defendant 21 die Maii 21 Regis nunc at Sandridge in a place called Fregmorfield took three Cows of the Plaintiffs and detain'd them against Pledges quousque to his damage 40 l. The Defendant as Bailiff of Elizabeth Rooper Widow Samuel Hildersham Gent. and Mary his Wife Michael Biddulph Esq and Frances his Wife Humphrey Holden Esq and Theodosia his Wife avows and justifies the Caption for that the place in quo c. contains a Rood of
Avowry is in liew of an Action and thereto privity is requisite for the same cause he cannot have an Action of Waste nor many other Actions there mentioned and the Authorities cited and so is Littleton himself expresly Litt. Sect. 580. Section 580. Where a man by grant to himself or by descent from his Ancestor hath a Rent-charge and might once lawfully distrain and Avow for such Rent if Arrear by due Attornment made to him or his Ancestor he may still do so whenever the Rent is behind unless by Law that power be some way lost 1. That power may be lost by extinguishment of the Rent by a perpetual union of the tenancy to the rent or rent to the tenancy or in other manner the Grantee having no Heir 2. It may be lost for a time by Suspension as by such union for a time and after restored again 3. It may be lost by a Grant of the Rent upon Condition 7 H. 6.3 Br. Extinguishment p. 17. and upon performance or breach of the Condition restored again but the power of distraining is not in this Case lost by any of these ways 4. It may be principally lost by a sufficient granting over and transferring the Rent to another which way comes nearest to the Case in question And therefore I shall agree the Case so much insisted on which is said to be agreed per Curiam Andrew Ognell's Case 4. Rep. f. 49. in Andrew Ognell's Case in the fourth Rep. That if a man be seized of a Rent-service or Rent-charge in Fee and grant it over by his Deed to another and his Heirs and the Tenant Attorn such Grantor is without remedy for the Rent arrear before his Grant for distrain he cannot and other remedy he hath not because all privity between him and the Tenant is destroyed by the Attornment to the Grantee and he hath no more right than any Stranger to come upon the Land after such transferring over of the Rent I shall likewise agree another Case That if such Grantee should regrant the same Rent back to the Grantor either in fee in tail or for life and the Tenant Attorn as he must to this regrant yet the first Grantor shall never be enabled to distrain for Arrears due to him before he granted over the Rent for now the privity between him and the Tenant begins but from the Attornment to the regrant the former being absolutely destroyed and the Tenant no more distrainable for the ancient Arrears than he was upon the creation of the Rent for Arrears incurred before till first attorn'd If the Case in question prove to be the same in effect with either of these Cases then the reason of Law for these Cases must sway and determine the Case in question And I conceive that there is no likeness or parity between the Case in question and either of those Cases either for the fact of the Cases or the reason of Law I shall therefore begin with comparing this Case with the first of those Cases 1. In the first of those Cases he that is seis'd of the Rent-charge doth intend to transferr his Estate in the Rent to the Grantee and it is accordingly actually transferr'd by the Tenants Attornment to the Grant 2. The Grantee by his Grant and Attornment to it becomes actually seis'd of the Rent and may enjoy the benefit of it by perception of the Rent 3. His Wife becomes dowable of it 4. It is subject to Statutes Recognizances and Debts enter'd into by the Grantee or due from him to the King 5. It is possible to descend to his Heir 6. It may be Arrear and he hath a possibility to distrain and avow for it 1. But in the Case in question the Conizors of the Fine did never intend to transfer their Estate in the Rent to the Conizee nor that any Attornment be made to him What a man intends to pass to another he intends to be without it himself at least for some time which is not in this Case 2. The Conizee never becomes actually seiz'd of the Rent and not only doth not but never can enjoy the perception of it for there is no moment of time wherein the Conizors themselves are not actually in seisin of it and consequently may distrain if it be in Arrear and the Conizee can never have actually seisin or possibility to have Attornment or distrain his seisin being but a meer fiction and an invented form of Conveyance only 3. The Conizee's Wife is never dowable of it 4. It is not subject to any Statutes Recognizances or Debts of the Conizee 5. It is never possible to descend to his Heir for it instantly vests in the Conizors 6. It can never be Arrear to the Conizee nor hath he ever a possibility to distrain for it To this purpose what is agreed in the Lord Cromwell's Case L. Cromwell's Case 2. Rep. f. 77. 2. Rep. is applicable Then it is to be consider'd what seisin Perkins had who was the Conizee of a Fine in that Case and he had but a Seisin for an instant and only to this purpose to make a Render for his Wife shall not be endowed nor the Land subject to his Statutes or Recognizances f. 77. Therefore that first Case cited out of the Report of Andrew Ognell's Case which I admit to be good Law hath no resemblance with the present Case in any circumstance or consequent but had the Fine been to a third persons use the consequents had been the same as in the Case cited out of Ognell's Case not as to the Conizee but as to that third person to whom the rent was intended To conclude then this first part 1. That whereof the Conizors were alwaies actually and separately seiz'd the same was never by them transferr'd to the seisin of another But of this Rent the Conizors were alwaies in actual seisin for there was no moment of time wherein they were not seis'd therefore this Rent was never transferr'd to the seisin of another nor could any other for any moment of time have a separated seisin thereof for what was mine at all times could be anothers at no time 2. It is an impossibility in Law that two men severally shall have several Rights and Fee-simples in possession in one and the same Land Dyer 28 H. 8. f. 12. a. p. 51. simul semel per Fitz-herbert in the Argument of Bokenhams Case and the same impossibility is so to have of a Rent Nor hath this relation to the learning of Instants in Digbie's Case Coke 1. Rep. and Fitz-williams in the sixth Report That an old Use may be revoked and a new rais'd in the same time and an old possession ended and a new begun this is usual in all transmutation of Estates and things also For in nature a new form introduc'd doth in the same moment destroy the old according to that Generatio unius est corruptio alterius but a separate possession can never be
the Grantee for life when his Estate was enlarg'd needing no new Attornment or privity he did not thereby lose the Rent-arrear If two Jointenants in Fee let the Land for life Litt. Sect. 574 reserving a Rent to them and their Heirs if one release to the other and his Heirs this Release is good and he to whom it was made shall have the Rent of Tenant for life only and a Writ of Waste without Attornment to such Release for the privity which once was between the Tenant for life and them in the Reversion So is it if one Jointenant confirms the Land to the other and his Heirs Litt. Sect. 523. The Law must necessarily be the same if a man seis'd of a Rent-service or Rent-charge in Fee grant it to two and their Heirs or to two and the Heirs of one of them and the Tenant attorn if after one Jointenant release to the other or he which hath the Inheritance to him which hath but an Estate for life and to his Heirs the person to whom such Release is made shall thereby have a Fee-simple whereas before he had but for life in the Rent and an Estate absolute which before was joynt without any new Attornment for the reason of the former Case because there was once a privity between the Tenant and them which was never destroyed So is it if there be Lessee for life the Remainder for life he Litt. Sect. 573 in the Reversion releaseth to him in the Remainder and to his Heirs all his right he in the Remainder hath thereby a Fee and shall have a Writ of Waste and likewise the Rent of Tenant for life if any were without any Attornment of the Tenant for life for the former privity between them Enlargement of Estate by descent If a man seiz'd of a Rent-charge in Fee grant it for life to A. and the Tenant attorns after the Grantor grants the Reversion of this Rent to the Father of A. and his Heirs to whom A. attorns as in this Case he may by Sir Edward Coke's Comment and after the Father dies Coke's Litt. Sect. 556. and this Reversion descends upon A. whereby he hath a Fee-simple in the Rent no new Attornment is requisite for this enlargement of Estate Diminishing of Estate A man seis'd of a Rent-charge in Fee grants this Rent for Seven years to commence from the time of his death the Remainder in Fee and the Tenant attorns in the life time of the Grantor 2. Rep. Sir Rowland Hayward's Case as he must by the Resolution in Sir Rowland Hayward's Case 2. Rep. here the Grantor hath diminish't his Estate in the Rent from a Fee-simple to an Estate for life yet it cannot be doubted but he may distrain for his Rent-arrear And so is the Law where a man seis'd in Fee of a Rent for good consideration Covenants to stand seiz'd for life with Remainder over Vpon these grounds upon Littleton If a man seis'd of a Rent-charge in Fee grant it over to a Feme sole for a term of years the Tenant attorns and she take Husband and during the term the Grantor confirm the Rent to the Husband and Wife for their lives or in Fee they become Jointenants for life or in Fee of this Rent and need no new Attornment This Case is proved by a Case in Littleton Sect. Hence it is manifest that where a man hath a Rent for which he may once lawfully distrain by Attornment of the Tenant which gives sufficient privity to avow such Grantee or Possessor of the Rent may enlarge or change his Estate in the Rent to a greater or lesser or different Estate and needs no new Attornment or privity therefore to distrain and avow for such Rent whenever Arrear unless he become dispossess'd of the Rent and the privity to distrain and avow thereby be destroyed by a Right gained by some other to have the Rent and a Right in the Tenant to pay it to some other 9 H. 6. f. 43. Br. Avoury p. 123. To this purpose there is a Case If a man be seis'd of Land in Jure uxoris in Fee and leaseth the Land for years reserving Rent his Wife dies without having had any Issue by him whereby he is no Tenant by the Curtesie but his Estate is determined yet he may avow for the Rent before the Heir hath made his actual Entry This Case is not adjudg'd but it is much the better Opinion of the Book Objections The Conizors are in possession since the Fine of another Estate Obj. 1 than they were before the Fine that is according to the uses of the Fine which they could not be without an Alienation of the Rent to the Conizee by the Fine to enable the raising of that new use out of the Estate transferr'd to the Conizee by the Fine That by such Alienation the former privity between the Conizors and the Tenant which they had as Parceners by Attornment to the first grant of the Rent was destroy'd and therefore they cannot now distrain but for Rent-arrear since the Fine by the possession given them by the Statute of 27 H. 8. to which no Attornment is necessary and not for any Arrears due before upon the old privity As specious as this Reason seems it may be answer'd Answ That the Conizors had alwaies an actual and separate seisin and possession of the Rent and were at no time without it therefore the Conizee could have no several and separate possession of it at any time for it is not possible that two severally can possess the same thing simul semel for the same thing can no more be in two separate possessions at the same time civilly then the same thing can be in two separate places at the same time naturally Is not the Reason then of equal force that the Conizors were at no time out of possession and seisin of this Rent and consequently never lost the power to distrain for it As to say the Conizee had sometime a separate possession of the Rent from the Conizors out of which the new uses were raised and therefore the privity to distrain for the old Arrears was for sometime destroy'd Besides if the old privity be destroy'd the greatest absurdity imaginable in Law follows That a man hath a right to a thing for which the Law gives him no remedy which is in truth as great an absurdity as to say the having of right in law and having no right are in effect the same When as on the other side the loss of the Arrears and the Conizors right to them is a Consequent deduc'd from the destruction of the old privity between the Conizors and the Tenant by an imaginary and not a real possession of the Rent by the Conizee Obj. 2 Ognell's Case 4. Rep. Nor will it serve to say as is insinuated in Ognell's Case that the Conizors have dispens'd with their own right in the Arrears and therefore such
Grantee of the Rent-charge is now dispenc'd with which was not before the Statute For if that were now requisite the Conizors could not only not distrain for the Rent due before the Fine but not for the Rent due since the Fine nor doth the Statute help the matter because the Cestuy que use is in possession of the Rent by the Statute and therefore needs no Attornment for that is true when the Conizee hath a perfect possession but without Attornment the Conizee had no perfect possession impowring him to distrain and therefore the Statute can bring no perfect possession to the uses to that end And so Sir Edward Coke agrees the Law Cok. Litt. f. 307. Sect. 55â— that since Littleton wrote If the Conizee of a Fine before Attornment by Deed indented and inroll'd bargains and sells a Seigniory to another the Bargainee shall not distrain because the Conizee that is the Bargainor could not for want of Attornment But on the other side a man perfectly seis'd of a Seigniory Rent Reversion or Remainder bargains and sells by Deed indented and inroll'd according to the Statute the Bargainee shall distrain without Attornment by vertue of the Statute And if a Fine be now levied to a man to the use of a third person the third person shall distrain without any Attornment made not only to himself by reason of the Statute but to the Conizee by the Resolution in Sir Moyle Finch his Case for otherwise the Fine were to little purpose Which Case though it make an Attornment not necessary where it is impossible to be had that the Conveyance might not be useless in effect and an intended right to be de novo introduc'd altogether hindred Shall it therefore destroy an old Attornment which cannot but be had and is still in being for no other use or end but to deprive the Conizors of a Rent and former Right justly due to introduce a general inconvenience upon all that have granted Leases for lives and are occasioned to settle their Estates And there is great difference between a Fine levied of a Reversion or of a Rent-charge to the use of a third person and to the use of the Conizors for a third person can never distrain unless either an Attornment were to the Conizee which is impossible because no possession continues in him so as to receive an Attornment or unless the construction of the Statute according to Sir Moyle Finch his Case to make the Conveyance of effect to Cestuy que use made the Attornment because it could not be had not necessary which is a great strain and violence upon the true reason of Law That a Conveyance which in reason could not be good without Attornment should be sufficient because it could not have an Attornment which was necessary to make it sufficient And this practice hath been frequent since the Statute of Uses Sir Will. Pelham's Case as in making a Recovery against his nature to be a forfeiture because taken as a Common Conveyance To make Vses declared by Indenture between the parties made a year after the Recovery to be the Vses of the Recovery Downan's Case 9. Rep. with such Limitations as are mentioned in Downan's Case the 9. Rep. L. Cromwell's Case 2. Rep. f. 72. b. To make a Rent arise out of the Estate of Cestuy que use upon a Recovery which was to arise out of the Estate of the Recoveror and his possession which is a principal point in Cromwell's Case and resolv'd because by the intention of the parties the Cestuy que use was to pay the Rent 14 Eliz. Harwell versus Lucas Moore 's Rep. f. 99. a. n. 243. Bracebridge's Case is eminent to this purpose Tho. Bracebridge seis'd of the Mannor of Kingbury in Com. Warwick made a Lease for One and twenty years of Birchin Close parcel del Mannor to Moore and another Lease of the same Close for Six and twenty years to commence at the end of the first Lease to one Curteis rendring Rent and after made a Feoffment of the Mannor and all other his Lands to the use of the Feoffees and their Heirs and Assigns upon Condition that if they paid not 10000 l. within fifteen daies to the said Tho. Bracebridge or his Assigns they should stand seiz'd to the use of Bracebridge and Joyce his Wife the Remainder to Thomas their second Son in tail with divers Remainders over The Remainder to the Right Heirs of Thomas the Father Livery was made of the Land in possession and not of Birchin Close and no Attornment the Feoffees paid not 10000 l. whereby Bracebridge the Father became seis'd and the first Tenant for years attorn'd to him Adjudg'd 1. That by Livery of the Mannor Birchin Close did not pass to the Feoffees without Attornment 2. That the Attornment of the first Lessee was sufficient Moore f. 99. n. 243. 3. Though the use limited to the Feoffees and their Heirs was determined before the Attornment yet the Attornment was good to the contingent use upon not paying the mony In the Resolution of this Case Wild Archer and Tyrrell Justices were for the Plaintiff and Vaughan Chief Justice for the Defendant Trin. 21. Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1714. The King Plaintiff in a Quare Impedit per Galfridum Palmer Atturnatum suum Generalem Robert Bishop of Worcester Thomas Jervis Esquire and John Hunckley Clerk Defendants THE King counts That Queen Elizabeth was seis'd of the Advowson of the Church of Norfield with the Chappel of Coston in gross in Fee in Jure Coronae and presented one James White her Clerk who was admitted instituted and inducted That from the said Queen the Advowson of the said Church with the said Chappel descended to King James and from him to King Charles the First and from him to his Majesty that now is who being seis'd thereof the said Church with the Chappel became void by the death of the said James White and therefore it belongs of right to him to present and the Defendants disturbe him to his damage of 200 l. which the said Attorney is ready to verifie for the King The Defendants plead severally and first the Bishop that he claims nothing in the said Church and the Advowson but as Ordinary The Defendant Jervis saith That long before the said Presentation suppos'd to be made by the late Queen one Richard Jervis Esquire was seis'd of the Mannor of Norfield with the Appurtenances in Com. praedicto to which the Advowson Ecclesiae praedictae tunc pertinuit adhuc pertinet in his Demesne as of Fee and so seis'd the said Church became void by the death of one Henry Squire then last Incumbent of the said Church and so continued for two years whereby the said late Queen praetextu lapsus temporis in default of the Patron Ordinary and Metropolitan Ecclesiae praedictae pro tempore existentis dictae nuper Reginae devolutae by her Prerogative afterward that is tertio die Decembris
the Statute If the Father under Age should make such a Devise it were absolutely void for the same syllables shall never give the Custody of the Heir by the Father under Age which do not give it by the Father which is of Age. But in both Cases a Devise of the Custody is effectual and there is no reason that the Custody devis'd shall operate into a Lease when a Lease devis'd shall not operate into a Custody which it cannot do If a man devise the Custody of his Heir apparent to J. S. and mentions no time either during his Minority or for any other time this is a good devise of the Custody within the Act if the Heir be under Fourteen at the death of the Father because by the Devise the Modus habendi Custodiam is chang'd only as to the person and left the same it was as to the time But if above Fourteen at the Fathers death then the Devise of the Custody is meerly void for the incertainty For the Act did not intend every Heir should be in Custody until One and twenty Non ut tamdiu sed ne diutius therefore he shall be in this Custody but so long as the Father appoints and if he appoint no time there is no Custody If a man have power to make Leases for any term of years not exceeding One hundred and he demises Land but expresseth no time shall this therefore be a Lease for One hundred years There is no Reason it should be a Lease for the greatest term he could grant more than for the least term he could grant or indeed for any other term under One hundred Therefore it is void for incertainty and the Case is the same for the Custody For if the Father might intend as well any time under that no Reason will enforce that he only intended that And to say he intended the Custody for some time therefore since no other can be it must be for that will hold as well in the Lease and in all other Cases of incertainty If a man devises Ten pounds to his Servant but having many none shall have it for the incertainty It may be demanded If the Father appoint the Custody until the Age of One and twenty and the Guardian dye what shall become of this Custody It determines with the death of the Guardian and is a Condition in Law and the same as if a man grant to a man the Stewardship of his Mannor for Ten years or to be his Bailiff It is implyed by way of Condition if he live so long A Copyholder in Fee surrenders to the Lord Dyer 8 Eliz. f. 251. pl. 90. ad intentionem that the Lord should grant it back to him for term of life the Remainder to his Wife till his Son came to One and twenty Remainder to the Son in tayl Remainder to the Wife for life The Husband died The Lord at his Court granted the Land to the Wife till the Sons full age The Remainders ut supra The Wife marries and dies Intestate The Husband held in the Land The Wives Administrator and to whom the Lord had granted the Land during the Minority of the Son enters upon the Husband This Entry was adjudg'd unlawful because it was the Wives term but otherwise it had been if the Wife had been but a Guardian or next Friend of this Land The like Case is in Hobart Balder and Blackburn f. 285. 17 Jac. If it be insisted That this new Guardian hath the Custody not only of the Lands descended or left by the Father but of all Lands and Goods any way acquir'd or purchas'd by the Infant which the Guardian in Soccage had not That alters not the Case for if he were Guardian in Soccage without that particular power given by the Statute he is equally Guardian in Soccage with it and is no more than if the Statute had appointed Guardian in Soccage to have care of all the Estate of the Infant however he came by it Besides that proves directly that this new Guardian doth not derive his interest from the Father but from the Law for the Father could never give him power or interest of or in that which was never his The Court was divided viz. The Chief Justice and Justice Wylde for the Plaintiff Justice Tyrrell and Justice Archer for the Defendant Hill 19 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 506. Holden versus Smallbrooke IN Trover and Conversion and not Guilty pleaded Robinson the Iury gave a Special Verdict to this Effect That Doctor Mallory Prebendary of the Prebend of Wolvey founded in the Cathedral of Litchfield seis'd of the said Prebend and one Messuage one Barn and the Glebe appertaining thereto and of the Tithes of Wolvey in right of his Prebend 22 April 13 Car. 2. by Indenture demised to Giles Astly and his Assigns the said Prebend together with all Houses Barns Tenements Glebe Lands and Tithes thereto belonging for three Lives under the ancient Rent of Five pounds ten shillings Astly being one of the Lives died seis'd of the Premisses at whose death one Taverner was Tenant for one year not ended of the Demise of Astly of the Messuage Barn and Glebe Lands and in possession of them whereupon the Plaintiff entred into the Messuage and Glebe and was in the possession of the same and of the Tithes as Occupant And afterwards Frances Astly the Relict of the said Giles Astly enters upon the Messuage and claims the same as Occupant in haec verba Frances Astly Widow of Giles Astly enters upon the House and claims the same with the Glebe and Tithe as Occupant Taverner attorns to Frances Astly and afterwards grants and assigns all his Estate in the Premisses to the Plaintiff afterwards Conquest the Husband of Frances Astly took one Sheaf of Corn in the name of all the Tithes and afterwards demised the Tithes to the Defendant The Tithes are set forth and the Defendant took them whereupon the Plaintiff brought this Action Before I deliver my Opinion concerning the particular Questions before open'd arising upon this Record I shall say somewhat shortly of Natural Occupancy and Civil Occupancy First opening what I mean by those terms then briefly shewing their difference as far only as is material to the Questions now before me I call Natural Occupancy the possession either of such natural things as are immoveable fixt and permanent as Land a Pool River Sea for a Sea is capable of Occupancy and Dominion naturally as well as Land and hath naturally been in Occupancy as is demonstrated in Mr. Selden's Mare Clausum at large which lye unpossess'd and in which no other hath prior right Or of things natural and moveable either animate as a Horse a Cow a Sheep and the like without number or Inanimate as Gold precious Stones Grain Hony Fruit Flesh and the like numberless also wherein no man until the possession thereof by Occupancy had any other right than every man had which is
out of the former Premisses is That the Freehold qua Freehold is not the thing whereof there is an Occupancy for the Freehold is not a natural thing but hath its essence by the positive Municipal Law of the Kingdome it cannot abstract from the Land in this matter of Occupancy he either entred into or possessed The Freehold is an immediate consequent of the possession for when a man hath gotten the possession of Land that was void of a Proprietor or other thing capable of Occupancy the Law forthwith doth cast the Freehold upon the Possessor to make a sufficient Tenant to the Precipe Therefore As to the first Question Whether Holden the Plaintiffs Entry Quest 1 upon the Lessee Taverner's possession into the House Glebe and Barn the First of March 1666. and openly saying I enter and take possession of this House Glebe and Barn and the Ground thereto belonging and the Tithes of Woolney in my own Name and Right as Occupant upon a Lease made to Giles Astly and his Assigns for three Lives by Dr. Mallory Prebend of Woolney did make him Occupant of the House Land and Tithe or either of them the Lessee Taverner not having made any Claim as Occupant to any of them I hold clearly this Entry and Claim did not make Holden Occupant of the House Land or Tithe or of any of them To every Occupant of Land or other thing capable of Occupancy two things are requisite 1. Possession of the Land which was void and without Owner 2. The having of the Freehold to avoid an obeyance which is had as well where the possession is not void as where it is The first that is the possession is acquired by the party and his Act but the Freehold is acquir'd by the Act of Law which casts it upon the possession assoon as there is a Possessor or where it finds a Possessor when the Freehold is in none 1. This Claim and Entry was in Order to gain the first possession of the Land which was void but that was impossible to be had for the Lessee Taverner had the possession before he held it then therefore the Claim was to no end 2. Secondly A man cannot be an Occupant but of a void Possession or of a Possession which himself hath but here was no void Possession when Holden enter'd and claimed as Occupant for the Lessee was in lawful possession of the House and Barn and Land at the time of the entry and claim 3. Thirdly If this Entry and Claim should make Holden a legal Occupant which cannot be without gaining the possession then there would be two plenary legal possessors of the same thing at the same time Holden by his Entry and Claim and Taverner the Lessee by virtue of his lease but that is impossible there should be two plenary possessors of the same thing at the same time Therefore Holden can be no Occupant by such Entry and Claim Skelton Hay 17 Jac. Cr. 554. b. 4. This very Case in every point hath been resolv'd in the Case of Skelton and Hay 17 Jac. where upon an Ejectment brought a Special Verdict found That the Bishop of Worcester made a lease to Sir William Whorehood of certain land for his own and the lives of two of his Sons Sir William did let the land to John Mallett at will rendring Rent and dyed Mallett continued the possession not claiming as Occupant one of Sir William's Sons entred as Occupant and made a lease to the Plaintiff in the Action It was adjudg'd that Mallett the Defendant being in possession the Law cast the Freehold upon him without Claim and had he disclaim'd to hold as Occupant Chamberlayn Ewes C. Rolls 2. part f. 151. Lett. E. keeping the possession he must have been the Occupant for where one entred to the use of another he that entred was adjudg'd the Occupant Which Case proves one may be an Occupant against and besides his own intention and therefore a Claim to denote his intention 5. To be an Occupant is not necessary and Tenant for years as well as at will is Occupant by that Case Besides claiming to be Occupant is to claim to be in possession or to claim the Freehold or both but the Law binds not a man to claim that which he hath already and therefore he that hath possession and doth occupy the land is not to claim possession or to be Occupant of it no more is he to claim a Freehold which he already hath for the Law hath cast it where it finds the possession so having both possession and Freehold the Law binds him not to claim what he hath 6. Claim is never to make a Right which a man hath not but to preserve that which he hath from being lost As Claim to avoid a Descent whereby a man had lost his right to enter so a man makes no Claim to be remitted when by act of law he is in his Remitter As to the second Question Whether Frances Astly the Relict Quest 2 of Giles entring the Five and twentieth of March 1667. upon the Lessee Taverner's possession and claiming the House Glebe and Tithe as Occupant and the Lessee Taverner attorning to her makes her an Occupant of the House Land or Tithe The Question hath nothing in it differing from the former but only the Attornment and it is clear the Attornment of Taverner the Lessee doth not disclaim his possession but affirms it for Attornment is the Act of a Tenant by reason of his being in possession Besides admitting the Tenant a perfect Occupant he might continuing so attorn to whom he pleased as well as Astly might have done in his life time yet still continue the Estate that was in him It follows then that Taverner was the undoubted Occupant after Astly's death of the House Land and Barn but whether he had the Tithe of Woolney by such his Occupancy whereof Astly died seis'd is the difficult Question Another Question will arise when Taverner the Lessee who had by lease the House Barn and Land and so found and was Occupant certainly of those when afterwards Taverner the Lessee 12 June 1667 concessit assignavit totum statum suum de in praemissis to Holden the Plaintiff and gave him Livery and Seifin thereupon what shall be understood to pass by the word praemissis if only what was leas'd and his Estate therein as Occupant and likewise the Tithe if the Tithe accrued to him by reason of being Occupant of the land For if he were Occupant of the Tithe by Act in Law by being Occupant of the land it follows not that if he past all his Estate to Holden in the House and Land and gave him Livery that therefore he past his Estate in the Tithe nor is such passing found to be by Deed. To clear the way then towards resolving the principal Question 1. At the time of Giles Astly's death the Tithes and the House and Lands were sever'd in
a House Barns and Tithe of Woolney and thereof seis'd in the right of his Prebendary makes a Lease to Astly of the Prebend una cum the Glebe House Barn and Tithe for Three Lives rendring the accustomed and ancient Rent of Five pounds Twelve shillings Astly demiseth to Taverner the House Glebe and Barn for a year reserving Twenty shillings and dies the Cestuy que vies living As I concluded before Taverner is Occupant of the House Barn and Glebe-land and consequently lyable to pay the whole Rent being Five pounds twelve shillings yearly though the Land House and Barn be found of the yearly value of Twenty shillings only but because the Rent cannot issue out of Tithes or things that lye in Grant it issues only out of the House Barn and Land which may be distrain'd on 2. If Taverner being Occupant of the Land shall not have the Tithes which remain'd in Astly according to his Lease for three Lives at the time of his death and whereof by their nature there can be no direct Occupancy It follows that the Lease made by Doctor Mallory is determin'd as to the Tithe for no other can have them yet continues in force as to the Land and House and all the Rent reserv'd which seems strange the Land and Tithe being granted by the same Demise for three Lives which still continue yet the Lease to be determined as to part 3. Though the Rent issue not out of the Tithe yet the Tithe was as well a Consideration for the payment of the Rent as the Land and Houses were and it seems unreasonable that the Lessor Doctor Mallory should by act in Law have back the greatest Consideration granted for payment of the Rent which is the Tithe and yet have the Rent wholly out of the Land by act in Law too which cannot yield it 4. Though Doctor Mallory could not have reserv'd a Rent out of the Tithe only to bind his Successor upon a Lease for Lives more than out of a Fair though it were as the ancient Rent and had been usually answered for the Fair as is resolv'd in Jewel Bishop of Sarum's Case Jewell's Case 5 Rep. Yet in this Case where the Tithe together with Land out of which Rent could issue was demis'd for the accustomed Rent the Successor could never avoid the Lease either in the whole or as to the Tithe only 13 Eliz. c. 10. This seems clear by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which saith All Leases made by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical persons having any Lands Tenements Tithes or Hereditaments parcel of the Possessions of any Spiritual Promotion other than for One and twenty years or three Lives whereupon the accustomed yearly Rent or more shall be reserv'd shall be void Cokes Litt. f. 142. a. f. 144. a. Whence it is apparent this Statute intended that Leases in some sense might be made of Tithes for One and twenty years or Three Lives and an ancient Rent reserv'd but of a bare Tithe only a Rent could not be reserv'd according to Jewell's Case for neither Distress nor Assise can be of such Rent though an Assise may be de Portione Decimarum as is clear by the Lord Dyer 7 E. 6. and the difference rightly stated Therefore a Lease of Tithe and Land out of which a Rent may issue and the accustomed Rent may be reserved must be good within the intention of the Statute or Tithe could in no sense be demis'd 5. Taverner the Lessee being Occupant here by his possession becomes subject to the payment of the Rent to Waste to Forfeiture Conditions and all things that Astly the Lessee or his Assignee if he had made any had been subject to Also Coke's Litt. 41. He must claim by a que Estate from Astly he must averr the Life of Cestuy que vie so as he becomes to all intents an Assignee in Law of the first Lessee 6. Without question the Occupant being chargeable with the Rent shall by Equity have the Tithe which was the principal Consideration for payment of the Rent when no man can have the benefit of the Tithe but the Lessor Doctor Mallory who gave it as a Consideration for the Rent which he must still have Therefore I conceive the Reason of Law here ought necessarily to follow the Reason of Equity and that the Occupant shall have the Tithe not as being immediate Occupant of the Tithe whereof no occupancy can be but when by his possession of the Land he becomes Occupant and the Law casts the Freehold upon him he likewise thereby becomes an Assignee in Law of Astly's Lease and Interest and consequently of the Tithe An ancient Rent reserv'd within the Statute of 1. or 13. of the Queen upon a Lease of One and twenty years or Three Lives is by express intention of that Statute a Rent for publique use and maintenance of Hospitality by Church-men as is resolv'd in Elsemere's Case Elsmers C. 5. Rep. the 5. Rep. and therefore if the Lessee provide not an Assignee to answer the Rent to the Successors of the Lessor for the ends of that Law the Law will do it for him and none fitter to be so than the Occupant in case of a Lease pur auter vie as this is And if the Occupant being Assignee hath pass'd all his Estate and Interest to the Plaintiff hath good cause of Action for the Tithe converted by the Defendant Pasch 22 Car. II. Judgment for the Defendant Three Justices against the Chief Justice Trin. 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 2043. Harrison versus Doctor Burwell In a Prohibition for his Marriage with Jane the Relict of Bartholomew Abbot his Great Uncle The Questions are Quest 1 WHether the marriage of Thomas Harrison the Plaintiff with Jane his now wife being the Relict of Bartholomew Abbot his great Vncle that is his Grand-fathers Brother by the Mothers side be a lawful marriage within the Act of 32 H. 8. cap. 38 Quest 2 Admitting it to be a lawful marriage within the meaning of that Act Whether the Kings Temporal Courts are properly Judges of it because the unlawfulness or lawfulness of it by that Act doth depend upon its being a marriage within or without the Levitical Degrees For if within those Degrees it is not a lawful marriage by that Act. And the right knowledge of marriages within or without those Degrees must arise from the right knowledge ot the Scriptures of the Old Testament specially the Interpretation of which hath been and regularly is of Ecclesiastick Conizance and not of Lay or Temporal Conizance in regard of the Language wherein it was writ and the receiv'd Interpretations concerning it in all succession of time Quest 3 Admitting the Kings Temporal Courts have by that Act of 32. or any other special Conizance of the Levitical Degrees and of marriages within them And though this be no marriage within the Levitical Degrees it being articled in general to be an Incestuous marriage
during the wives life which was not to be intended 15 El. Moore f. 123. n. 265. Another Case I shall make use of is a Case Paschae 15 El. A man seis'd of a Messuage and of divers Lands occupied with it time out of mind leased part of it to a stranger for years and after made his last Will in these words I will and bequeath to my wife my Messuage with all the Lands thereto belonging in the occupation of the Lessee and after the decease of my Wife I will that it with all the rest of my Lands shall remain to my younger Son The Question in that Case was Whether the wife should have the Land not leased by implication for her life because it was clear the younger Son was to have no part until the death of the wife And the Lord Anderson at first grounding himself upon that Case in Brook as it seems of 29 H. 8. twice by Brook remembred in his Title Devise n. 28. and after n. 52. was of opinion That the wife should have the Land not leased by implication But Mead was of a contrary opinion for that it was expresly devis'd That the wife should have the Land leas'd and therefore no more should be intended to be given her but the Heir should have the Land not in lease during the wives life To which Anderson mutata opinione agreed Hence perhaps many have collected That a person shall not take Land by Implication of a Will if he takes some other Land expresly by the same Will but that is no warrantable difference For vary this Case but a little as the former case was varied That the Land in lease was devis'd to the wife for life and after the death of the wife all the Devisors land was devis'd to the youngest Son as this Case was and that after the death of the wife and the youngest son the Devisors Heir should have the Land both leas'd and not leas'd it had been clear that the Heir exactly according to the Case of 13 H. 7. should have been excluded from all the Land leas'd and not leas'd until after the death of the wife and the younger son And therefore in such case the wife by necessary implication should have had the Land not leas'd as she had the Land leas'd by express devise and that notwithstanding she had the leas'd Land by express devise for else none could have the Land not leas'd during the wives life Horton vers Horton 2 Jac. Cr. f. 74. 75. Wadham made a Lease for years upon condition the Lessee should not alien to any besides his Children The Lessee deviseth the term to Humphrey his son after the death of his wife and made one Marshall and another his Executors and died The Lessor entred as for breach of the Condition supposing this a devise to the wife of the term by implication The opinion of the Judges was It was no devise by implication but the Executors should have the term until the wives death but it was said If it had been devis'd to his Executors after the death of his wife there the wife must have it by implication or none could have had it But Popham denied that Case because if the devise had been to the Executors after the wives death the Executors should when the wife died have had the term as Legatees but until her death they should have it as Executors generally which by all opinions fully confirms the difference taken That a devise shall not be good by implication when the implication is not necessary and in this Case all agreed the Case in 13 H. 7. to be good Law because the implication there was necessary Edward Clatch being seis'd of two Messuages in Soccage tenure Dyer 15 16 El. 4. 330. b. and having Issue a Son and two Daughters by three several Venters His Son being dead in his life time and leaving two Daughters who were Heirs at Law to the Father devis'd one of the Messuages to Alice his Daughter and her Heirs for ever and the other to Thomazine his Daughter and her Heirs for ever with limitation That if Alice died without Issue living Thomazine Thomazine should then have Alice's part to her and her Heirs and if Thomazine died before the Age of Sixteen years Alice should have her part in Fee also And if both his said Daughters died without Issue of their bodies then the Daughters of his Son should have the Messuages The youngest daughter of the Testator died without Issue having past her Age of sixteen years It was resolv'd That the words in the Will If his two Daughters died without Issue of their Bodies did not create by implication cross remainders in tayl to the Devisors Daughters whereby the eldest should take the part of the youngest but her part should go to the Heirs at Law according to the Limitation of the Will and those words were but a designation of the time when the Heirs at Law should have the Messuages Note That one of the Daughters dying without Issue the Heirs at Law by the Will had her part without staying until the other Daughter died without Issue 1. From these Cases I first conclude That only possible implication by a Will shall not give the Land from the right Heir but a necessary implication which excludes the right Heir shall give it 2. That the difference taken is not sound That one shall not take by implication of a Will any Land where the same person hath other Land or Goods expresly devis'd by the same Will for if the implication be necessary the having of Land or any other thing by express devise will not hinder another taking also by implication as appears in the three Cases by me made use of viz. 13 H. 7. 3 E. 6. 15 Eliz. cited out of Moore 3. Whether any thing be given expresly by Will or not a possible Implication only shall not disinherit the Heir where it may as well be intended that nothing was devis'd by implication as that it was But if any man think that to be material in this Case the Daughters had respective Portions expresty devis'd them viz. Six hundred pounds to each of them and therefore shall not have the Land also by implication only possible to disinherit the right Heir Quest 2 For the second point These words My Will is if it happen my Son George Mary and Katharine my Daughters to dye without Issue of their Bodies lawfully begotten then all my Free-lands shall remain and be to my said Nephew William Rose and his Heirs for ever are so far from importing a devise of the Land to the Son and Daughters for their lives with respective Inheritances in tayl by any necessary implication that both Grammatically and to common intendment they import only a designation and appointment of the time when the Land shall come to the Nephew namely when George Mary and Katherine happen to dye Issuless and not before And where
the said William to be begotten of her the said Anne Infeoffed James Lane and John Lane Gentlemen of the said Premisses Habendum to them their heirs and assigns for ever To the use of the said William Vescy the Feoffer and his assigns for term of his life without impeachment of Waste and after to the use of the said Anne the Tenant if the Marriage succeeded between them for term of her life for her Joynture and after her decease to the use of the heirs males of his body on her body begotten forever and for want of such issue to the use of the heirs females of him the said William Vescy upon her body begotten and for want of such issue to the use of the right heirs of him the said William Vescy And bound him and his heirs to warrant the premisses as aforesaid to the said Feoffees and their Heirs to the uses aforesaid By vertue whereof and of the Statute of Uses the said William was seis'd for term of his life with the Remainder over as aforesaid And after the said marriage was had and solemnized between him and the Tenant Arine That William died so seis'd without any issue of his body and Anne surviv'd him and entred and by vertue of the said Feoffment and the Statute of Uses is seis'd in her Demesne as of Freehold for term of her life And that the said warranty of the said William descended from him to the said Elizabeth and Sarah as Cosins and Coheirs of him the said William the Son that is to say Daughters and Coheirs of John Vescy Brother and Heir of the said William the Son and demands Iudgment if against the said Warranty the Demandants shall be received to demand and avers her self and Anne Hewett named in the Feoffment to be the same person The Replication The Demandants reply and confess the Feoffment to uses of William as is pleaded in Barr to Lane and Lane and their heirs with warranty But further say That the said William Vescy the Son after that is the Four and twentieth of December 14 Car. 2. at Tickhill aforesaid died without any issue of his body which they are ready to aver and demand Iudgment if they shall be barred of their Action against the said Anne by the said Feoffment and warranty The Rejoynder Anne the Tenant rejoyns that the Replication is insufficient and demurs thereupon The matter of the Replication is all set forth in the Defendants Plea in Barr but only the time of William Vescy's death which was not material upon which the Demandants ought to have demur'd and not to have replyed impertinently The Case upon the Pleading William Vescy seis'd of the Land in question in his Demesne as of Fee held of King Charles the First in free Soccage as of his Honour of Tickhill by his last Will and Testament devis'd the same to John Vescy his eldest Son and the heirs males of his body and for default of such to Robert Vescy and the heirs males of his body and for default of such to William Vescy his Son and the heirs males of his body and for default of such to Matthew Vescy and the heirs males of his body and died Then John entred and died seis'd without issue male leaving two daughters Elizabeth and Sarah now Demandants together with their Husbands After his death Robert entred and died seis'd without issue male Then William entred and was seis'd and Matthew in the life of William died without issue male William by his Deed Indented in Consideration of an intended marriage with Anne the now Tenant and for other Considerations infeoffed James Lane and John Lane Habendum to them and their Heirs to the use of William the Feoffor for term of his life and after to the use of Anne Hewet now the Tenant for her life then to the use of the heirs males of his body upon her begotten and for default of such to the use of the heirs females of his body on her begotten and for default of such to the use of his right Heirs And bound him and his Heirs to warrant to the said Feoffees and their Heirs William by vertue of the said Feoffment and of the Statute of Uses was possessed and after he married the now Tenant and died seis'd as of his Freehold without any issue of his body After his death Anne his wife now Tenant by vertue of the said Feoffment and Statute of Uses entred and was posssessed Against whom Elizabeth and Sarah Daughters and Coheirs of John Vescy and Cosins and Coheirs of William the Devisor bring their Formedon in the Reverter Anne the Tenant in possession would rebutt and barr them by the said warranty of William Vescy the Son whose Cosins and Coheirs they are videlicet the Daughters and Coheirs of John eldest Brother of the said William And whether the said Anne Tenant by the said Feoffment and Statute of Uses can rebutt them by the said warranty is the general Question For Resolution of which I must make these previous Questions The first is If before the Statute of 27 H. 8. to Vses Tenant in tayl had made a Feoffment in Fee to uses with warranty to the Feoffees and their Heirs such Feoffees in a Formedon in the Reverter brought against them by the Heirs of the Donor could have rebutted and barr'd them by the warranty of the Tenant in tayl For if the Feoffees to use in such case could not have barr'd the Heirs of the Donor before the Statute by the warranty it is evident the Cestuy que use since the Statute cannot barr them for he can have no more power since the Statute than the Feoffees to use had before the Statute by the warranty I put the Case before the Statute for clearness sake only for though since the Statute there are Feoffees to use as before yet no question can be made upon their rebutter by a warranty because the Estate is out of them by the Statute as soon as it is in them And as to this the Case in effect is no more than Whether the warranty of Tenant in tayl which must be admitted to be a Collateral warranty descending upon the Donor or his Heirs will barr him or them of the Reversion The second Question I make admitting the Heirs of the Donor to be barr'd by the warranty of Tenant in tayl descending upon them is Whether after the Statute of Uses the Cestuy que use can have any benefit of the warranty granted to the Feoffees to use either by way of Voucher or Rebutter Because the Cestuy que use is not in possession in the per by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Uses The third Question is admitting generally that the Cestuy que use shall have benefit of the warranty made to the Feoffees to use Whether yet in this Case Anne the Tenant being a Cestuy que use shall have benefit of the warranty made to the Feoffees Because neither William
no such Case in 38 E. 3. f. 26. but the Case intended is 38 E. 3. f. 21. and he quotes the folio truly in his Littleton But the Case is not That an Assignee may rebutt or have benefit of a warranty made to a man and his Heirs only but that a warranty being made to a man his Heirs and Assigns the Assignee of the Heir or the Assignee of the Assignee though neither be Assignee of the first Grantee of the warranty shall have like benefit of the warranty as if he were Assignee of the first Grantee which hath been often resolv'd in the old Books To the same purpose he cites a Case out of 7 E. 3. f. 34. 46 E. 3. f. 4. which doth but remember that of 7. as adjudg'd That the Assignee of Tenant in tayl might rebutt the Donor whence he infers as before that the Tenant in possession might rebutt without any right to the warranty But the Inference holds not from that Case The Case of 7 E. 3. was That Land was given in tayl and the Donor warranted the Land generally to the Donee his Heirs and Assigns the Donee made a Feoffment in Fee and died without Issue and the Donor impleading the Feoffee was rebutted because he had warranted the Land to the Donee his Heirs and Assigns and the Feoffee claimed as Assignee of the Donee and therefore rebutted not because he had a bare possession But this Judgment of 7 E. 3. Sir Edward Coke denies and perhaps justly to be Law now because the Estate tayl being determin'd to which the warranty was first annex'd the whole warranty determin'd with it But however the Case no way proves what it is alledg'd for in Lincoln Colledge Case That a man may rebutt without ever shewing the warranty extended to him for the Feoffee did in that Case shew it So in the Case 45 E. 3. f. 18. the Feme who rebutted shew'd she was Grantee of the warranty To this may be added That what is delivered as before in Lincoln Colledge Case is neither conducing to the Judgment given in that Case nor is it any Opinion of the Judges but is Sir Edward Coke's single Opinion emergently given as appears most clearly in the Case To conclude When the Feoffees were seis'd to the use of William Vescy for his life and after to the use of the Defendant his wife for her life and after to the use of the right Heirs of William Vescy And when by Operation of the Statute of 27 H. 8. the possession is brought to these uses the warranty made by William Vescy to the Feoffees and their Heirs is wholly destroy'd For if before the Statute the Feoffees had executed an Estate to William for life the Remainder to his wife for life the Remainder to his right Heirs The warranty had been extinguish'd by such Execution of Estate and releas'd in Law for it could be in none but in William and his Heirs who could not warrant to himself or themselves By Littleton Sect. 743. for his Heirs in such Case take not by Purchase but Limitation because the Freehold was in him with a Remainder over to his right Heirs and so hath as great an Estate in the Land as the Feoffees had and then the warranty is gone by Littleton Litt. Sect. 744. And now the Statute executes the possession in the same manner and the warranty is in none for the time present or future but extinct If the warranty had been to the Feoffees their Heirs and Assigns it might have been more colourably question'd Whether the mean Remainder were not an Assignee of the Feoffees and so to have benefit of the warranty but the warranty being to the Feoffees and their Heirs only no Estate remaining in them no Assignee can pretend to the warranty 2. William Vescy could by no possibility ever warrant this Estate to the Defendant during his life and where the warranty cannot possibly attach the Ancestor it shall never attach the Heir as by Littleton's Case If a man deviseth Lands in Fee to another with warranty for him and his Heirs his Heirs shall not be bound to the warranty because himself could never be And though in that Case the Estate to be warranted commenc'd after the death of the Warranter and here the Remainder to the wife is in being before his death yet the reason differs not for himself could no more warrant this by any possibility than that and his Heir might as equally warrant the Estate devis'd as this Next Justice Jones in Spirt and Bences Case cites a Case 7 Eliz. the same with this Resolution resolved in the Common Pleas That the mediate Remainder could not be warranted In this Case if the Feoffees before the Statute had either voluntarily or by coercion of the Chancery after the death of the first Cestuy que use for life executed the Estate of the mean Remainder such person in Remainder could have no benefit of the warranty being but an Assignee of the Feoffees because the warranty was only to them and their Heirs No more can the person in Remainder here whose Estate is executed by the Statute be warranted more than if such Estate had been executed by the Common Law There are another sort of persons who may rebutt and perhaps vouch who are neither Heirs nor formally Assignees to the Garrantee but have the Estate warranted dispositione instituto Legis which I conceive not to differ materially whether they have such Estate warranted by the Common Law or by Act of Parliament The first of this kind I shall name Ass p. 9. 35 is Tenant by the Courtesie who as was adjudg'd 35 Ass might rebutt the warranty made to his wives Ancestor yet was neither Heir nor formal Assignee to any to whom the warranty was granted nothing is said in the Book concerning his vouching but certainly the wives Heir may be receiv'd to defend his estate if impleaded by a stranger who may vouch according to the warranty or may rebutt as the Case of 45 E. 3. f. 18. is But this difference is observable also where such a Tenant rebutts it appears what claim he makes to the warranty and so the Inconveniences avoided which follow a Rebutter made upon no other reason than because he who rebutts is in possession of the Land warranted A second Tenant of this kind is the Lord of a Villain 22 Ass p. 37. and therefore the Case is 22 Ass That Tenant in Dower made a Lease for life to a Villain which in truth was a forfeiture for making a greater Estate of Freehold than she had power to make and bound her and her Heirs to warranty the Lord of the Villain entred upon the Land in her life time and before the warranty attach'd the Heir who had right to enter for the forfeiture the Mother died and the Heir entred upon the L. of the Villain who re-entred and the Heir brought an Assise The L. of the Villain