eldest Son for sixty years if he so long lived Remainder to Thomas for Life and that John made a Lease to the Plaintiff for a year The Defendant replied that after the Devise R. Frances made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands amongst others to the use of himself for Life Then as to the other Lands to divers Vses contained in the Deed but as to those Lands in which the Distress was taken to the same Vses as in the Will in which Conveyance there was this Priviso That if John should disturb his Executors in the quiet Enjoyment c. or if he shall not suffer them to carry away the Goods in his House then the Uses limited to him should be void He did hinder the Executors to carry away the Goods yet it was adjudged that he should keep his Estate because being a Stranger to the Feoffment he shall not lose it without notice of the Proviso But in answer to that Case notice was not the principal matter of that Iudgment it turned upon a point in Pleading for the Avowant had not shewed any special act of disturbance and a bare denial without doing any more was held to be no breach of the Condition Some other Authorities may be cited to prove notice necessary Green's Case 6 Co. 24. as where Tenant for Life of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant did in the year 1594. present Durston who neglecting to read the Articles was deprived nine years afterwards by the Ordinary at the Suit of the Patron who presented him who also dyed two years after the Deprivation then the Queen presented by Lapse whose Presentee was inducted and six years afterwards Durston dyed after whose death he in Remainder presented Green now though the Patron was a Party to the Suit of Deprivation and thereby had sufficient notice that the Church was vacant yet it was adjudged that a Lapse should not incurr but only after notice given by the Ordinary himself and not by any other person whatsoever But this Case may receive this Answer viz. That notice had not been necessary at Law but it was provided by a particular Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. ca. 12. that no Title by Lapse shall accrue upon any deprivation but after six months notice thereof given by the Ordinary himself to the Patron 'T is true the Law is very tender in divesting the Rights of the Subject but where an Estate is created by the Act of the Party and restrained by particular limitations without any appointment of notice there the Law will not add notice and make it necessary because the person who made such a disposition of his Estate might have given it upon what conditions he pleased Therefore it may seem hard that this Estate should be determined by the neglect or omission of the Trustees to give notice of this Proviso but 't is apparent that it was the intent of the Father it should be so for by this Limitation the Estate is bound in the Hands of an Infant the reason is because there is a Privity between an Heir and an Ancestor and therefore the Heir is bound to take notice of such Conditions which his Ancestor hath imposed on the Estate 2. This Estate is determined by the Marriage of the Daughter with Mr. Villiers because there is an express Limitation in the Deed for that very purpose she is enjoyned to marry a Fitzgerald or one who should take upon him that name which is still more extensive and she having neglected to do the one and her Husband having refused to do the other the Aunt in Remainder shall take advantage of this Non-performance And 't is this Remainder over which makes it a Limitation 1 Ventr 202. Owen 112. Goldsb 152. Lit. Sect. 723. for if it had been a Condition then the intent of the Father had been utterly defeated for none but the Heir at Law can enter for the breach of a Condition and such was Katharine in this Case The Proviso in this Deed depends upon another Sentence immediately going before 2 Co. 70. to which it hath reference and then by the express resolution in Cromwel's Case 't is a Limitation or Qualification of the Estate and not a Condition which Estate is now determined without Entry or Claim It was argued that in this Case three things are to be considered E contra 1. The Nature of the Proviso 2. That Notice is absolutely necessary 3. That the Notice given was not sufficient being not such as is required by Law As to the 1st The very nature of this Proviso is condemned by the Civil Law and because it works the destruction of Estates it hath never been favoured at the Common Law All Conditions to restrain Marriage generally are held void by both Laws so likewise are such which restrain people from marrying without the consent of particular persons because they may impose such hard terms before they give their consent that may hinder the Marriage it self and therefore a bare request of such without their subsequent assent has been always allowed to preserve the Estate 2. And which was the principal Point Notice in this Case is absolutely necessary both by the intent of the Father and by the construction of the Law There are three things of which the Law makes an equal Interpretation viz. Uses Wills and Acts of Parliament in which if the intention of the Parties and of the Law makers can be discerned the Cases which severally fall under the direction of either shall be governed by the intention without respect to the disagreeing words nay sometimes the Law will supply the defect of words themselves The Books are full of Authorites where Constructions have been made of Acts of Parliament according to the intent of the Makers and not according to the Letter of the Law As in Eyston and Stud's Case in the Commentaries Plowd Com. 2 pt 463. where the Husband and Wife levyed a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and declared the Vses to their Heirs in Tail the Remainder to the Heirs of the Wife they had Issue and the Husband died the Widow married a second Husband and he and his Wife join in a second Fine and declared the Vses thereof to themselves for Life the Remainder to the Husband and his Heirs for sixty years the Remainder in Tail to their Issue the Remainder to the Heirs of the Wife the Issue of the first Husband entred supposing the Estate had been forfeited by the Statute of H. 7. 11 H. 7. c. 20. which Enacts That if a Woman hath an Estate in Dower or in Tail jointly with her Husband or to her self of the Inheritance or Purchase of him and she doth either sole or with another Husband discontinue it shall be void and he in the Remainder may enter Now this Case was directly within the words of the Statute for the Woman had an Estate Tail in possession jointly with her first Husband
the one took 70 l. and the other 30 l. damages shall be assessed severally It was admitted that regularly the damages ought to be entire especially where the Action is joint but where the Facts are several damages may likewise be so assessed but in this Case the Iury hath done what the Court would do had it béen in a Criminal Cause Curia This is all but one Fact which the Iury is to try 'T is true when several Persons are found Guilty criminally then the damages may be severed in proportion to their Guilt but here all are equally guilty of the same offence and it seems to be a contradiction to say that the Plaintiff is injured by one to the value of 50 l. and by the other to the value of 1000 l. when both are equally Guilty Every Defendant ought to answer full as much as the Plaintiff is damnified now how is it possible he should be damnified so much by one and so little by the other But notwithstanding this Opinion Iudgment was afterwards given for the Plaintiff Peak versus Meker IN an Action on the Case for Words the Plaintiff declared that he was a Merchant and bred up in the Church of England and that when the present King came to the Crown the said Plaintiff made a Bonfire at his Door in the City of London and that the Defendant then spoke of him these words for which he now brought this Action viz. He innuendo the Plaintiff is a Rogue a Papist Dog and a pitiful Fellow and never a Rogue in Town has a Bonfire before his Door but he The Plaintiff had a Verdict and 500 l. Damages were given A Writ of Error was brought but it was adjudged without argument that the words were actionable Joyner versus Pritchard AN Action was brought upon the Statute of R. II. Admiralty for prosecuting of a Cause in the Admiralty Court which did arise upon the Land it was tried before the Chief Iustice in London and a Verdict for the Plaintiff Mr. Thompson moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that the Action was brought by Original in which it was set forth that the Defendant prosecut fuit adhuc prosequitur c. in Curia Admiralitat now the prosequitur is subsequent to the Original and so they have recovered Damages for that which was done after the Action brought Curia These words adhuc prosequitur must refer to the time of suing forth this Original like the Case of a Covenant for quiet Enjoyment and a breach assigned that the Defendant built a Shed whereby he hindred the Plaintiff that he could not enjoy it hucnsque which word must refer to the time of the Action brought and not afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Dominus Rex versus ........ AN Information was brought against the Defendant for Forgery Forgery setting forth that the Defendant being a man of ill fame c. and contriving to cheat one A. did forge quoddam scriptum dated the 16th day of October in the year 1681. continens in se scriptum obligatorium per quod quidem scriptum obligatorium praed A. obligatus fuit praed Defend in quadraginta libris c. He was found Guilty and afterwards this Exception was taken in arrest of Iudgment Viz. That the Fact alledged in the Information was a contradiction of it self for how could A. be bound when the Bond was forged 2. It is not set forth what that scriptum obligatorium was whether it was scriptum sigillatum or not Curia The Defendant is found Guilty of the forging of a Writing in which was contained quoddam scriptum obligatorium and that may be a true Bond. Iudgment was arrested MEMORANDUM On Tuesday April the 27th Sir Thomas Powes of Lincolns-Inn was made Sollicitor General in the Place of Mr. Finch and was called within the Bar. Hanchet versus Thelwal IN Ejectment a special Verdict was found Devise What words in a Will make an Estate for Life and what in Tail in which the Case did arise upon the construction of the words in a Will Viz. The Testator being seised in Fee had Issue Two Sons and Four Daughters He made his Will and devised his Estate being in Houses by these words Viz. Irem I give and bequeath to my Son Nicholas Price my Houses in Westminster and if itplease God to take away my Son then I give my Estate to my four Daughters naming them share and share alike and if it please God to take away any of my said Daughters before Marriage then I give her or their part to the rest surviving And if all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then I give my said Houses to my Sister Anne Warner and her Heirs Nicholas Price entred and died without Issue then the four Sisters entred and Margaret the eldest married Thellwel and died leaving Issue a Son who was the Lessor of the Plaintiff who insisted upon his Title to a fourth part of the Houses The Question was what Estate the Daughters took by this Will whether joint Estates for Life or several Remainders in Tail If only joint Estates for Life then the Plaintiff as Heir to his Mother will not be entituled to a fourth part if several Remainders in Tail then the Father will have it during his Life as Tenant by the Curtesie This Case was argued this Term by Mr. Pollexfen for the Plaintiff And in Hillary Term following by Councel for the Defendant The Plaintiffs Council insisted that they took joint Estates for Life and this seemed to be the intent of the Testator by the words in his Will the first Clause whereof was Viz. I give and bequeath my Houses in W. to Nicholas Price Now by these words an Estate for Life only passed to him and not an Inheritance for there was nothing to be done or any thing to be paid out of it 2. The next Clause is Viz. If it please God to take away my Son then I give my Estate to my four Daughters share and share alike Now these words cannot give the Daughters a Fee-simple by any intendment whatsoever but if any word in this Clause seems to admit of such a Construction it must be the word Estate which sometimes signifies the Land it self and sometimes the Estate in the Land But here the word Estate cannot create a Fee-simple because the Testator gave his Daughters that Estate which he had given to his Son before and that was only for Lise Then follow the words share and share alike and that only makes them Tenants in Common 3. The next Clause is Viz. If it please God to take away any of my said Daughters before Marriage then I give her or their part to the rest surviving These words as they are penned can have no influence upon the Case 4. Then followeth the last Clause Viz. And if all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then I give c. These words create no Estate tail in the
Daughters for the Testator having two Sons and four Daughters it cannot be collected by these words how they shall take and by consequence it cannot be an Estate Tail by implication Now suppose one of the Daughters should dye without Issue 't is uncertain who shall have her part and therefore there being no appointment in what order this Estate shall go it cannot be an Estate Tail and to maintain this Opinion this Case was cited One Collier was seised in Fee of three Houses 2 Cro. 655. Gilbert versus Witty and had Issue three Sons John Robert and Richard he devised to each of them a House in Fee Proviso if all my Children dye without Issue of their Bodies then the Houses to be to his Wife The two eldest Sons died without Issue the younger had Issue a Daughter who married the Lessor of the Plaintiff The Question was Whether by the death of the eldest Son without Issue there was a cross Remainder to Richard and the Heirs of his Body or whether the Wife shall take immediately or expect till after the Death of all the Sons without Issue And it was adjudged that the Wife shall take immediately and that there were no cross Remainders nor any Estate by implication because it was a devise to them severally by express limitation So that if no Estate tail ariseth to the Daughters in this Case by implication Cro. Eliz. Taylor versus Sawyer then 't is no more than a devise to his Issue which extends to them all and gives only an Estate for Life For the Defendant it was argued Ex parte Def. that the Sons and Daughters have no Estate Tail by implication It was agreed that Nicholas had only an Estate for Life and that the word Estate in this case means the Houses and not the Interest in them 'T is true there is no express Limitation of any Estate to them but there is an express determination of it Now if this be not an Estate Tail by implication then the words dying without Issue are void A devise to his Son More 127. and if he dye not having a Son then 't is devised over This is an Estate tail in Remainder It cannot be a doubt who shall take first for the Daughters shall take it Dyer 333. and after them as 't is most natural the eldest Son for where there is the same proximity of Blood the Estate shall go to the eldest As for instance Hob. 33. one Chapman being seised in Fee of two Houses and having three Brothers devised the House which A. dwelt in to his said three Brothers and the House in which his Brother Thomas Chapman did dwell he devised to the said Thomas paying so much c. or else to remain to the Family of the Testator provided that the Houses be not sold but go to the next of the Males and the blood of the Males Thomas died without Issue the eldest of the two surviving Brothers had Issue a Daughter and died the Question was whether that Daughter or the youngest Brother of the Testator should have the House It was adjudged that the Daughter should have it in tail For the Proviso that the Houses be not sold c. made it a tail and the words viz. to remain to the Family must be intended to the eldest If this be not an Estate tail then the Devise over to Anne Warner is void As to the Case of Gilbert and Witty that moves upon another reason for there every one took by a distinct and separate Limitation Curia In that Case all the Estate was limited distinctly to the three Sons but in this 't is otherwise for the Testator had two Sons and no Estate was limited to one of them before then he saith If all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then c. And thus the Cases differ which creates the difficulty But no reason can be given why this Court should not construe Wills according to the Rules of Common Law where an Estate by implication is so incertain for when Men are sick and yet have a disposing power left they usually write Nonsense and the Iudges must rack their Brains to find out what is intended This cannot be an Estate tail in the Daughters and therefore the Heir must come in for his fourth part Iudgment for the Plaintiff Dixon versus Robinson THIS was a special Issue directed out of Chancery Wayhil Fair. and tried this day at the Bar by a Middlesex Iury. The Question was Whether Ballivus probi homines Burgenses Burgi de Andover in Hampshire had power to keep a Fair at Wayehil in any one place where they please the Bill being Exhibited to confine the Fair to a particular place which Fair was granted to them by Charter from Queen Elizabeth They who would have it confin'd to a certain place gave in Evidence that the Hospitaller of Ewelme in Oxfordshire was seised in Fee of the Manor of Rambridge within which Manor the place was where the Fair was always kept and that the Parson of Andover had Glebe there That this place was called Wayehil and that the profits did arise by Piccage and Stallage to the yearly value of 200 l. That it was an ancient Fair held there by Prescription before the Town of Andover had a Charter That upon the late Surrender of Charters the Town of Andover did likewise surrender and took a new Charter in which liberty was given to them to keep this Fair in what place they would That both the Hospitaller and Parson petitioned the King in Council and obtained an Order to Try where the Fair ought to be kept which was tried accordingly at the Exchequer Bar and a Verdict for the Parson Chief Justice If the Fair belongs to Andover they may chuse whether they will keep it at any place and that may create another Question Whether they may not forfeit this Franchise by disuser But certainly if the place be not limited by the King's Grant they may keep it where they please or rather where they can most conveniently and if it be so limited they may keep it in what part of such place they will Dawling versus Venman AN Action on the Case was brought against the Defendant Action for a Scandalous Affidavit in Chancery for making a Scandalous Affidavit in Chancery in which were these words Viz. Mr. Dawling is a Rogue and a Knave and I will make it out before my Lord Chancellor and I will have him in the Pillory Vpon not Guilty pleaded there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and damages entire It was moved in arrest of Iudgment for that the truth of on Oath shall not be liable to a Trial in an Action on the Case for the Law intendeth every Oath to be true Before the Statute of 3 11 H. Cro. Eliz. 521 2 Cro. 607. Sid. 50. Hutt 11. 7. which gives power to examine Perjury there was not any Punishment at
the Indictment for be it before or after the Offence the Iury ought to find according to the truth of the Case upon the Evidence for they are sworn ad veritatem dicendam c. This must be assigned for Error for if the contrary be said 't is against the Record the Custos Brevium having retorned that the Fine was taken 30 July which could not be in Trinity Term for that ended 8 July otherwise 't is repugnant to it self Econtra It was argued that this is not assignable for Error Dyer 220. b. 12 Co. 124. 't is true if the Party had died before the Entry of the King's Silver it had been Error but if afterwards 't is not so Thus was the Case of Warnecomb and Carril which was Husband and Wife levied a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and this was by Dedimus in the Lent Vacation she being then but 19 years of Age the King's Silver was entred in Hillary Term before and she died in the Easter week and upon a Motion made the first day of Easter Term to stay the engrossing of the Fine it was denied by the Court for they held it to be a good Fine Another reason why this is not assignable for Error 2 Cro. 11. Yelv. 33. is because 't is directly against the Record which is of Trinity Term and can be of no other Term and to prove this he cited Arundel's Case where a Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Fine taken before Roger Manwood Esq in his Circuit he being then one of the Iustices of the Common-Pleas and the Dedimus was returned per Rogerum Manwood Militem for he was Knighted and made Chief Baron the Eerm following the Fine passed and this was afterwards assigned for Trror that he who took the Caption was not a Knight but it being directly against the Record they would not intend him to be the same person to whom the Writ was directed Adjurnatur Afterwards the Fine was affirmed Lock versus Norborne UPon a Trial at Bar in Ejectment for Lands in Wiltshire Verdict shall only be given in Evidence amongst privies the Case was thus Viz. Mary Philpot in the year 1678. made a Settlement by Lease and Release to her self for Life then to Trustees to support contingent Remainders then to her first second and third Son in Tail Male c. then to Thomas Arundel in Tail Male with divers Remainders over It was objected at the Tryal that she had no power to make such Settlement because in the year 1676. her Husband had setled the Lands in question upon her for Life and upon the Issue of his Body c. and for want of such Issue then upon George Philpot in Tail Male with several Remainders over the Remainder to Mary Philpot in Fee Proviso that upon the tender of a Guinea to George Philpot by the said Mary the Limitations as to him should be void George Philpot having afterwards made a Lease of this Land to try the Title the Trustees brought an Ejectment but because the tender of the Guinea could not be proved there was a Verdict for the Defendant And now Mr. Philpot would have given that Verdict in Evidence at this Trial but was not suffered by the Court for if one Man hath a Title to several Lands and if he should bring Ejectments against several Defendants and recover against one he shall not give that Verdict in Evidence against the rest because the Party against whom that Verdict was had may be relieved against it if 't is not good but the rest cannot tho' they claim under the same Title and all make the same defence So if two Tenants will defend a Title in Ejectment and a Verdict should be had against one of them it shall not be read against the other unless by Rule of Court But if an Ancestor hath a Verdict the Heir may give it in Evidence because he is privy to it for he who produceth a Verdict must be either party or privy to it and it shall never be received against different persons if it doth not appear that they are united in Interest Therefore a Verdict against A. shall never be read against B. for it may happen that one did not make a good defence which the other may do The tender of the Guinea was now proved DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1687 8. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Powis Attorny General Wm. Williams Sollicitor General THIS Vacation Sir Robert Sawyer had his Quietus and Sir Thomas Powis was made Attorny General and Sir William Williams of Greys-Inn was made Sollicitor General Rex versus Lenthal AN Inquifition was taken in the second year of this King under the Great Seal of England by which it was found that the Office of Marshal of the Kings-Bench did concern the Administration of Iustice and that Mr. Lenthal was seised thereof in Fee and that upon his Marriage he had setled the said Office upon Sir Edward Norris and Mr. Coghill and their Heirs in Truff that they should permit him to execute the same during his Life c. That the said Trustees had neglected to give their attendance or to execute the said Office themselves that this Canveyance was made by Mr. Lenthal without the notice of this Court that he received the Profits and afterwards granted the said Office to Cooling for Life That Cross and his Wife had obtained a Iudgment in this Court against Bromley and had sued forth Erecution for the Debt and Damages for which he was committed to the custody of the said Cooling and being so in Execution did go at large They find that Cooling had not sufficient to answer Cross and his Wise for the said Debt c. whereupon they impleaded Mr. Lenthal in the Common-Pleas for 121 l. 2 s. 4 d. to answer as superior that at the Trial Mr. Lenthal gave this secret Deed of Settlement in Evidence whereupon the Plaintiffs in that Action were non-suited ad dampnum c. They find that Cooling went out of the said Office and the Trustees neglecting the execution thereof Mr. Lenthal granted the same to Glover for Life that during the time he executed this Office one Wordal was convicted of Forgery and commited to his Custody and that he permitted him voluntarily to Escape by which the said Office was forfeited to the King The King had granted the Office to the Lord Hunsdon Sir Edward Norris and Mr. Coghill come in and plead that Mr. Lenthal was seised in Fee and that he made a Settlement of the Office upon his Marriage with Mrs. Lucy Dunch with whom he had 5000 l. Portion viz. upon them and their Heirs in trust prout in the Inquisition and that he did execute the Office by-their permission Mr Lenthal pleads and admits the Grant to Sir Edward Norris and the other Trustee bearing date such a day c. but saith that the next
the Fine and Non-claim the Substance of which was That Robert Basket was seized in Fee of the Lands in Question who by Will devised it to Philip Basket and others for 99 years with power to grant Estates for the payment hf the Debts and Legacies of the Testator the Remainder in Tail to John Basket his Brother but that if he gave Security to pay the said Debts and Legacies or should pay the same within a time limited that then the Trustees should assign the Term to him c. John Basket entred after the death of his Brother with the assent of the said Trustees and received the Profits and paid all the Legacies and all the Debts but 18 l. The Iury find that John had Issue a Daughter only by his first Wife after whose death he married another Woman and levied a Fine and made a Settlement in consideration of that Marriage upon himself for Life and upon his Wife for Life with divers Remainders over that he died without Issue by his second Wife who entred and five years were past without any claim c. And now the Heir at Law in the name of the Trustees brought this Action The Questions were 1. Whether the Term for 99 years thus devised to the Trustees was bound by this Fine and Nonclaim or not 2. Whether it was divested and turned to a Right at the time of the Fine levied For if it was not then the Fine could not operate upon it It was agreed that as a Disseisin is to a Freehold so is a divesting to a Term and that a Fine and Non-claim is no Barr but where the Party at the time of the levying thereof had a Will to enter and when the Estate of which 't is levyed is turned to a Right That in the Case at the Barr the Entry of John Basket was tortious because the legal Estate was still in the Trustees But if he had gained any Right by his Entry 't is only a Tenancy at Will to them for they took notice of the Devise and he entred by their consent and such a Right is not assignable and then a Fine levyed is no Barr. To prove this 9 Co. 106. Margaret Prodger's Case was cited where the the Lord granted a Copyhold to John Elizabeth and Mary for their Lives and afterwards by Deed enrolled sold the Land to John in Fee and levyed a Fine to him and his Heirs c. and five years passed without any Claim John dyed his Son entred and levyed another Fine to Trustees to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for Life the Remainder to his own right Heirs the Son died and his Wife survived who having a Freehold for Life distrained and the Husband of Elizabeth brought a Replevin It was adjudged that this Fine and Nonclaim did not barr those in Remainder becase the Bargain and Sale to John did not divest their Estate and turn it to a Right for the Lord did what he might do and John accepted what he might lawfully take who being in possession by virtue of a particular Estate for Life could not by this acceptance divest the Estate of her who had the Freehold and the Fine and Nonclaim could not do it for to what purpose should he make any Claim when he was in actual possession of the thing to be demanded And he who is so in possession need not make any Claim either to avoid a Fine or a collateral Warranty Now though at the Common Law there must be Livery and Seisin to create an Estate of Freehold 3 Co. Fermer 's Case yet any thing is sufficient to make an Estate at Will in which neither the Inheritance or the Title of the Land is concerned and therefore a Fine levyed by such a Tenant is no Barr. 'T is true Sid. 458. Freeman versus Barns if a Lease be made for an hundred years in Trust to attend the Inheritance and Cestuy que Trust continues in possession and devises to another for fifty years and levies a Fine and the five years pass without Claim he being still in possession after the first Lease made is thereby become Tenant at Will and by making the second Lease the other is divested and turned to a Right though he was not a Disseisor and so 't is barred by the Fine because the Cestuy que Trust of the term of one hundred years was also Owner of the Inheritance But in the Case at the Barr John shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of the Trustees of the Term of 99 years to prove which there are many Authorities in the Books As if Tenant at Will make a Lease for years and the Lessee enters Latch 53. 1 Leon. 121. Lit. Sect. 588. 't is not a Disseisin but at the Election of him who hath the Freehold and even in such Case if the Tenant of the Freehold should make a Grant of the Land 't is good though not made upon the Land it self for he shall not be taken to be out of possession but at his own Election 'T is like the common Case of a Mortgagee for years where the Mortgagor continues in possession twenty years afterwards and pays the Interest and in that time hath made Leases and levyed a Fine this shall not barr the Mortgagee for the Mortgagor is but Tenant at Will to him The Trustees need not make any claim in this Case because there was no transmutation of the possession so they could take no notice of the Fine 'T is true John Basket entred by their consent but still as Tenant at Will to them and the Acts done by him after his Entry will not didest this Term for though he made a Bargain and Sale of the Lands yet nothing will pass thereby but what of right ought to pass He likewise demised the Lands to Vndertenants for years but 't is not found that they entred but admitting they did enter yet that could not displace this Term for these Tenants claimed no more than for one or two years and made no pretence to the whole Term. But if by either of these Acts the Term should be divested yet still it must be at the election of those who have the Interest in it Dyer 61 62 173. The Case of * Cro. Car. 302. 1 Rol. Abr. 661. Blunden and Baugh which is grounded upon Littleton's Text Sect. 588. is an Authority to this purpose which was The Father was Tenant in Tail and his Son was Tenant at Will who made a Lease for years then both Father and Son join in a Fine to the use of the Son for Life and to Elizabeth his Wife for Life the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of the Son who died without Issue Male the Lessee being in possession made a Conveyance of the Estate by Bargain and Sale to Charles Lord Effingham who was Son and Heir of the Tenant in Tail who made a Lease to the Plaintiff who was ousted by the
Where an Averment may be made of another person so as it consists with the Condition of a Bond. in which Bond the said A. B. the elder and A. B. the younger were joyntly and severally bound in the penal Sum of 1000 l. conditioned that if the above bounden A. B. omitting the word younger do and shall forbear knowingly and wittingly to come to or write Letters unto C. the Wife of D. that then the Obligation to be void The Defendant pleaded that he did not come to or write Letters to the said C. knowingly c. The Plaintiff replied that he exhibited an Information against A. B. the younger shewing in what Term and that it was agreed between them that in consideration that he would forbear to prosecute the same the said A. B. the elder together with A. B. the younger should become bound to the Plaintiff in 1000 l. that the said A. B. the younger should not knowingly or wittingly come into the Company c. then sets forth the Bond and the Condition thereof at large and avers that A. B. in the Condition mentioned is A. B. the younger and farther that the said A. B. the younger did afterwards knowingly come into the Company c. The Defendant re-joyned and said that the Plaintiff ought not to averr that the aforesaid A. B. the younger is the person in the Condition of the said Bond c. And upon a Demurrer the Question was whether the Plaintiff was estopped by the words in the Condition to make such an Averment It was argued for the Plaintiff that he might make such an Averment which is to reduce a thing to a certainty which was very incertain before if it be not repugnant in it self nay sometimes an Averment doth reduce contradictory things to a certainty 'T is plain that A. B. the younger is bound in this Bond the Objection is that A. B. the elder being of the Name and being likewise bound that the Condition might referr to either 'T is agreed there are many Cases where a Man shall be estopped to averr against a Record but this Averment is not contradictory to any thing in the Record for it appears by the Pleadings that the Information was prosecuted against A. B. the younger and therefore he must be intended to be bound not to come to the said C. knowingly c. If an Estate should be devised to A. and the Name of the Testator omitted in the Will 2 Leon. 35. yet the Devise is good by averring of the Name and by proof that it was his intention to give it him by his Will So if the Plaintiff should claim a Title under the Grant of such a person Knight and the Iury find he was an Esquire Lit. Rep. 181 223. but that the Knight and the Esquire are both the same person this is a good Declaration 'T is usual to make an Allegation even against the express words of a Condition to shew the truth of an Agreement Cro. Car. 501. as if Debt be brought upon a Bond of 100 l. conditioned to pay 50 l. within six Months the Defendant pleaded the Statute of Vsury the Plaintiff replied that he lent the Mony for a year and alledged that by the mistake of the Scrivener the Bond was made paiable in six Months The Defendant rejoyned that it was lent for six Months only And upon a Demurrer this was adjudged to be a good Allegation though it was against the very words of the Condition which is a stronger Case than this at the Barr because the Averment consists with the Condition of the Bond. If a Man should levy a Fine and declare the Vses thereof to his Son William and he hath two Sons of that Name 4 Co. 71. 8 Co. 155. a. Dyer 146. then an Averment is made that he intended to declare the Vses to his youngest Son of that Name this Averment out of the Fine hath been adjudged good for the same reason given already which is because it standeth with the words thereof and 't is a good Issue to be tried It cannot be objected that the Bond is illegal being entred into for the not prosecuting of an Information because a Nolle prosequi was entred as to that Matter so 't is the Act of the Court. Lastly It was said that every Estoppel must be certain to every intent which cannot be in this Case for by the words of this Condition 't is incertain which of the Obligors shall be intended E contra It was argued that an Estoppel is as well intended by Law as expressed by Words that if an Averment can be taken yet this is not well because the Plaintiff hath absolutely averred that A. B. in the Condition is A. B. the younger he should have said that A. B. in the Condition is intended A. B. the younger which might have been traversed and Issue taken thereon No Iudgment was given for this Case was ended by Compromise Hoil versus Clerk In the Common-Pleas THIS was a special Verdict in Ejectment for Lands in Wetherfield A subsequent Will though not made pursuant to the Statute is a Revocation of a former in the County of Essex upon the demise of Abigail Pheasant The Iury find that one John Clark was seised in Fee of the Lands in question who by his last Will in writing bearing date the 14th day of September in the year 1666. devised the same to Benjamin Clark for Life so to his first and second Sons c. in Tayl Male and for default of such Issue then to his two Sisters for Life Remainder over c. This Will was attested by one Witness only They find that the said John Clark made another dated the sixth day of February 1672. which was 13 years after the making of his first Will and that by this last Will he revoked all former Wills and Testaments by him made They find an Endorsement on this Will written by the Testator himself in these words Viz. My Will and Testament dated the 6th of February 1679. and then published by me in the presence of three Witnesses They find that this last Will was so published and attested by three Witnesses in his presence but that it was not signed by the Testator in their presence They find that Benjamin Clark entred and devised the Lands to Mary Micklethwaite who made a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff for three years upon whom the Defendant entred This Case was argued at the Bar and in this Term at the Bench Seriatim The single Question was 29 Car. 2. cap. 3. whether this last Will not being duly executed according to the Statute is a Revocation of the first Will or not It was admitted by all that it was a good Will to pass the personal Estate but as to the point of Revocation the Court was divided Iustice Lutwitch argued that it was not a Revocation He agreed that if the last Will hath any respect to the first it must be as a
c. yet one Commoner may bring an Action against his Fellow besides in this Case they are not Tenants in Common for every Man is seized severally of his Freehold Adjornatur Ayres versus Huntington AScire Facias was brought upon a Recognizance of 1000 l. Amendment of the word Recuperatio for Recognitio after a Demurrer to shew cause quare the Plaintiff should not have Execution de praedictis mille libris recognitis juxta formam Recuperationis where it should have been Recognitionis praed And upon a Demurrer it was held that the words juxta formam Recuperationis were Surplusage The Record was amended and a Rule that the Defendant should plead over Mather and others versus Mills THE Defendant entred into a Bond to acquir Non damnificatus generally where 't is a good Plea discharge and save harmless a Parish from a Bastard Child Debt was brought upon this Bond and upon Non damnificatus generally pleaded the Plaintiff demurred and Tremain held the Demurrer to be good for if the Condition had been only to save harmless c. then the Plea had been good but 't is likewise to acquit and discharge c. and in such Case Non damnificatus generally is no good Plea 1 Leon. 71. because he should have shewed how he did acquit and discharge the Parish and not answer the Damnification only E contra E contra 2 Co. 3. 2 Cro. 363 364 2 Sand. 83 84. It was argued that if the Defendnat had pleaded that he kept harmless and discharged the Parish such Plea had not been good unless he had shewed how c. because 't is in the affirmative but here 't is in the negative viz. that the Parish was not dampnified and they should have shewed a Breach for though in strictness this Plea doth not answer the Condition of the Bond yet it doth not appear upon the whole Record that the Plaintiff was dampnified and if so then he hath no cause of Action Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Memorandum That on the 4th day of November last past the Prince of Orange landed here with an Army and by reason of the Abdication of the Government by King James and the Posture of Affairs there was no Hillary-Term kept Coram Johanne Holt Mil ' Capital ' Justic Gulielmo Dolben Mil ' Justiciar Gulielmo Gregory Mil ' Justiciar Egidio Eyre Mil ' Justiciar Kellow versus Rowden Trin. 1 Willielmi Mariae Rotulo 796. IN Debt by Walter Kellow Where the Reversion in Fee is expectant upon an Estate Tail and that being spent it descends upon a collateral Heir he must be sued as Heir to him who was last actually seized of the Fee without naming the intermediate Remainders Executor of Edward Kellow against Richard Rowden The Case was this viz. John Rowden had Issue two Sons John and Richard John the Father being seized in Fee of Lands c. made a Settlement to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to John his eldest Son in Tail Male the Remainder to his own right Heirs The Father died the Reversion descended to John the Son who also died leaving Issue John his Son who died without Issue so that the Estate Tail was spent Richard the second Son of John the elder entred and an Action of Debt was brought against him as Son and Heir of John the Father upon a Bond of 120 l. entred into by his Father and this Action was brought against him without naming the intermediate Heirs viz. his Brother and Nephew The Defendant pleaded Quod ipse de debito praed ut filius haeres praed Johannis Rowden Patris sui virtute scripti obligatorii praed onerari non debet quia protestando quod scriptum obligatorium praed non est factum praed Johannis Rowden pro placito idem Richardus dicit quod ipse non habet aliquas terras seu tenementa per discensum haereditarium de praed Johanne Rowden patre suo in feodo simplici nec habuit die exhibitionis billae praed Walteri praed nec unquam postea hoc parat est ' verificare unde pet judicium si ipse ut filius haeres praed Johannis Rowden patris sui virtute scripti praed onerari debeat c. The Plaintiff replied that the Defendant die Exhibitionis billae praed habuit diversas terras tenementa per discensum haereditarium a praed Johanne Rowden patre suo in feodo simplici c. Vpon this pleading they were at Issue at the Assises in Wiltshire and the Iury found a special Verdict viz. that John Rowden the Father of Richard now the Defendant was seized in Fee of a Messuage and 20 Acres of Land in Bramshaw in the said County and being so seised had Issue John Rowden his eldest Son and the Defendant Richard that on the 22th of Januarii 18 Car. I. John the elder did settle the Premisses upon himself for Life Remainder ut supra c. That after the death of the Father John his eldest Son entred and was possessed in fee-Fee-Tail and was likewise entituled to the Reversion in Fee and died in the 14th year of King Charles the II. that the Lands did descend to another John his only Son who died 35th Car. II. without Issue whereupon the Lands descended to the Defendant as Heir of the last mentionted John who entred before this Action brought and was seised in Fee c. But whether upon the whole matter the Defendant hath any Lands by by descent from John Rowden in Fee-simple the Iury do not know c. The Council on both sides did agree that this Land was chargable with the Debt but the Question was whether the Issue was found for the Defendant in regard the Plaintiff did not name the intermediate Heirs It was argued that the Defendant ought to be sued as immediate Heir to his Father and not to his Nephew for whoever claims by descent must claim from him who was last actually seised of the Freehold and Inheritance this is the express Doctrine of my Lord Coke in his first Institutes and if so Co. Lit. 11. the Defendant must be charged as he claims Seisin is a material thing in our Law for if I am to make a Title in a real Action I must lay an actual seisin in every Man 8 E. 3.13 Bro. Assise 6. F.N. B. 212. F. 't is so in Formedons in Descender and Remainder in both which you are to run through the whole Pedegree But none can be Filius Haeres but to him who was last actually seised of the Fee-simple and therefore the Brother being Tenant in Tail and his Son the Issue in Tail in this Case they were never seised of the Fee 1 Inst 14. b. for that was expectant upon the Estate Tail which being spent then John the Father was last seised thereof and
3 Willielmi Judicium Iudgment was given for the Defendant absente Dolbin Iustice who was also of the same Opinion It was held that the Custom was well alledged both as to the manner and matter 't is true all Customs must have reasonable beginnings but it would be very difficult to assign a lawful commencement for such a Custom as this is so it would be for the Custom of Gavelkind or Burrough English which are circumscribed to particular places and since 't is sufficient to alledge a Custom by reason of the place where t is used it may be as reasonable in this Case to say that there hath been an ancient Ferry-Boat kept in this place 't is but only an inducement to the Custom which did not consist so much in having a Right to the Passage as to be discharged of Toll This might have a lawful beginning either by a Grant of the Lord to the Ancestors of the Defendant or by the agreement of the Inhabitants A Custom alledged for all the Occupiers of a Close in such a Parish to have a Foot-way Cro. Car. 419. Co. Lit. 110. b. Cro. Eliz. 746. 1 Roll. Rep. 216. c. is not good the reason is because the Plaintiff ought to prescribe in him who hath the Inheritance but where a thing is of necessity and no manner of profit or charge in the Soil of another but only a thing in discharge or for a Way to a Market or to be quit of Toll in such cases not only a particular person but the Inhabitaints of a Vill may alledge a Prescription This may be as well alledged as a Custom to turn a Plow upon another mans Land or for a Fisherman to mend his Nets there 'T is good as to the matter for 't is only an easment 't is like a Custom alledged for a Gateway or Watercourse and for such things Inhabitants of a Vill Cro. Eliz. 441. or all the Parishioners of a Parish may alledge a Custom or Vsage in the place 2. Point But as to the Plea in Bar 't is not good because the execting of a Bridge is but laying out a Way t is a voluntary act and no man by reason of his own act can be discharged of what he is to do upon the interest he hath in the Ferry If the Defendant had petitioned the King to destroy the Ferry and got a Patent to erect a Bridge and had brought a Writ ad quod dampnum and it had been found by inquisition to be no damage to the People then he might safely have built this Bridge 3. But notwithstanding the Plea is not good yet the Plaintiff can have no advantage of it because he cannot have an Action on the Case for this matter for by his own shewing 't is a common Passage Cro. Car. 132 167. 1 Inst 56. a. Cro. Eliz. 664. 13 Co. 33. Davis 57. which is no more than a common High-way now for disturbing him in such a Passage no Action on the Case will lie unless he had alledged some particular damage done to himself for if he could maintain such an Action any other person is entituled to the like and this would be to multiply Suits which the Law will not allow but hath provided a more apt and convenient remedy which is by presentment in the Leet If Toll had been extorted from him F. N. B. 94. 22 H. 6.12 then an Action on the Case had been the proper remedy but no such thing appeared upon this Declaration Prince 's Case THE Suggestion in a Prohibition was that Prince was seized of the Rectory of Shrewsby ut de feodo jure and that he being so seised de jure ought to present a Vicar to the said place but that the Bishop of the Diocess had of his own accord appointed a person thereunto This Exception was taken to it viz. He doth not say that he was Impropriator but only that he was seised of the Rectory in Fee so it not appearing that he had it Impropriate he ought no to present the Vicar Iustice Dolben replied That in several places in Middlesex the Abbots of Westminster did send Monks to say Mass and so the Vicaridges were not endowed but he put in and displaced whom he pleased That he had heard my Lord Chief Iustice Hales often say that the Abbot had as much reason to displace such Men as he had his Butler or other Servant Curia Declare upon the Prohibition and try the Cause Harrison versus Hayward Pasch 2 Gulielmi Rot. 187. AN Agreement was made to assign a Stock upon Request When a thing is to be done upon request the performance must be when the person requires it and the Defendant cannot plead that he was ready to assign after the promise made and for non-performance an Action was now brought setting forth the Agreement and that the Plaintiff did request the Defendant at such a time c. The Defendant pleaded that he was ready to assign the Stock after the promise made c. and upon a Demurrer it was ruled if the thing was not to be done upon Request then the Defendant was bound to do it in a convenient time after the promise but it being to be done upon request the time when the Plaintiff will require the performance of the Agreement is the time when the Defendant must do it Iudgment pro Quer. Thompson versus Leach WRit of Error upon a Iudgment in Ejectment given in the Common-Pleas Surrender not good without acceptance of the Surrendree 2 Vent 198. the Case upon the special Verdict was thus Viz. Simon Leach was Tenant for Life of the Lands in question with Remainder in contingency to his first second and third Son in Tail Male Remainder to Sir Simon Leach in Tail c. This Settlement was made by the Will of Nicholas Leach who was seised in Fee The Tenant for Life two months before he had a Son born did in the absence of Sir Simon Leach the Remainder man in Tail seal and deliver a Writing by which he did Grant Surrender and Release the Lands which he had for Life to the use of Sir Simon Leach and his Heirs and continued in possession five years afterwards and then and not before Sir Simon Leach did accept and agree to this Surrender and entred upon the Premisses But that about four years before he thus agreed to it Simon Leach the Tenant for Life had a Son born named Charles Lessor of the Plaintiff to whom the Remainder in contingency was thus limited The Tenant for Life died then Sir Simon Leach suffered a Common Recovery in order to bar those Remainders 1. The Question was whether this was a legal and good Surrender of the Premisses to vest the Freehold immediately in Sir Simon Leach without his Assent before Charles Leach the Son of Simon Leach the Surrenderor was born so as to make him a good Tenant to the Precipe upon which the Recovery was
visitation of God by which he was disabled for a time to do any reasonable thing whatsoever and this may be as well done as to plead duress from Men which the Law allows to make compulsary Acts void My Lord Coke in Beverly's Case taking notice of the great reason of the Civil Law in Cases of this nature 4 Co. 123. which maketh all Acts done by Ideots void without their Curator's concurrence and that it was objected as a defect in the Common Law that Tutors were not assigned to such persons he answereth that our Law hath given the custody both of them and their Lands to the King which is directly contrary to his own Opinion in his 2d Institutes 2 Inst 14. where paraphrasing upon the fourth Chapter of Magna Charta which prohibits Wast in the Land of Wards from thence he inferrs that at that time the King had no Prerogative to entitle him to the Lands of Ideots for if he had that Act would have as well provided against Wast in their Lands as in those of Wards He farther adds that the Guardianship of Ideots did belong to the Lords according to the course of the Common Law Be it how it will 't is clear by all the Books that both by the Common and Civil Law their Acts are void and my Lord Coke esteemed it as a very unreasonable thing that they should not be avoided even during the life of the Party himself but it was never yet denied that they may be avoided after his death by his Heir or Executor and by parity of reason the Law will prevent Strangers from being prejudiced by such Acts. There is an Objection that some Acts done by Ideots are unavoidable as Fines levyed by them c. 'T is true such are not to be avoided not because they are good in themselves but the reason is because they are upon Record against which the Law will not suffer any Averment to be made presuming that the Courts and Iudges in Westminster-Hall would not admit an Ideot or Infant to levy a Fine This being therefore a void Surrender by a person Non compos the Estate is still in the Surrenderor and so the contingent Remainder upon his death is well attached in Charles Leach the Lessor of the Plaintiff But supposing 't is not void yet there will be scintilla juris left in Simon Leach to support the Contingency and to prove this the Case of Lloyd and Brookin was relied on which was this viz. Thomas Bradshaw was Tenant for Life 1 Mod. 92. 1 Vent 188. 2 Keb. 881. the Remainder in Tail to his first Son c. the Remainder to Paul for Life the Remainder to his first second and third Sons in Tail Thomas accepted a Fine from Paul who had then a Son born then he made a Feoffment and afterwards Paul had another Son born His eldest Son died without Issue and it was adjudged that the contingent Remainder to his second Son was not destroyed by this Feoffment because it was preserved by the right of Entry which his elder Brother had at the time it was made 2. If this Surrender is only voidable then whether Charles Leach claiming by a collateral Title can avoid it It was argued that he may for it would be absurd that he should have a Right to the Remainder and yet have no Remedy to recover it My Lord Coke in Beverly's Case tells us that there are four sorts of Privities 1. In Bloud as Heir 2. In Representation as Executor 3. In Estate as Donee in Tail the Reversion or Remainder in Fee 4. In Tenure as Lord by Escheat He affirms that the two first may shew the Disability of their Ancestor and Testator and avoid their Grants 'T is true in the third Article he is of Opinion that Privies in Estate shall not avoid the Acts of their Ancestors and he puts the Case of a Donee in Tail making a Feoffment in Fee within age and dying without Issue the Donor shall not enter because no Right did accrew to him by the death of the Donee there being only a Privity of Estate between them But this Opinion is denied to be Law by Iustice Dodderidge in his Argument of the Case between Jackson and Darcy Palm 254. who said that the Donor might enter because otherwise he would be without remedy for he could not maintain a Formedon because the Feoffment made by the Infant was no Discontinuance Besides 't is not possible there should be any Privity in Blood between the Donee in Tail and the Reversioner in Fee so that Article must be intended where they are Strangers in Blood and Privies in Estate which doth not at all concern the Case in question because William Leach is privy in Blood to his Father who made the Surrender and my Lord Coke tells us in the first Article of his distinction that such a Privy may avoid the Acts of his Ancestor It may be objected that this distinction was not then the Iudgment of the Court for it was not material to the Point in Issue which was no more than thus viz. Snow gave Bond to Beverley and exhibited his Bill in the Court of Requests to be relieved against it because at the time of the sealing and delivery thereof he was Non compos mentis But the like distinction was made in Whittingham 's Case many years afterwards 8 Co. 42. which was thus viz. Whittingham being seised of Lands held of the Queen in Soccage devised the same to Prudence his Bastard Child and her Heirs she during her Infancy made a Feoffment thereof to another and died in her Nonage without Issue the Question then was whether that Feoffment should prevent the Queen of the Escheat And adjudged it should not In which Case it was held that Privies in Blood inheritable shall take advantage of the disabilities of their Ancestors as if an Infant who is seised in Fee maketh a Feoffment and afterwards dieth his Heir may enter and avoid it The Law is the same in the Case of one Non compos mentis as in that of an Infant as to the avoiding of the Acts of their Ancestors so that Mr. Leach being privy in Blood according to my Lord Coke's Opinion in those Cases shall avoid the Acts of his Father he being Non compos at the executing of this Surrender If it should be objected that this part of the distinction ought to be taken restrictively and must be tied up to such an Heir at Law who takes an immediate possession by descent from his Ancestor the Answer is that if this Surrender is avoided Mr. Leach will take by immediate descent from his Father for though nothing but a Reversion in Fee descended to him yet he is a compleat Heir But after all this distinction made by my Lord Coke is founded upon no manner of Authority 't is only his extrajudicial Opinion for there is no reason to be given why Privies in Estate should
not avoid such Acts done by their Ancestors as well as Privies in Blood because the Incapacity of the Grantor goes to both Those who argued on the other side held that the Acts of Infants and persons non compos were not void in themselves but only voidable E contra 'T is true some Deeds made by an Infant are void not meerly Cro. Car. 502. because executed by him for some are good and those only are void which are made to his prejudice Such also are void which give Authority to a third person to do an Act as if an Infant enter into a Bond Perk. Sect. 139. March 141. and give it to a Stranger to deliver to the Obligee when he shall attain his full Age this is void because the person derived his Authority from an Infant who by reason of his Nonage could not give such a Power but if the Infant himself had delivered the Bond to the Obligee it had been only voidable Lit. Sect. 259. The Father of the Demandant was an Infant when he sold his Estate 46 E. 3.34 his Son brought the Writ Dum fuit infra-aetatem against the Alienee and it was held good which would not have been allowed if the Grant had been void All the old Authorities prove that the Acts of Infants and Ideots are not void but voidable If an Infant is bound in an Obligation 't is not void Cro. Eliz. 127. 2 Inst 483. for he may agree to it when of Age he cannot plead Non est factum and he may refuse to plead his Infancy If he be entituled to a Term for years Cro. Eliz. 126. Cro. Car. 502. and maketh a Surrender by the acceptance of a new Lease 't is good if 't is for his advantage either by the lessening of the Rent or the encreasing of the Term but if he hath no benefit by it 't is voidable only So he may purchase Lands because the Law intends it for his benefit and he can receive no damage by such a Purchase for he may either perfect or avoid it at his full Age which shews that such Acts are not voidable ab intio but only voidable as the Case shall require The Statute of 23 H. 6. Enacts 23 H. 6. c. 10. That Sheriffs shall take no Bonds upon an Arrest but for the Appearance of the Party and to themselves only and that a Bond otherwise taken colore officii shall be void that is not in its self but by pleading the Statute for 't is not to be avoided by pleading Non est factum So upon the Statute of Additions 1 H. 5. c. 5. 3 Co. 59. a. where a Man is outlawed without the addition of his condition or place of abode in the original Writ such Outlawry shall be void not of its self but it may be avoided by Writ of Error In like manner there are many Authorities to prove that the Acts of a person non compos are not void but voidable So is the first Resolution in Beverly 's Case that a Deed or Feoffment made by him is to be avoided by any other person but not by himself Thus stood the Law in the time of E. 35 Ass pl. 10. 3. For in an Assize the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had released to him by Deed who replied that at the time of the making of the Deed he was Non compos The Court of Common Pleas seemed then to be of Opinion that the Replication was not good which shews that the Deed in its self was not void 't is true the Assize was then adjourned because that Opinion was directly against the Register which is that the Writ of Dum non fuit compos may be brought by the person himself notwithstanding his own Alienation But this hath since been denied to be Law Cro. Eliz. 398. for in Debt upon Bond the Defendant pleaded that he was Non compos and upon a Demurrer the Plea was over-ruled And of this Opinion was Sir William Herle Chief Iustice of the Common Pleas in 5 E. 5 E. 3.70 3. which was long before the Book of Assize So the Law continued till the Reign of H. 35 H. 6. f. 42. 6. viz. that the person himself could not avoid his own Feoffment either by Entry or Action The Writs de Ideota inquirendo and Dum non fuit compos import the same thing viz. that Acts done by them are not void for the first recites that the Ideot alienavit and the other that the Lunatick * Dimisit is there intended where the Estate is conveyed by Livery or for life and Alienavit is a Conveiance by Feoffment 17 E. 2. Stamf. Praerog 34. Dimisit terras Now if their Acts had been void ab initio then they cannot be supposed either to alien or lease their Lands which shews that such Acts are only voidable And as a farther Argument to enforce this the Statute de Praerogativa Regis was mentioned which gives the Custody of the Ideots Lands to the King during their Lives provided that afterwards it be given to their right Heirs ita quod nullatenus per eofdem fatuos alienetur Now to what purpose were these Words added if such an Alienation was void in it self Besides the Cases of Ideots mentioned on the other side and Lunaticks are not parellel for an Ideot hath a different incapacity from one Non compos 't is perpetual in an Ideot and for that reason the Law gives the King an Interest in him But a person non compos may recover his Senses Co. Lit. 2. b. Fitz. tit Issue 53. he may purchase Lands may grant a Rent-charge out of his Estate and shall not plead his insanity to defeat his own act If therefore this Surrender was not void at the time of the execution thereof but voidable only during the Life of the Surrenderor by office found then the Question cannot properly be whether the Lessor of the Plaintiff shall avoid it for that would be to revest the Estate in some body but the Surrender was good and the Estate for Life was utterly determined so that nothing being left to support the contingent Remainders those are also destroied And to prove this Chudleigh 's Case was relied on which was Co. 120. Sir R. C. was seised in Fee of the Manor of Hescot in Devon and having Issue Christopher and three other Sons made a Feoffment to the use of himself and his Heirs on the Body of Mary then the Wife of Mr. Carew to be begotten and for default of such Issue then to the use of his last Will c. for ten years and after the Expiration of that Term then to his Feoffees and their Heirs during the Life of Christopher Remainder to the Issue Male of Christopher in Tail with like Remainder to his other Sons Remainder to his own right Heirs He died without Issue by Mrs. Carew But before Christopher had any Son born the
certain or 't is not good 134 4. Must be taken strictly when it goes to the destruction of an Estate 224 5. A Custom that every Copyholder who leases his Land shall forfeit it doth not bind an Infant 229 6. Amongst Merchants where it must be particularly set forth 226 7. It must be certain and therefore where it was laid for an Infant to sell his Land when he can measure an Ell of Cloth 't is void for the incertainty 290 8. To have solam separalem pasturam hath been held good 291 9. Prescription must have a lawful commencement but 't is sufficient for a Custom to be certain and reasonable 292 10. Whether a Custom likewise ought to have a lawful commencement 293 D. Damages See Ejectment 3. Ioint Action 2. Trespass 2. Baron and Feme brought an Action for words spoken of the Wife and concluded ad damnum ipsorum 't is good for if she survive the Damages will go to her 120 Det See Admittance 5. Assignment 1. Iudgment 1. Quantum meruit Where 't is brought upon a Specialty for less than the whole Sum it must be shewed how the other was discharged 41 2. Whether it lies for a Fine upon an admission to a Copyhold Estate for it doth not arise upon any Contract 240 3. There must be a personal Contract or a Contract implyed by Law to maintain an Action of Debt ibid. Deceit See Action on the Case Deputy See Office 6 7 9. Devise See Tail Where it shall not be extended by implication 82 2. Where the word Estate passeth a Fee where not 45 105. 3. I give All to my Mother passeth only an Estate for Life for the Particle All is a Relative without a Substantive 32 4. To A. and the Testator's Name is omitted in the Will yet 't is good by averring his Name and proving his Intention to devise it 217 5. The Testator after several Specifick Legacies and Devises of Lands gave all the rest and remaining part of his Estate c. by those Words the Reversion in Fee passed 228 6. By the Devise of an Hereditament the Reversion in Fee passeth 229 Disseisin See Election 1. Interest 2. The Son Purchased in Fee and was disseised by his Father who made a Feoffment with Warranty the Son is bound for ever 91 2. Lessor made a Lease for Life and died his Son suffered a Common Recovery this is a Disseisin ibid. 3. Where an Estate for Life or years cannot be gained by a Disseisin ibid. 4. A wrongful Entry is never satisfied with any particular Estate nor can gain any thing but a Fee-simple 92 Distribution Before the Statute if there was but one Child he had a right of Administration but it was only personal so that if he died before Administration his Executor could not have it 62 E. Ejectment THE Demise was laid to be the 12th of Junii habendum a praed duodecimo die Junii which must be the 13th day by vertue whereof he entred and that the Defendant Postea eod 12 die Junii did Eject him which must be before the Plaintiff had any Title for his Lease commenced on the 13th day not good 199 2. De uno Messuagio sive Tenemento not good because the word Tenementum is of an incertain signification but with this addition vocat ' the Black Swan 't is good 238 3. If the Term should expire pending the Suit the Plaintiff may proceed for his Damages for though the Action is expired quoad the possession yet it continues for the Damages 249 Election Where the Cause of Action ariseth in two places the Plaintiff may choose to try it where he pleases 165 2. Tenant at Will made a Lease for years the Lessee entreth this is no disseisin but at the Election of him who had the Interest in it 197 Entry In Feoffments Partitions and Exchanges which are Conveyances at the Common Law no Estate is changed until actual Entry 297 2. Lease for years not good without Entry 297 3. Tenant for Life Remainder in Tail Male levied a Fine and made a Feoffment having but one Son then born and afterwards had another Son the eldest died without Issue the Contingent Remainder to the second was not destroy'd by this Feoffment for it was preserved by the right of Entry which his elder Brother had at the time of the Feoffment made 305 Escape Debt upon an Escape would not lie at the Common Law against the Goaler it was given by the Statute of W. 2. 145 2. The superior Officer is liable to the voluntary Escapes suffered by his Deputy unless the Deputation is for life 146 3. If an Escape is by negligence it must be particularly found 151 4. A person was in Execution upon an erroneous Judgment and escaped and Judgment and Execution was had against the Gaoler and then the first Judgment was reversed yet that against the Gaoler shall stand 325 Evidence See Witness An Affidavit made in Chancery shall not be read as Evidence but only as a Letter unless Oath is made by a Witness that he was present when it was taken before the Master 36 2. What shall be Evidence of a fraudulent Settlement ibid. 3. An Answer of a Guardian in Chancery shall not be read as Evidence to conclude an Infant 259 4. Whether the return of the Commissioners in a Chancery Cause that the person made Oath before them is sufficient Evidence to convict of Perjury 116 5. Whether a true Copy of an Affidavit made before the Chief Justice is sufficient to convict the person for the like Offence 117 6. A Verdict may be given in Evidence between the same Parties but not where there are different persons unless they are all united in the same interest 142 7. Conviction for having two Wives shall not be given in Evidence to prove the unlawfulness of a Marriage but the Writ must go to the Bishop because at Law one Jury may find it no Marriage and another otherwise 164 Exchange Ought to be executed by each Party in their Life time otherwise 't is void 135 Excommunication Stat. 5 Eliz. For not coming to the Parish Church the Penalties shall not incurr if the person hears Divine Service in any other Church 42 2. The Causes are enumerated in the Statute which must be contained in the Significavit otherwise the Penalties are not to incurr 89 Executor See Grants Notice 5. Whether an Executor de son tort can have any interest in a Term for years 91 93 2. An Executor may sell the Goods before Probate 92 3. May pay Debt upon a simple Contract before a Bond of which he had no notice 115 4. Whether an Action of Debt will lie against an Executor upon a Mutuatus 5. By what words he hath an Authority only without an Interest in the thing devised 209 210 6. He had both Goods of his Testator and of his own and granted omnia bona sua that which he hath as Executor will not pass for
the Land 211 5. Not granted for Mariners Wages 244 6. Libel for a Tax upon the Parishioners for not repairing of their Church who suggest that they had a Chappel of Ease in the same Parish the Prohibition was denied for of common right they ought to repair the Mother Church 264 7. Proof of Matter of Fact by one Witness denied to be allowed in the Spiritual Court is a good cause for a Prohibition 284 8. Where the Release of a Legacy offered to be proved by one Witness was denied in the Spiritual Court ibid. 9. Proof of Payment or Subtraction of Tythes denied and a Prohibition granted ibid. 10. Whether a Prohibition ought to be allowed after Sentence an Appeal being then the more proper remedy 284 Property See Interest Q. Quorum MUst be one Justice of the Peace of the Quorum otherwise cannot be a Sessions 14 152 Quantum meruit Will lie for Rent reserved upon a real Contract where the Sum is not certain but if a Sum in gross is reserved then Debt must be brought 73 R. Record ERror shall not be assigned against the Essence of a Record 141 Recovery Common Reversed without a Scire Facias to the Tertenants but it seems not to be good 119 2. For there must be a Scire Facias against the Heir and Tertenants when a Writ of Error is brought to reverse it 274 Relation Where an Estate shall pass by Relation where not 299 300 Release Of a Legacy by one Executor and also of all Actions Suits and Demands whatsoever those general words which follow are tied up to the Legacy and release nothing else 277 2. Of a Demand will not discharge a growing Rent 278 3. A Receipt was given for 10 l. in which there was a Release of all Actions Debts Duties and Demands nothing is released but the 10 l. 277 4. Judgment against four Defendants who all joyned in a Writ of Error and the Plaintiff pleaded a Release of Errors by one it shall not discharge the rest of a personal thing but if there had been four Plaintiffs to recover the Release or death of one is a Barr to all 109 135 249 5. A Release of all Actions will discharge an Award of Execution upon a Scieri Facias 185 187 6. Of all Actions and Demands doth not discharge a Legacy it must be by particular words 279 7. One of the Defendants who made Conusance released the Plaintiff after the taking of the Cattle this was held void upon a Demurrer for he had no Demand or Suit against the Plaintiff having distrained in the right of another ibid. Remainder See Entry 3. Fines levied 4. Must take place eo instanti the particular Estate is determined or else it can never arise 309 2. By the Conveyance of the Reversion in Fee to him who had the Estate for Life before the Birth of a Son the particular Estate is merged and all contingent Remainders are thereby destroyed 311 Replevin Where 't is brought by Writ the Sheriff cannot make deliverance without the taking of Pledges de prosequendo retorn ' Habend ' 35 Replication Where the Plaintiff confesseth and avoideth he ought not to traverse for that would make his Replication double 318 Request When a thing is to be done upon Request the time when the person requires it to be done is the time of the performance 295 Reservation Of a Rent upon a Lease for three years payable at Michaelmas and Lady-Day Debt was brought for 2 years without shewing at which of the Feasts it was due 't is good after Verdict but ill upon a Demurrer 70 Resignation See Abeiance To the Ordinary and Patron presented 'ts void if the Ordinary did not accept the Resignation 297 Reversion See Bargain and Sale Surrender 2. Tenant in Tail who had likewise the Reversion in Fee if he acknowledge a Judgment the Reversion may be extended 256 2. But a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate Tail is not Assets until it comes into possession 257 3. By what words a Reversion in Fee passeth in a Will 228 Revocation A Will shall not be revoked by doubtful words 206 2. It might be revoked by Word without Writing before the Statute of Frauds 207 3. Before that Statute a Will might be revoked by a subsequent Will which was void in it self yet good to revoke the former 207 218 4. A subsequent Will which doth not appear shall not be any Revocation of a written Will which doth appear 204 205 206 5. Whether a subsequent Will which is void in it self may revoke another since the Statute of Frauds 218 6. Such a Will must be good in all circumstances to revoke a former 260 261 Riot See Information Robbery The Hundred was sued and it did not appear that the Parish where the Fact was laid to be done was in the Hundred or that it was done upon the High way or in the day time this was helped after Verdict 258 2. A Servant delivered Mony to a Quaker to carry home for his Master they were both robbed viz. the Servant of 26 s. and the Quaker of 106 l. the Servant made Oath of the Robbery and the Quaker refused the Master brought the Action it doth not lie for him 287 288 S. Scire Facias See Bail 3 4. Baron and Feme 1 4 5. Iudgment 2. Pledges 1. Recovery MUst be to the Tertenants before the Common Recovery shall be reversed by Writ of Error 119 2. Scieri Facias quare Executionem non habet recites the first Judgment but prays no new thing only to have Execution upon that Judgment 187 3. 'T is not an original but a judicial Writ and depends upon the first Judgment 187 4. 'T is suspended by Writ of Error and if the original Judgment is reversed that is so also ibid. 5. Debt will lie upon a Judgment had on a Scire Facias 188 189 6. A Judgment upon a Scire Facias is a distinct Action from the original cause 189 7. Judgment in Dower and a Writ of Enquiry of Damages the Woman marries and dies before the Writ of Enquiry executed the Husband administred and brought a Scire Facias upon the Judgment whether it lieth or not 281 Serjeants at Law See Iudges Surplusage See Inquisition Steward See Court Supersedeas See Parliament Surrender See Assent 1 2. Where it may be pleaded without an acceptance 297 2. No man can take it but he who hath the immediate Reversion 299 3. If pleaded without an Acceptance 't is aided after Verdict which shews 'tis no Substance 301 4. By one Non compos mentis 't is void ab initio 303 T. Tail DEvise to D. for Life the Remainder to her first Son and the Heirs of the Body of such first Son endorsed thus viz. Memorandum that D. shall not alien from the Heirs Males of her Body she had a Son who had Issue a Daughter 't is not an Estate Tail Male for the Memorandum shall not alter the Limitation in the Will
shall not alien or sell the Lands given to her from the Heirs Male of her Body lawfully to be begotten but to remain upon default of such Issue to W. and the Heirs Males of his Body to be begotten according to the true intent and meaning of this my Will Dorothy Hopkins had Issue Richard who had Issue Henry who had Issue a Daughter now the Defendant The Question was Whether the Son of Dorothy did take an Estate Tail by this Will to him and to the Heirs of his Body in general or an Estate in Tail Male This Case was argued in Michaelmas Term 36 Car. II. And in the same Term a year afterwards by Council on both sides Those who argued for the Plaintiff held that the Son had an Estate in Tail Male and this seems plain by the intention of the Testator that if Dorothy had Issue Daughters they should have no benefit for no provision is made for any such by the Will and therefore the Daughter of her Son can have no Estate who is more remote to the Testator This is like the Case of Conveyances Turnam vers Cooper 2 Cro. 476. Poph. 138. id 25 Ass pl. 14. wherein the Habendum explains the generality of the precedent words as if Lands be given to Husband and Wife and to their Heirs habendum to them and the Heirs of their Bodies Remainder to them and the Survivor to hold of the chief Lord with Waranty to them and their Heirs this is an Estate Tail with a Feé expectant So it is here tho' the first words in the Will extend to Heirs which is general yet in the Memorandum 't is particular to Heirs Males and the words Heirs and Issues are of the same signification in a Will The Memorandum is a confirmation of the Will Ex parte Def. and the construction which hath been made of it is not only inconsistent with the Rules of Law but contrary to the intent of the Testator and against the express words of his Will Cases upon Wills are different from those which arise upon Deeds because in Conveyances subsequent words may be explanatory of the former but in Wills the first words of the Testator do usually guide those which follow As if Land be devised for Life Dyer 171 a. 1 And. 8. id Golds 16. Moor 593. Remainder to F. and the Heirs Males of his Body and if it happen that he dye without Heirs not saying Males the Remainder over in Tail this was held not to be a general Tail but an Estate in Tail Male therefore the Daughter of F. could not inherit Now to construe this to be an Estate Tail Male doth not only alter the Estate of the Sons of Dorothy but of the Issue of W. and nothing is mentioned in this Memorandum of the Limitation over to Jones so that the whole Will is altered by it But this Memorandum cannot enlarge the Estate of Dorothy because 't is inconsistent with the intention of the Testator who gave her only an Estate for Life by the Will but if she should have an Estate Tail she might by Fine and Recovery bar it and so alien it contrary to his express words Besides there is no Estate limited to Dorothy by this Memorandum and she having an express Estate for Life devised to her by the Will it shall never be enlarged by such doubtful words which follow As where a Man had 100 Acres of Land 2 Leon. 226. Moor 593. called by a particular Name and usually occupied with a House which House he lett to S. with 40 Acres parcel of that Land and then devised the House and all the Lands called by that particular Name c. to his Wife Adjudged she should only have the House and the 40 Acres and that the Devise shall not be extended by implication to the other sixty Acres So that to make the design of this Will and Memorandum to be consistent the latter words must be construed only to illustrate the meaning of the Testator in the former Paragraph of the Will and must be taken as a farther declaration of his intention Viz. that the Heirs Males mentioned in the Memorandum is only a description of the Persons named in the Will The Law doth usually regard the intention of the Testator and will not imply any contradictions in his Bequests The Court was of Opinion that it was a plain Case Judicium for in the Limitation 't is clear that 't is a general Tail and it doth not follow that the Testator did not design any thing for his Grandaughters because no provision was made for Daughters For where an Estate is entailed upon the Heirs of a Man's Body if he hath a Son and a Daughter and the Son hath Issue a Daughter the Estate will go to her and not to the Aunt Now this Memorandum doth not come to make any alteration in the Limitation because it directs that the Estate shall go according to the true intent and meaning of the Will and is rather like a Proviso than an Habendum in a Deed. And therefore Iudgment was given accordingly for the Defendant DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Hicks versus Gore ON Tuesday the 17th day of November there was a Trial at the Barr by a Somerset-Shire Iury in Ejectment The Case was thus The Plaintiff claimed the Lands by virtue of the Statute of 4 5 Ph. Mar. cap. 8. by which 't is enacted That it shall not be lawful for any person to take away any Maid or Woman Child unmarried and within the Age of sixteen years from the Parents or Guardian in Soccage and that if any Woman Child or Maiden being above the Age of twelve years and under the Age of sixteen do at any time assent or agree to such person that shall make any Contract of Matrimony contrary to the Form of the Act that then the next of Kin of such Woman Child or Maid to whom the Inheritance should descend return or come after the decease of the same Woman Child or Maid shall from the time of such Assent and Agreement have hold and enjoy all such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments as the said Woman Child or Maid had in Possession Reversion or Remainder at the time of such Assent and Agreement during the Life of such person that shall so contract Matrimony and after the decease of such person so contracting Matrimony that then the said Land c. shall descend revert remain and come to such person or persons as they should have done in case this Act had never been made other than him only that so shall contract Matrimony Benjamin Tibboth being seised in Fee of the Lands in question to the value of 700 l. per annum had Issue a Son and four Daughters the Son had Issue Ruth his only Daughter who was married to the Defendant Gore her Father died in the time of her Grandfather and her Mother
place as the Parish of St. James Westminster only And upon a Demurrer it was argued that this Plea was not good for it being in Abatement the Appellee ought to have pleaded over to the Murder Cro. Eliz. 694. so it was adjudged in the Case of Watts and Brain the Pleadings of which Case are at large in my Lord Coke's Entries 2. He ought to have pleaded in person and not by Attorney the Statute of Gloucester is plain in this Point Curia If the Plea is in Abatement and the Party doth not answer over to the Murder yet that doth not oust him of his Plea but the Appellant ought to have prayed Iudgment 'T is a Question whether he ought to plead over to the Felony or not for the Presidents are both ways there is no Iudgment entred Proud versus Piper THere was a Libel brought in the Spiritual Court for a Mortuary Mortuary due only by Custom 21 H. 8. c. 6. The Defendant suggests that by the Statute of H. 8. no Mortuary ought to be paid but in such places where it had been usually paid before the making of that Statute and that there was no Custom in this place to pay a Mortuary and it was thereupon moved for a Prohibition Cro. Eliz. 151. for Mortuaries are not due by Law but by particular Custom of places 'T is true 2 Inst 491. 1 Cro. 237. Seld. of Tithes 287. a Prohibition was denied in the Case of * Sid. 263. Mark and Gilbert but it was because 't was admitted that there a Mortuary was due by Custom but they differed in the person to whom it ought to be paid Curia Prohibitions have been granted and denied upon such Suggestions therefore the Defendant was ordered to take a Declaration in a Prohibition as to the Mortuary and to try the Custom at Law Lutwich versus Piggot IN Ejectment for Lands in Northumberland Lease whether made pursuant to the power in the Reservation tried at the Bar the Case was thus viz. Peter Venables was seised in Fee of the Manor of Long Witton in the said County and being so seised made a Settlement thereof by Lease and Release to the use of himself for Life without impeachment of Waste then to the Trustees for seven years to raise Portions for Daughters then to William Venables and the Heirs Male of his Body and if he dye without Issue then to Ann his Daughter for Life with Remainders over In which Settlement there was this Proviso viz. Provided that it shall be lawful for William Venables by Will or Deed to dispose of any part of the said Manor to his Wife for Life And another Proviso to this purpose viz. Provided that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said William Venables by any Deed in Writing under his Hand and Seal to Demise for 3 Lives or 21 years or under or for any time or term of years upon one two or three Lives or as Tenant in Tail in Possession may do all or any part of the said Manor Lands c. which were in Lease for the space of forty years last past The Defendants Title was a Lease for 99 years made by the said William Venables to one Mary Venables if three Lives should so long live And the Question was whether that Lease was pursuant to the power in the last Proviso It was objected that it was not for it ought to be a Lease for 21 and not 99 years determinable for three Lives But the Plaintiff was Non-Suit Rex versus Fairfax al. AN Order made at the Quarter-Sessions of Gloucester Who shall be bound to take an Apprentice in Husbandry was removed hither confirming another made by the Iustices there for placing of a poor Boy to be an Apprentice in Husbandry and it was moved that it might be quashed Mr. Pollexfen argued that the Iustices had no power given them by the Law to compel a Man to take such an Apprentice and this will depend upon the construction of such Statutes which relate to this matter The first is that of Queen Elizabeth which enacts 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Paragraph 25. that for the better advancing of Husbandry and Tillage and to the intent such who are fit to be made Apprentices to Husbandry may be bound thereunto that every person being an Housholder and having or using half a Plough Land at the least in Till age may take any to be an Apprentice above ten and under eighteen years to serve in Husbandry until the Party be of the Age of twenty one or twenty four years the said Reteiner and taking of an Apprentice to be by Indenture Now before the making of this Statute the practice of putting out poor Children was only in Cities and great Towns to particular Trades and Employments The next Statute is 43 Eliz. by which power is given to the Church-Wardens or Overseers of the Poor 48 Eliz. cap. 2. to raise weekly or otherwise by Taxation of every Inhabitant such competent Sum or Sums of Mony as they shall think fit for relief of the Poor and putting out of Children to Apprentice And then in the fifth Paragraph power is given to them by the Assent of two Iustices of Peace to bind poor Children where they shall see convenient c. which words were the foundation for the making of this Order But the construction thereof can be no otherwise than viz. Whereas before the making of this Act poor Children were bound Apprentices to Tillage now the Church-wardens may raise Mony to bind them out to Trades for if they could compel Men to take them what need was there of raising Mony to place them out This must be the natural construction of that Law 1 Jac. cap. 25. Paragraph 23. which appears yet more plain by the words of a subsequent Statute which continues that of the 43th of Eliz. with this addition that all persons to whom the Overseers of the Poor shall according to that Act bind any Children to Apprentice may take receive and keep them as Apprentices 'T is true the general practice of putting out poor Children seems to warrant this Order but this hath been occasioned upon a Mistake in Mr. Dalton 's Book Dalt 114. who Reported the Resolution of the Iudges in 1633. to be That every Man who by his calling profession or manner of living and who entertaineth and must use Servants of the like quality such must also take Apprentices By this Resolution the Iustices of Peace have been governed ever since But Iustice Twisden would often say that those were not the Resolutions of the Iudges as Reported by Mr. Dalton and therefore the Book was mistaken 2. The Order it self doth not mention that the party to whom this poor Boy was bound Apprentice did occupy any Land in Tillage for so it ought to be otherwise the Overseers of the Poor may bind him to a Merchant or to an Attorny which he called a Free
first Son of the Body of the said Simon Leach my Brother lawfully to be begotten and to the Heirs Males of the Body of such first Son lawfully to be begotten with like Remainder in Tail Male to the second third fourth c. Sons and for default of such Issue to Sir Simon Leach my Kinsman being Son and Heir of Simon Leach of Cadley in the County of Devon ' Esquire deceased and to the Heirs Males of his Body lawfully to be begotten and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of me the said Nicholas Leach for ever They find that Nicholas Leach died without Issue that Simon Leach his Brother and Heir with Remainder over in Contingency as aforesaid entered and afterwards married Anne the Daughter of Unton Croke and that after the said Marriage viz. 20 August 25 Car. 2. he executed a Deed purporting a * Two months before a Son was born Surrender of the said Lands and Tenements to Sir Simon Leach in manner following viz. To all Christian People c. I Simon Leach of Elsefield in the County of Oxon Esquire send greeting Know ye that I the said Simon Leach for divers good Causes and valuable Considerations me hereunto moving have granted surrendred remised released and for ever quit claimed and confirmed and by these Presents do grant surrender remise release and for ever quit claim and confirm unto Sir Simon Leach of Cadley in the County of Devon Knight of the Bath and his Heirs and Assigns for ever all and every the Mannors c. To have and to hold the same to the said Sir Simon Leach for ever They find that Simon Leach Brother of the Testator was not compos mentis at the time of the sealing and delivery of the said Surrender That on the 10th day of November 25 Car. 2. which was two Months after this Surrender made the said Simon Leach had Issue of his Body Charles Leach who is his Son and Heir that he after the death of his Father entred and made a Lease to Tompson by vertue whereof he was possessed until the Defendant Sir Simon Leach entred upon him c. Two Questions were made upon this Special Verdict 1. Whether this Surrender by a person Non compos mentis was void ab initio and so could pass no Estate to the Surrendree for if so then though the Ideot himself is estopped by his own Act yet that can be no Barr to him in the Remainder because the Act being void the Estate in Law still remains in him 2. If it is not void in its self then whether it is voidable after the death of the Party by Charles Leach he claiming by virtue of a collateral Remainder and not as Heir at Law to the Devisor As to the first Point it was argued that the Cases of Lunaticks and Infants go hand in hand and that the same Reasons govern both that the Law is clear that a Surrender made by an Infant is void therefore a Surrender made by a person Non compos mentis is also void Fleta lib. 1. c. 11. num 10. the reason is because they know not how to govern themselves And as Fleta saith Semper judicabuntur infra aetatem F.N.B. 202. a. Regist 238. b. if he makes any Conveyance of his Land the Law hath provided a remedial Writ even for himself to avoid his own Alienation His Feoffments are void 39 H. 6.42 Bract. fol. 12. no. 5. fol. 100 120. Brit. cap. 34. fol. 88. Perk. 5. pl. 21. and if Warranties are annexed those they are also void if he granteth a Rent-Charge out of his Land that is likewise void and if the Grantee should distrain for this Rent after the death of the Grantor his Heir shall have an Action of Trespas against him and therefore by parity of Reason this Surrender must be void In Fitzherbert Tit. Grantee pl. 80. there is a Case to this purpose viz. An Assize was brought against the Tenant supposing that he had no right of Entry unless under a Disseisor by whom the Brother of the Demandant was disseised The Tenant pleaded that the supposed Disseisor was the Father of the Demandant whose Heir he then was and that his said Father made a Feoffment of the Land to the Tenant with Warranty and demanded Iudgment c. The Demandant replied that his Father at that time was Non compos mentis and the Tenant was compelled to rejoin and take Issue upon the Insanity which shews that if he was Non compos he could not have made such a Feoffment So if he maketh a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards taketh back an Estate for Life Fitz. Remitter pl. 23. the Non compos shall be remitted to his ancient Title which shews likewise that such Feoffment was void for the Remitter supposeth a former Right 'T is incongruous to say that Acts done by persons of no discretion shall be good and valid in the Law such are Infants and Lunaticks and it stands with great reason that what they do should be void especially when it goes to the destruction of their Estates Therefore 't is held that if a person Non compos releaseth his right that shall not barr the King in his Life time but he shall seize the Land and if he die his Heir may bring the Writ Dum non fuit compos mentis and may enter 'T is for this reason that a Release made by an Infant Executor is no barr because it works in destruction of his Interest 5 Co. 27. Russel 's Case 34 Ass pl. 10. the reason is the same where a person Non compos maketh a Feoffment for that likewise destroys his Estate So likewise an Infant can neither surrender a future Interest by his acceptance of a new Lease Cro. Car. 502. nor make an absolute Surrender of a Term of which he is possessed for such a Surrender by Deed is void 'T is agreed that if a Man Non compos maketh a Feoffment by Letter of Attorny 't is meerly void because 't is not delivered to the Feoffee by the hands of the Feoffor but 't is said that if it be delivered by him in person then 't is only voidable at any time by Action or Entry Finch 's Law 102. And of this Opinion was Sir Henry Finch in his Discourse of the Law who in the Margen of his Book quotes several Authorities in the Year Books to justifie this Opinion and amongst the rest he cites Sir Anthony Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 35 Ass pl. 10. who taking notice of the old Authorities seems to reject their Reasons who affirm a person Non compos shall not avoid his own Act when he recovers his memory because he cannot then tell what he did when he was in his former Condition But certainly when he recovers his Iudgment he is then of Ability to consider what was done during his Insanity and to avoid such Acts by shewing how his indisposition came by the
Man from having any Office whatsoever who shall affirm the King to be a Papist 13 Car. 2. cap. 1. that is a person who endeavours to introduce Popery 2. But if the word Papist is not actionable of it self yet as coupled with his Offices 't is otherwise and the Plaintiff may well maintain this Action And of that Opinion was all the Court So the Iudgment was affirmed Malloon versus Fitzgerald ERror of a Iudgment in Ireland Where an Estate Tail shall not be determined for want of notice of a Proviso to determine it for Lands in the County of Waterford the Case upon the special Verdict was this John Fitzgerald was seized in Fee of the Lands in question who had Issue Katherine his only Daughter He by Lease and Release made a Settlement of those Lands upon the Earl of Ossory and other Trustees therein named and their Heirs to the use of himself for Life and after his Decease to the use of his Daughter Katherine in Tail Provided that she Married with the consent of the said Earl and the Trustees or the major part of them or their Heirs some worthy person of the Family and Name of Fitzgerald or who should take upon him that Name immediately after the Marriage but if not then the said Earl should appoint and raise a Portion out of the said Lands for the Maintenance of the said Katherine with a Remainder to Laetitia in Tail John Fitzgerald died his Daughter being then but two years old She afterwards at the Age of fourteen had Notice of this Settlement but not by the Direction of the Trustees That on the 20th of March in the 16th year of her Age she Married with the Plaintiff Edward Villiers Esq without the consent of the Trustees or the major part of them and that her Husband Mr. Villiers did not take upon him the Name of Fitzgerald after the said Marriage That Laetitia the Aunt was married to Franklyn who likewise did not take upon him the Name of Fitzgerald 1. The Questions were Whether the Estate limited to Katherine be forfeited without Notice given to her of the Settlement by the Trustees themselves 2. Whether her Estate be not determined by her marrying Mr. Villiers without their consent And it was argued That the Estate Tail was determined And first as to the point of Notice 't is not necessary to be given to the Daughter because the Father had not made it in the Settlement He might dispose of his Estate at his pleasure and having made particular Limitations of it there is no room now for the Law to interpose to supply the defect of Notice in the Deed. And to this purpose the Mayor of London 's Case was cited which was That George Monox Devised certain Houses to his Executors in Trust and their Heirs Cro Car. 576. Idem Jones 452. upon condition to pay mony to several Charitable uses which if not performed then he devised them over to his Heir in Tail upon the same Conditions and if not performed by him then to the * The Devise to him was void because it was a possibility upon a possibility Mayor and Commonalty of London The Trusts were not performed by the first Devisees A Stranger entered and levied a Fine with Proclamations and five Years passed Then the Mayor of London brought his Action supposing he had a right of Entry for the non performance of the Trusts but was barred by the Fine although it was argued for him that he had not notice of the Devise or breach of the Trust till after the Fine levied which shews that Notice was not necessary for if it had been so when his Title accrewed he could not have been barred by the Fine As Katherine the Daughter takes notice what Estate she hath in the Land so as to pursue a proper Remedy to recover it so she ought to take notice of the Limitations in the Settlement and hath the same means to acquaint her self with the one as with the other and the same likewise as her Aunt had to know the Remainder Suppose a Promise is made to indempnifie another from all Bonds which he should enter into for a third person 2 Cro. 432. Hob. 51. Jones 207. Pop. 164. and then an Action is brought against him wherein the Plaintiff declared that he was bound accordingly and not saved harmless but doth not shew that he gave notice of his being bound yet the Plaintiff shall recover As to the Case of a Copyholder having three Sons who surrendred to the use of his Will 2 Cro. 56. and then devised to his middle Son in Fée upon condition to pay Legacies to his Sisters at full age which were not paid Now tho' it was adjudged that his Estate was not determined upon the non-performance of this Condition without an actual demand and denial and that he was not bound to take notice of the full age of his Sisters yet this is not an Authority which can any wise prevail in this Case because 't is a * If the Devise had been to the eldest Son then it had been a Limitation annexed to his Estate and not a Condition because if it had been a Condition it would have descended upon the Heir who could not be sued for the breach 1 Ventr 199. Rep. Canc. 140. Sid. Poph. 104. Condition to pay Legacies which is a thing in its nature not to be paid without a demand which implies notice In all Cases where Conditions are annexed to Estates to pay Mony there notice is necessary but where Estates are limited upon the performance of collateral acts 't is not necessary And this has been held the constant difference So is Fry and Porter 's Case which was this The Earl of Newport had two Daughters and he devised Newport House to the Daughter of his eldest Daughter in Tail which she had by the Earl of Banbury Provided and upon condition that she marry with the consent of her Mother and two other Trustees or the major part of them if not or if she should dye without Issue then he devised the said House to George Porter in Fee who was the Son of his youngest Daughter and who had married one Thomas Porter without her Fathers consent The Lady Ann Knowles the first Devisee married Fry without the consent of her Grandmother or Trustees and it was adjudg'd against her upon point of Notice that it was not necessary because her Grandfather had not appointed any person to give notice he might have imposed any Terms or Conditions upon his own Estate and all Parties concerned had the same means to inform themselves of such Conditions The third Resolution in Frances Case 8 Co. comes nearest to this now in question it was in Replevin the Defendant avowed the taking Damage Fesant The Plaintiff pleaded in Barr to the Avowry that R. Frances was seized in Fee of the place where c. and devised it to John who was his
which she had discontinued by joining in the Fine with her second Husband but yet it was adjudged no Forfeiture because it was not within the intent of the Statute to restrain Women to dispose of their own Estates but only such as came from the Husband So here Vses are in the nature of private Laws and must be governed by the like intention of the Parties now 't is not to be supposed that the Father did intend to disinherit his only Daughter and Heir without notice of this Settlement therefore though he had not appointed any person in particular to give her notice yet it must of necessity be presumed that his intention was that she should have the Estate unless she had refused upon notice to comply with those Conditions imposed upon her Now the Daughter being Heir at Law and so having a good Title by descent if there be any Conveiance made by her Ancestor to defeat that Title and to which she is a Stranger she ought by the Rules of Law and Reason to have notice of it and so is the express Resolution in Frances's Case where the Devise and the Feoffment were both made to the Heir at Law And the reason why in Fry and Porter's Case notice was not held necessary was because the Devise was to a Grandaughter who was not Heir at Law for the Earl of Newport had three Sons then living and therefore the Parties whom it concerned had the same means to inform themselves upon what Conditions they were to have the Estate 3. The notice here given was not sufficient for as the Ordinary himself in Green's Case ought to have given the Patron notice of the Deprivation before a Lapse should incurr so the Trustees here ought to give the Daughter notice of this Proviso before she shall lose her Estate for Non-performance of the Conditions on which she should take it especially since the notice she had of this Proviso was not certain for 't is said she had notice not to marry without the consent of the Trustees but 't is not shewed who they are or how she should apply her self to them Besides there is something in this Proviso which the finding in the Verdict will not supply for it may be literally true that the Daughter married without the consent of the Trustees and yet no breach of the Condition because the Proviso is to restrain her from marrying without the consent of them or their Heirs now it was not found that the Feoffees were then living and if they were dead their Consent cannot be required and she might have the consent of their Heirs Mr. Franklyn who was the Husband of Laetitia the Aunt in Remainder hath likewise forfeited that Estate which he hath or may have in right of his Wife if she had any right by not taking upon him the name of Fitzgerald for if the Father would have disinherited his Daughter for Non-performance of this Proviso a fortiori he shall be intended to disinherit his Sister for making frustrate his desire in the settlement of his Estate In Easter-Term following Iudgment was given That the Estate Tail was not determined for want of notice according to the resolution in Frances's Case Hinton versus Roffey AN Action of Debt was brought against the Defendant In pleading the Statute of Usury the Agreement and the Sum taken must be set out 12 Car. 2. c. 13. who pleaded the Statute of Usury but did not shew any particular Agreement only in general that he was indebted to the Plaintiff in a Sum not exceeding 180 l. neither did he seth forth when the Interest of the Mony did commence and on what day it became due And upon a Demurrer it was objected that this Plea was too general because the Defendant ought to shew in particular what the Sum was in which he was indebted and how much the Plaintiff took above 6 l. per Cent. for if the certainty thereof did not appear there could be no Fact applied to it But on the other side it was alledged that it was not material to shew the certain Sum which the Plaintiff took above 6 l. E contra per Cent. and therefore not necessary to set forth the particular Agreement between them for having pleaded and made a substantial Averment to bring his Case within it 't is well enough without shewing how much he took above six in the hundred And this Case was compared to Debt against an Administrator Moon versus Andrews Hob. 133. who pleaded in Bar a Iudgment c. and that he had fully administred and had not Assets praeterquam bona c. non attingen to 5 l. and upon Demurrer this was held a good Plea for though in strictness of Pleading the Defendant ought to have shewed the certain value of the Goods and not to have said non attingen to 5 l. yet the substance sufficiently appears that he had not more than 5 l. to satisfie a Debt of an 100 l. for which that Action was brought Jefferies Chief Iustice and the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff because the Defendant ought to have set forth the Agreement and to apply it to the Sum in the Declaration Smith versus Goodier IN Ejectment for the Mannor of Heythorpe Attornment must be proved where an Ejectment is brought for a Mannor parcel in Rent and Services c. Vpon Not-guilty pleaded there was a Trial at Bar by an Oxfordshire Iury. The Title of the Lessor of the Plaintiff was That Edmund Goodier Esquire was seized in Fee of the said Mannor part in Demesnes some part in Leases for years with Rent reserved and some part in Services and being so seized made a Feoffment in Fee to Sir John Robinson and Sir William Rider and their Heirs in Trust for Sir Robert Masham This Deed was dated in 1647. and the consideration was 5000 l. paid to Goodier there was a Letter of Attorny of the same date with the Deed and Livery and Seisin endorsed Serjeant Maynard who was of Council for the Defendant put the Plaintiff to prove an Attornment of the Tenants for having declared for a Mannor Lit. Sect. 553. 1 Roll. Abr. 293. parcel in Rents and Services those would not pass without an Attornment and of this Opinion was the whole Court but the Plaintiff would not prove an Attornment The Defendant made a Title under the Marriage Settlement of the said Goodier who in 17 Jacobi married Elizabeth Mees and then he setled the said Mannor upon himself for life and upon his Issue in Tail Male and that the Defendant was the Heir in Tail But on the other side it was insisted that this Settlement was fraudulent against the Purchasor Evidence of a Fraudulent Settlement and that it could not be thought otherwise because both the Original and Counterpart were found in Mr. Goodiers Study after his death and because he had made Oath before a Master in Chancery that there was no incumberance
is likewise insufficient for it sets forth the Deed of Settlement c. coram praetextu the Defendant juxta fiduciam in eo positam was possessed of the Office ad eorum voluntatem Now an Office is a thing which lies in Grant 1 Leon. 219. and cannot be transferred from one to another without Deed and here is no Deed pleaded and as no Estate at will can be granted of an Office without Deed so likewise there cannot be a deputation of such Offce without it If then there can be no Tenant at Will of an Office but by Deed and no such Deed is pleaded then Mr. Lenthal had no power to make a Deputation to Cooling but neither Tenant at will nor Tenant for Life can make a Deputy if in the very Grant made to them there is not an express Clause for the execution of the Office per se vel sufficientem Deputatum suum The substance of all which is viz. First here is no Tenant at will But admitting him to be so he hath no authority to make a Deputy and if he should appoint a Deputy he executes the Office without Authority and may suffer Escapes Lastly by pleading of this Deed he hath alledged that the Estate was in the Trustees and that they permitted him to enjoy the Office coram praetextu he did execute it and receive the Profits now this is too general and an issue cannot be taken upon such a Plea he should have pleaded positively that it was demised to him at will and that he made a Deputy and then also the authority in rolls is against him where 't is held 2 Rol. Ab … that the Marshal of the Kings-Bench may grant the Office for Life but cannot give power to such grantee to make a Deputy Now if a Tenant for Life cannot make a Deputy certainly a Tenant at will hath no power so to do But suppose a Deputy might be made his neglect in the execution of the Office shall make a Forfeiture of the Estate of the Grantee for Life It cannot be reasonably objected in this Case Rol. Abr. 155. that 't is any hardship for Mr. Lenthal to lose this Office for any defect in Pleading for admitting the Plea to be good yet there is a cause of Forfeiture because the Marshal of the King's Bench being a ministerial Officer is required by Law to be a person of such Ability as to answer all Escapes that so Men may have the benefit of their Suits for otherwise he having nothing to answer they may lose their Debts Now here by a secret Grant Mr. Lenthal hath conveyed the Estate out of himself and yet still continues Officer in possession by which means the People are deprived of the Remedy which the Law provides for them and this is a sufficient cause of Forfeiture Then as to the Trustees they have not said any thing of the Escapes 't is true Mr. Lenthal hath traversed those which are alledged to be voluntary but that signifies nothing to them because they cannot take any benefit by the Plea of another for every one must stand and fall by his own Plea If therefore their non-attendance be a Forfeiture the entruders shall not help them because they come in without any colour of Right But the Council on the other side argued this last Point first E contra which was thus Viz. A Man seised of the Inheritance of the Office of Marshal of this Court conveys it in Trust the cestui que trust enjoys it and receives the Profits the Question now is whether the non-attendance of the Trustees being never required by the Court be a Forfeiture of this Office And as incident to this Question it was debated whether Mr. Lenthal was Tenant at will T is no Forfeiture for they are not bound to attend It cannot be denied but that this Office doth concern the Administration of Iustice but 't is to be considered what Estate Mr. Lenthal hath in it He had once an Estate in Fee but if it had been for Life or in Tail it may be setled as this is done but not for years because it may then come to an Administrator If Mr. Lenthal be the cestui que use Co. Lit. 404. Godb. 64. then he hath an Estate of which the Law takes notice for he may be a Iuror at the Common Law 'T is plain that he hath an Estate created by operatian of the Law for he is Tenant at Will and for that reason the attendance of the Trustees is not necessary but if the Estate had been directly granted to them then the Office had been forfeited for Non-attendance It cannot be denied but that this Office may be granted at Will for so is Sir George Reynell's Case 9 Co. 98. now if it may be granted at Will by the Possessor it may likewise be so granted by him who hath an Estate created by the Law for fortior est dispositio legis quam hominis and in this Case no Inconveniency would happen for if the Will be determined then the Grantor is the Officer When Mr. Lenthal had assigned this Office to the Trustees and they by a subsequent Deed had declared it to be in trust for him and that he should take the Profits during life he hath thereby a legal Estate at Will for a Cestuy que Trust by Deed is a Tenant at Will It hath been objected that a Tenancy at Will of an Office is void and to prove this a Case in Jones's Rep. was cited Jones 128. but the reason of that Case is guided by the particular nature of that Office which could not be aliened without the consent of the King If this Office is not alienable in its nature then Mr. Lenthal hath still the Fee-simple but that will not be admitted But this is not only a bare Estate at Will but a Trust for Life and such a Trust which hath a legal construction Godbolt 6◠for if a Feoffment be made in Trust that he should convey the Estate to another which the Feoffee afterwards refused to do the Cestuy que Trust may bring an Action against him so if he should be returned on a Iury 't is no Exception to say that he hath not liberum tenementum and therefore he is not an incompetent person to have the charge of Prisons if he may be impannelled on a Iury to try men for their Lives 1. Then as to the first Question upon the last point whether Mr. Lenthal had done any thing to determine his Tenancy at Will The Grant of this Office by him to Cooling will not amount to a determination of his Will because 't is a void Grant 'T is true this is denied by my Lord Coke in his Comment upon Littleton Sect. 71. where he saith If Tenant at Will grant over his Estate and the Grantee entreth he is a Disseisor for though the Grant be void yet it amounts to a determination of his Will What
Release or Confirmation and then his Council should advise what sort of Conveyance is proper But here it is to make an Assignment and such as the Parties had agreed on If a Man should be bound to give another such a Release as the Iudge of the Prerogative Court shall think fit 5 Co. 23. Lambs Case 1 Rol. Abr. 424. pl. 8. the person who is so bound must procure the Iudge to direct what Release shall be given because the Condition is for his benefit and he hath taken upon him to perform it at his Peril 'T is usual for Men to have Council on both sides to put their Agreements into method but in this Case it being left generally as Council shall direct what reason can be given why the Defendants Council shall not be intended especially when it seems by the penning of the Covenant he shall For an Assignment is to be made as Council shall direct and here being a Verdict for the Plaintiff it must now be presumed that the Defendants Council was first to give the advice and then he was to make the Assignment E contra E contra It was argued that first as to the Verdict 't is not materially objected in this Case because the Plea is non est factum so that nothing of the special matter could come in Evidence Now admitting this Covenant to be general yet one of the Parties must make his choice of Council before he can entitle himself to an Action All Deeds are taken according to the general intendment and therefore by this Covenant his Council is to advise to whom the Assignment is to be made 3 Bulstr 168. for if the Council of the Defendant should advise an insufficient Deed that would not have saved his Covenant Befides the Plaintiff hath not averred that Council did not advise and therefore the Defendant could not plead any thing but non est factum Adjornatur Anonymus A Pleint was removed out of the Lord Mayors Court by Habeas Corpus the Return whereof was Exceptions to a By-Law that the City of London was an ancient City Incorporate and that time out of mind there was a Custom that the Portage and unlading of all Coals and Grain coming thither should belong to the Mayor and Aldermen c. That there was a Custom for them to regulate any Custom within the City c. Then they set forth an Act of Common-Council by which the Porters of Billingsgate were made a Fellowship and that the Meeters of Corn should from time to time give notice to the Porters to unlade such Corn as should arrive there and that no Bargeman not being Free of the said Fellowship shall unlade any Corn upon the Forfeiture of 20 s. to be recovered in an Action brought in the Name of the Chamberlain and that the Party offending shall have no Essoign or Wager of Law Then they set forth the Iudgment in the Quo Warranto and the re-grant and that the Defendant not being of the said Fellowship did unlade one hundred Quarters of Malt c. Serjeant Thompson took many Exceptions to this By Law but the most material were 1. It appears upon the Return that the City of London hath assumed an Authority to create a Fellowship by Act of Common Council which they cannot for 't is a Prerogative of the Crown so to do and they have not averred or shewed any special Custom to warrant such an Authority 2. They have made this By-Law too general for if a Man should carry and unlade his own Goods there he is lyable to the Forfeiture in which Case he ought to be excepted 3. This Act of Common Council prohibits Bargemen not being Free of the Fellowship of Porters to unlade any Coals or Grain arriving there and they have not averred that the Malt unladed did arrive c. so they have not pursued the words of the By-Law 4. They say in this Law Godb. 107. that the person offending shall have no Essoign or Wager of Law which is a Parliamentary Power and such as an inferiour Iurisdiction ought not to assume Adjornatur Beak versus Thyrwhit THere was a Sentence in the Court of Admiralty Whether Trover will lie for a Ship after Sentence in Admiralty for the same Ship concerning the Taking of a Ship and afterwards an Executrix brought an Action of Trover and Conversion for the same The Defendant after an Imparlance pleads that at the time of the Conversion he was a Servant to King Charles the Second and a Captain of a Man of War called the Phoenix and that he did seize the said Ship for the Governour of the East-India Company she going in a trading Voiage to the Indies contrary to the King's Prohibition c. And upon a Demurrer these Exceptions were taken to this Plea 1. The Defendant sets forth that he was a Servant to the King but hath not shewed his Commission to be a Captain of a Man of War 2. That he seized the Ship going to the Indies contrary to the King's Prohibition and hath not set forth the Prohibition it self It was Argued by the Council contra That it may be a Question whether this was the Conversion for which this Action is brought for it was upon the Sea and the Defendant might plead to the Iuisdiction of this Court the Matter being then under the Cognizance of the Admiralty But as to the Substance of this Plea 't is not material for the Defendant either to set forth his Commission or the King's Prohibition he hath shewed enough to entitle the Court of Admiralty to a Iurisdiction of this Cause and therefore this Court cannot meddle with it for he expresly affirmeth that he was a Captain of a Man of War and did seize this Ship c. which must be intended upon the Sea so that the Conversion might afterwards be upon the Land Cro. Eliz. 685. yet the original cause arising upon the Sea shall and must be tried in the Admiralty and it having already received a determination there shall not again be controverted in an Action of Trover The Case of Mr. 3 Keb. 785. Hutchinson was cited to this purpose who killed Mr. Colson in Portugal and was acquitted there of the Murder the Exemplification of which Acquittal he woduced under the great Seal of that Kingdom being brought from Newgate by an Habeas Corpus to this Court notwithstanding the King was very willing to have him tried here for that Fact the consideration whereof he referred to the Iudges who all agreed that he being already acquitted by their Law could not be tryed again here Adjornatur Smith versus Pierce A Special Verdict was found in Ejectment A Term for years was devised for payment of Debts the Remainder over in Tail he in Remainder enters and levies a Fine and settles the Land upon his Wife for life and dies the Wife surviving and the Debts not paid whether this Term is barred by
same to Mrs. Berkley for Life remainder over to Henry Killigrew in Tail and that he made Mrs. Berkley Executrix of his Will which was found in haec verba That afterwards in the year 1645. the said Sir Henry Killigrew made aliud Testamentum in Writing but what was contained in the said last mentioned Will juratores penitus ignorant They find that Sir Henry Killigrew in the year 1646. died seised of those Lands and that Mrs. Berkley conveyed the same to Mr. Nosworthy 's Father whose Heir he is and that the Defendant Sir William Basset is Cosin and Heir to Sir Henry Killigrew c. The Question upon this special Verdict was whether the making of this last Will was a revocation of the former or not It was argued this Term by Mr. Finch and in Michaelmas Term following by Serjeant Maynard for the Plaintiff that it was not a revocation In their Arguments it was admitted that a Will in it's nature was revocable at all times but then it must be either by an express or implied revocation That the making of this latter Will cannot be intended to be an implied revocation of the former for if so then the Land must also be supposed to be devised contrary to the express disposition in the first Will and that would be to add to the Record which finds Viz. that what the last Will was penitus ignorant It is possible that a subsequent Will may be made so as not to destroy but consist with a former for the Testator may have several parcels of Land which he may devise to many persons by divers Wills and yet all stand together A man may likewise by a subsequent Will revoke part and confirm the other part of a former Will and therefore admitting there was such a Will in this case 't is still more natural that it should confirm than revoke the other If the Testator had purchased new Lands and had devised the same by a subsequent Will no person will affirm that to be a revocation of the former Will When a Man hath made a disposition of any part of his Estate 't is a good Will as to that part so is likewise the disposal of every other part they are all several Wills tho' taken altogether they are an intire disposition of the whole Estate Nothing appears here to the contrary but that the latter Will may be only a devise of his personal Estate or a confirmation of the former which the Law will not allow to be destroyed without an express revocation The Case of Coward and Marshal is much to this purpose Cro. Eliz. 721. which was a devise in Fee to his younger Son and in another Will after the Testators Marriage to a second Wife he devised the same Lands to his Wife for Life paying yearly to his younger Son 20 s. It was the Opinion of Anderson and Glanvil that both these Wills might stand together and that one was not a revocation of the other because it appeared by the last Will that he only intended to make a Provision for his Wife but not to alter the Devise to his Son So where a Man had two Sons by several Venters Cro. Car. 24. Hodgkinson vers Whood Co. Lit. 22. b. 1 Co. 104. a. 319. b. and devises the Lands to his eldest Son for Life and to the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the Heirs Males of his second Son and the Heirs Males of their Bodies Remainder to his own right Heirs and then made a Lease of 30 years to his youngest Son to commence after the death of the Testator the youngest Son entred and surrendred the Term to his elder Brother who made a Lease to the Defendant and then dyed without Issue afterwards the youngest Brother entred and avoided this Lease made by his Brother It was held that the Lease thus made to him was not a revocation of the devise of the Inheritance to his Brother tho' it was to commence at the same time in which the devise of the Inheritance was to take effect but it was a revocation quoad the Term only that the elder Brother should not enter during that time for the devise shall not be revoked without express words and that tho' the Testator had departed with the whole Fee without reserving an Estate for Life to himself yet the Law created such an Estate in him till the future Vse should commence and in such case the right Heirs cannot take by Purchase but by Descent so that here the Inheritance in Fee simple was not vested in the elder Brother by Descent for then the Lease which he made would be executed out of the Feé and the younger Brother would be bound thereby But in the Case at the Bar there is no colour of a Revocation 1. Vpon the nature of the Verdict to which nothing can be added neither can it be diminished for whatever is found must be positive and not doubtful because an Attaint lies if the Verdict be false Therefore the Court cannot take notice of that which the Iury hath not found Now here the entry of the Iudgment is Viz. Quibus lectis auditis per Curiam hic satis intellectis c. But what can be read or heard where nothing appears That Case in the Year-Book of the 2 R. 3. 2 R. 3. f. 3. comes not up to this question it was an Action of Trespass for the taking of his Goods The Defendant pleaded that the Goods did appertain to one Robert Strong who before the supposed Trespass devised the same to him and made him Executor c. The Plaintiff replied that the said Strong made his last Will and did constitute him Executor And upon a Demurrer to this Replication because he had not traversed that the Defendant was Executor it was argued for the Plaintiff that this last Will was a Revocation of the former for tho' there were no express words of Revocation yet by the very making another the Law revoked the former and to prove this two Instances were then given viz. That if a Man devise his Lands to two and by another Will gives it to one of them and dies he to whom 't is devised by the last Will shall have it So likewise if the Testator by one Will giveth Lands to his Son and by another Will deviseth the same again to his Wife then makes an Alienation and taketh back an Estate to himself and dieth and in an Assise brought between the Widow and the Son he was compelled by the Court to shew that it was his Father's intention that he should have the Land otherwise the last Devisee will be entituled to it Now both these Instances are not sufficient to evince that the last Will in this Case was a revocation of that under which the Plaintiff claims because those Wills were contradictory to each other for by one the Land was devised to the Son and by the other to
question as forfeited to the Lady who entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant re-entred The single Question upon this special Verdict was whether this was a Forfeiture and so a good seisure to bind the right of an Infant It was argued for the Plaintiff in the Action that it was a good Seisure and a Forfeiture till the Infant should come of Age for as a Copyhold is established by Custom so likewise 't is Custom which obligeth the Infant to the Conditions thereof and therefore where one under Age hath an Estate upon a Condition to be performed by him 8 Co. 44. b. Whittingham 's Case Latch 199. Jones 157. and that Condition is broken during his Minority the Estate is lost for ever In this Case the Custom obligeth the Heir to be admitted that the Lord may be entituled to a Fine which if he should lose because his Tenant is an Infant then that priviledge of Infancy works a wrong which the Law will not permit 'T is true an Infant shall not be prejudiced by the Laches of another but shall be answerable for himself and therefore if he is Tenant of Lands and the Rent should be unpaid for two years and no Distress can be found a Cessavit lies against him and the Lord shall recover the Land because of the Non-performance which arises by his own default So if one under Age be a Keeper of a Gaol and suffer a Prisoner to escape out of Execution 2 Inst 382. an Action of Debt will lie against him upon the Statute of W. 2. It was agreed that such a Custom and Non-claim will not foreclose an Heir 8 Co. 100. Sir Rich. Letchford 's Case who is an Infant and beyond Sea at the time of his Ancestors Death though he is bound by the Custom to claim it at the next Court but that if he will come over and tender himself though after a Seisure he shall be admitted and so shall the person in this Case if after his Minority he offer himself to be admitted But it cannot be denied 2 Cro. 226. but that the Lord may seize when the Heir is beyond Sea till he return and tender himself to be admitted and by the same reason he may also seize in this case during the Minority A Temporary Forfeiture is no new thing in the Law Cro. Car. 7. for if a Feme Covert be a Copyholder and marrieth and her Husband makes a Lease for years without License of the Lord 't is a Forfeiture and shall bind her during the Coverture So the Law is Cro. El. 351. that the Lord may seize the Land till a Fine is paid for 't is a reasonable Custom so to do It hath been a good Custom for the Lord to assign a person to take the Profits of a Copyhold Estate descended to the Infant during his Minority without rendring an Accompt when he came of Age. 1 Leon. 266. 2 Leon. 239. So that all taht is to be done in this Case is to enforce the Infant to be admitted that the Lord may be entituled to a Fine The Inheritance is not bound but the Land is only seized quousque E contra It was argued that here is a general Seizure E contra which cannot extend to an Infant for he is not bound in a Writ of Right much less in an inferior Court after three Proclamations but if this had been a Temporary Seisure the Iury ought to have found it so which is not done There are many Authorities in the Books which affirm that an Infant is not obliged to be admitted during his Non-age 1 Leon. 100. 3 Leon. 221. or to tender the Fine in order to an Admittance that the Law was settled in this Point and therefore without any further Argument he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant Afterwards in Hillary-Term 1 Willielmi Mariae this Case was argued seriatim at the Bench three Iudges being of a contrary Opinion to the Chief Iustice for the affirming of the Iudgment Iustice Eyre premised two things 1. That he could not intend but that this Verdict had found an absolute Forfeiture the Iury having no way qualified it as to a certain time and therefore he would give a Iudgment upon the whole Record 2. He agreed that a Feoffment of an Infant was no Forfeiture at the Common Law and that as a particular Custom may bind an Infant for a time so it may barr him for ever but whether this Custom as 't is found in general words shall bind an Infant after three Proclamations is now the Question he not coming then to be admitted And he held that it shall not and that for these reasons 1. The Right of Infants is much favoured in the Law and their Laches shall not be prejudicial to them as to Entry or Claim upon a Presumption that they understand not their Right 1 Inst 380. 2 Inst 401. and therefore in a Cessavit per biennium which is a remedy given by the Statute of W. 2. and which extends to Infants Westm 2. c. 31. who have not the Land by descent for if a Cesser be in that Case the Infant shall have his Age because the Law intends that he doth not know what Arrerages to tender 'T is admitted that if an Infant doth not present to a Church within six Months or doth not appear within a year that his Right is bound but this is because the Law is more tender of the Church and the life of a Man than of the Priviledges of Infancy So if an Office of Parkship be given or descends to an Infant if the Condition in Law annexed to such an Office which is skill be not observed the Office is forfeited But that a Proclamation in a base Court should bind an Infant when he is not within the reason of the Custom is not agreeable either to Law or Reason 2. Cro. Jac. 80. Cro. El. 879. Noy 42. 1 Rol. Abr. 568. All Customs are to be taken strictly when they go to the destruction of an Estate and therefore a Custom was that if a Copyholder in Fee surrender out of Court and the Surrendree doth not come in after three Proclamations the Lord shall seize it A Copyholder in Fee surrendred to another for Life the Remainder over in Fee if the Tenant for Life will not come in he in the Remainder shall not be barred for the Custom shall be intended to extend only to those in possession But the Infant in this Case is not within the Letter of the Custom for 't is found that the Surrender was made to one Freeman who died before the next Court-day and that John Freeman the Infant was his Son and Heir so they have found a Title in him for the word Heir is not here a word of Purchase but of Limitation 3. Jones 157. Noy 92. Infants are not bound by other Customs like this as a Custom that every Copyholder
on the 29th day of April seize the Goods of the said Toplady that after the seizure and before any Venditioni exponas viz. 4 Maij an Extent which is a Prerogative Writ issued out of the Exchequer against two persons who were indebted to the King and by inquisition this Toplady was found to be indebted to them whereupon parcel of the Goods in the Declaration was seized by the Sheriffs upon the said Extent and sold and the Mony paid to the Creditors but before the said Sale or any execution of the Exchequer Process a Commission of Bankrupcy was had against Toplady and that the Commissioners on the second of June assigned the Goods to the Plaintiff The Question was whether this Extent did not come too late And it was held it did or whether the Fi. Fa. was well executed so that the Assignees of the Bankrupts Estate could not have a Title to those Goods which were taken before in Execution and so in Custodia Legis And it was held that they had no Title Fitzgerald versus Villiers WRIE of Error upon a Iudgment in Dower Infant must appear by Guardian and the Error assigned was that the Tenant in Dower was an Infant and no Warrant was alledged of the admission of any Guardian 29 Assise pl. 67. Bridg. 74. Lib. Entr. 45. Hut 92. 4 Co. 53. Lit. 92. Hetl. 52. 3 Cro. 158. Moor 434. Hob. 5. that it might appear to be the act of the Court 't is true an Infant may sue by Prochein Amy but shall not appear by Attorny but by Guardian because 't is intended by Law that he hath not sufficient discretion to chuse an Attorny therefore 't is provided that he appear per Guardianum which is done by the Court who are always careful of Infancy and a special Entry is made upon the Roll. Viz. Per Guardianum ad hoc per Curiam admissum c. 2. The Appearance is by the Guardian in his own Name Viz. Et praedicta Katherina Fitzgerald per Richardum Power Guardianum suum venit dicit quod ipse c. it should have been in the name of the Party quod ipsa c. Adjurnatur Harrison versus Austin A Settlement was made as followeth Viz. What words amount to a Covenant to stand seised That if I have no Issue and in case I dye without Issue of my Body lawfully begotten then I give grant and confirm my Land c. to my Kinswoman Sarah Stokes to have and to hold the same to the use of my self for Life and after my decease to the use of the said Sarah and the Heirs of her Body to be begotten with Remainders over c. The Question was whether this did amount to a Covenant to stand seised so as to raise an use to Sarah without transmutation of the possession The Objection against it was Sid. 26. Moor 687. Dyer 96. 2 Roll. Abr. 786. Winch 59. Plowd 300. that Vses are created chiefly by the intention of the Parties and that by these words grant and confirm the Feoffor did intend the Land should pass at Common Law so it could not be a Covenant to stand seised 't is like the Case where a Letter of Attorny is in the Deed or a Covenant to make Livery there nothing shall pass by way of use but the possession according to the course of the Common Law and therefore there being neither Livery and Seisin or Attornment no use will pass to Sarah It cannot be a Bargain and Sale for that is only where a Recompence is on each side to make the Contract good besides 2 Inst 672. the Deed is not inrolled To this it was answered 1 Vent 137. that it shall be construed to be a Covenant to stand seised though the formal words are wanting to make it so and for that purpose it was compared to Fox 's Case 8 Co. 93. who being seised in Fee devised his Land to C. for Life remainder over for Life reserving a Rent and afterwards by Indenture in consideration of Mony did demise grant and set the same Lands to D. for 99 years reserving a Rent the Lessee for Life did not attorn in which Case there was not one word of any use or any attornment to make it pass by Grant and the Question was whether this Lease for years shall amount to a Bargain and Sale so that the Reversion together with the Rent shall pass to the Lessee without Attornment Hob. 277. and it was held that by construction of Law it did amount to a Bargain and Sale for the words import as much And in this Case it was adjudged that it was a Covenant to stand seised Hexham versus Coniers IN Ejectment the Plaintiff declared de uno Messuagio sive Tenemento An Ejectment will lye for a Tenement and had a Verdict but Iudgment was arrested because an Ejectment will not lye of a Tenement for 't is a word of an uncertain signification it may be an Advowson House or Land but it is good in Dower so is Messuagium sive Tenementum vocat ' the Black Swan for this addition makes it certain that the Tenement intended is a House Rex versus Bunny A Motion was made for a Melius inquirendum to be directed to a Coroner who had returned his Inquisition upon the death of Bunny that he was not compos mentis when in truth he was Felo de se But it was opposed by Serjeant Pemberton and Mr. Pollexfen who said that the Law gives great credit to the Inquest of a Coroner and that a Melius inquirendum is seldom or never granted tho' it appear to the Court upon Affidavits that the Party had his Senses Mod. Rep. 82. It hath been granted where any fault is in the Coroner or any incertainty in the Inquisition returned That there is such a Writ it cannot be denied Cro. Eliz. 371. but 't is generally granted upon Offices or Tenures and directed to the Sheriff 3 Keb. 800. but never to a Coroner in the case of a Felo de se who makes his Enquiry super visum Corporis DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 4 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1688. In Trinity-Vacation last Mr. Justice Holloway and Mr. Justice Thomas Powell had their Quietus and Mr. Serjeant Baldock and Mr. Serjeant Stringer were made Justices of this Court And Mr. Justice Allibon who was a Roman Catholick died in the same Vacation and Sir John Powell one of the Barons of the Exchequer was made a Justice of this Court Sir Thomas Jennor another of the Barons of the Exchequer was made a Justice of the Common-Pleas and Mr. Serjeant Rotheram and Mr. Serjeant Ingoldby were made Barons of the Exchequer Wright Chief Justice Powel Justices Baldock Justices Stringer Justices Shuttleworth versus Garnet Intratur Trin. 1 Willielmi Mariae Rotulo 965. THE Defendant was Tenant of Customary Lands held of the Manor of A. of which Manor B. was Lord
Intratur Trin. 1 W. M. Rot. 249. THis was a Trial at the Bar A Will shall not be revoked by a subsequent Writing unless that be also a good Will by a Wiltshire Iury in an Ejectment brought by the Plaintiffs as Heirs at Law to Ann Speke who died seized in Fee of the Lands in Question Vpon not Guilty pleaded this Question did arise at the Trial Whether the Answer of a Guardian in Chancery shall be read as Evidence in this Court to conclude the Infant There being some Opinions that it ought to be read and the Defendants Council insisting on the contrary Mr Iustice Eyres being the Puisne Iustice was sent to the Court of Common-Pleas then sitting to know their Opinions who returning made this Report That the Judges of that Court were all of Opinion that such Answer ought not to be read as Evidence for it was only to bring the Infant into Court and to make him a Party Then the Plaintiffs proceeded to prove their Title as Heirs at Law viz. by several Inquisitions which were brought into Court and by the Heralds Office The Defendants Title likewise was thus proved viz. That the Lady Speke being seised in Fee c. did by Will dated in March 1682. devise the Lands to John Petit for Life Remainder to the Defendant and his Heirs for ever That the Lady Speke died so seised that John Speke the Tenant for Life and Father to the Defendant was also dead c. This Will was proved by several Witnesses one of which likewise deposed that my Lady Speke made two other Wills subsequent to this now produced and a Minister prov'd that she burnt a Will in the Month of December which was in the year 1685. Then the Plaintiffs produced another Will made by her at Christmas 1685. attested by three Witnesses but not in the presence of my Lady so that though it might not be a good Will to dispose the Estate yet the Council insisted that it was a good Revocation of the other for 't is a Writing sufficient for that purpose within the sixth Paragraph of the Statute of Frauds The Case of Sir George Sheers was now mentioned whose Will was carried out of the Chamber where he then was into a Lobby and signed there by the Witnesses but one of them swore that there was a Window out of that Room to his Chamber through which the Testator might see the Witnesses as he lay in his Bed Vpon which Evidence the Iury found this special Verdict viz. That Ann Speke being seised in Fee c. did on the 12th day of March 1682. make her Will and devised the Lands to John Pettit for Life and afterwards to George his Son and to his Heirs for ever upon condition that he take upon him the Name of Speke That the 25th of December 1685. she caused another Writing to be made purporting her Will which was signed sealed and published by her in the presence of three Witnesses in the Chamber where she then was and where she continued whilst the Witnesses subscribed their Names in the Hall but that she could not see them so subscribing They find that the Lessors of the Plaintiff are Heirs at Law and that they did enter c. This matter was argued in Easter Term following and the Question was whether this Writing purporting a Will was a Revocation of the former or not and that depended upon the Construction of the sixth Paragraph in the Act of Frauds viz. All Devises of Lands shall be in Writing and signed by the party or some other in his presence and by his express Directions and shall be attested by three or four Witnesses c. and that such devise shall not be revocable but by some other Will or Codicil in Writing or other Writing c. declaring the same Now the want of Witnesses doth not make the last Will void in it self but only quoad the Lands therein devised it hath its operation as to all other purposes It must therefore be a Revocation of the former and this is agreeable to the Resolution of the Iudges in former times for there being nothing in the Statute of Wills which directs what shall be a Revocation 32 H. 8. cap. 1. Dyer 143. the Iudges in Trevilian's Case did declare that it might be by word of mouth or by the very intention of the Testator to alter any thing in the Will for before the late Statute very few words did amount to a Revocation Moor 429. 1 Roll. Abr. 614 615 616. If Lands are devised and afterwards a feoffment is made of the same but for want of Livery and Seisin 't is defective yet this is a Revocation of the Will though the Feoffment is void The Council on the other side argued that this Will was not void by any Clause in the Statute of Frauds E contra for if this is a Revocation within that Statute then this second Writing purporting a Will must be a good Will for if 't is not a good Will then 't is not a good Revocation within that Law No Man will affirm that the latter Writing is a good Will therefore the first being a Devise of Land cannot be revoked but by a Will of Land which the second is not This Statute was intended to remedy the mischief of parol Revocations and therefore made such a solemnity requisite to a Revocation It cannot be denied but that this latter Writing was intended to be made a Will but it wanting that perfection which is required by Law it shall not now be intended a Writing distinct from a Will so as to make a Revocation within the meaning of that Act. If a Man hath a power of Revocation either by Will or Deed and he makes his Will in order to Revoke a former this is a Writing presently but 't is not a Revocation as long as the person is living Therefore a Revocation must not only be by a Writing but it must be such a Writing which declares the intention of a Man that it should be so which is not done by this Writing Vpon the first Argument Iudgment was given for the Defendant that the second Will must be a good Will in all Circumstances to Revoke a former Will Cross versus Garnet THE Plaintiff declared that on such a day and year there was a discourse between him and the Defendant concerning the Sale of two Oxen then in the possession of the Defendant and that they came to an agreement for the same that the Defendant did then sell the said Oxen to the Plaintiff and did falsly affirm them to be his own ubi revera they were the Oxen of another Man The Plaintiff had a Verdict Cro. Eliz. 44. 1 Rol. Rep. 275. 2 Cro. 474 1 Roll. Abr. 91. More 126. Yel 20. Sid. 146. and Serjeant Thompson moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration was not good because the Plaintiff hath not alledged that the Defendant did affirm the
afterwards suffered If so then the contingent Remainders to the first and other Sons is destroyed 2. If the Estate was not vested in the Surrendree till his actual assent such assent shall not relate though after the execution of the Deed so as to pass the Estate at the very time it was sealed and delivered Iudgment being given in the Common-Pleas by the Opinion of three Iustices against Iustice Ventris that the contingent Remainder was not destroied by this Surrender because it was not good without the acceptance and till the actual assent of the Surrendree this Writ of Error was now brought upon that Iudgment This Case depended several Terms and those who argued to maintain the Iudgment insisted that here was neither a mutual agreement between the Parties or acceptance or entry of the Surrendree which must be in every Surrender these being solemn acts in such Cases required to the alteration of Possessions and to prevent Frauds That the Law hath a greater regard to the transmutation of Possessions than to the alteration of Personal things and therefore more Ceremonies are made requisite to that than to transfer a Chattel from one to another In all Feoffments there must be Livery and Seisin Quaere For if Tenant for Life surrender to him in Reversion the Surrendree hath a Freehold in Law before Entry Co. Lit. 266. b. 1 Inst 266. b. so in Partitions and in Exchanges which are Conveyances at the Common Law no Estate is changed until an actual Entry though in the Deed it self such Entry is fully expressed Here the Surrendree is a Purchaser of the Estate and yet did not know any thing of it than which nothing can be more absurd 'T is admitted that every Gift and Grant enures to the benefit of the Donee and Grantee but not where the assent of the Parties is required to compleat the act Assent and Dis-assent are acts of the Mind now 't is impertinent to say that a Man gave his Assent to a thing which he never heard A Lease for years is not good without Entry nor a Surrender without Acceptance Lane 4. 3 Cro. 43. 'T is no new thing to compare a Surrender to a resignation of a Benefice 2 Cro. 198. Dyer 294. Br. Abr. tit Bar 81. Yelv. 61. Sid. 387. now if an Incumbent should resign to the Ordinary and the Patron should afterwards present to that Living such presentation is void if the Ordinary had not accepted the resignation the reason is because a resignation doth not pass the Freehold to the Bishop but puts it only in Abeyance till his acceptance and 't is not an Objection to say that this is grounded upon an Ecclesiastical Right and not at the Common Law or that a Formedon will not lie of a Rectory for tho' 't is of Ecclesiastical Right yet 't is of Temporal Cognizance and shall be tried at Law The president in Rastal may be objected where the surviving Lessee for years brought an Action of Covenant against the Lessor for disturbing of him in his possession Rast Ent. tit Covenant 136. b. Owen 97. Dyer 28. Rast Enttit Debt 183 176. b. 177. a. Br. Sur. 39. Cro. Car. 101. Fitz. Abr. tit Bar 262. Co. Ent. 335. and the Lessor pleaded a Surrender to himself without an acceptance but the Plaintiff in that Case said nothing of a Surrender In the same Book a Surrender was pleaded ad quam quidem sursum redditionem the Plaintiff agreavit so in Fitzherbert 's Abridgment issue was joyned upon the acceptance which shews 't is a material point No inconvenience can be objected that an Assent is made a Legal Ceremony to a Surrender for 't is not inconvenient even in the Case of an Infant who by reason of his non-age is not capable to take such a Conveyance because he cannot give his assent but he may take the Land by way of Feoffment or Grant or any Conveyance of like nature without his Assent By the very definition of a Surrender Co. Lit. 337. b. Bro. tit Surrender pl. 45. Dyer 110. b. Fitz. 39. it plainly appears that there must be an assent to it for 't is nothing else but a yielding up of an Estate to him who hath the immediate Reversion or Remainder wherein the Estate for Life or Years may drown by mutual Agreement between the Parties 'T is true an Agreement is not necessary in Devises nor in any other Conveyances which are directed by particular Statutes or by Custom but 't is absolutely necessary in a Surrender which is a Conveyance at the Common Law 't is such an essential Circumstance that the Deed it self is void without it 't is as necessary as an Attornment to the Grant of a Reversion or an Entry to a Deed of Exchange which are both likewise Conveyances at the Common Law There are various Circumstances in the Books which declare what acts shall amount to an Acceptance or Agreement Cro. Eliz. 488. Owen 97. 31 Ass pl. 26. but it was never yet doubted but that an acceptance was necessary to a Surrender So in the Entries Fitz. tit Debt 149. 9 E 3.7 b. contra Rast Ent. 136. a Surrender is sometimes pleaded without an Acceptance but 't is always that the Surrendree by vertue of the Surrender expulit ejecit the Plaintiff which amounts to an Agreement The Law is so careful in these Conveyances Kelwway 194 195. Dyer 358. pl. 48. that it will not presume an assent without some act done if therefore a Deed cannot operate as a Surrender without an acceptance then in this Case no such shall be presumed because the Iury have found it expresly otherwise then by the birth of Charles Leach the contingent Remainder is vested in him which arising before the Assent of the Surrendree makes such assent afterwards void for there can be no intermediate Estate Besides if an Assent should not be necessary to a Surrender this inconvenience would follow viz. if a Purchaser should take in several Mortgages and Extents and keep them all on foot in a third persons name which is usual to prevent mean incumbrances and the Mortgagor should afterwards Surrender his Estate without the assent of the Purchaser if this should be held a good Conveyance in Law it would be of very mischievous consequence 2. If the Estate is not immediately transferred to the Surrendree at the sealing of the Deed without the assent of the Surrenderor it shall not pass afterwards when he gives his consent and that by way of Relation for if that should be allowed then the Surrenderor might have kept the Deed in his Pocket as well fifty as five years after the execution thereof which would be so prejudicial that no Man could be assured of his Title 'T is true when a Bargain and Sale is made of Land 2 Inst 675. 3 Co. 36. such a day c. and two days afterwards the Bargainor enters into a Recognizance then the Deed is inrolled within
they are not properly sua 278 Exposition of Words and Sentences See Number Subsequent words may explain a former Sentence in a Deed but in Wills the first words guide all which follow 82 2. Action was brought by Original for that the Defendant prosecut ' fuit adhuc prosequitur in the Admiralty those words adhuc prosequitur shall not be construed to make it subsequent to the Original but must refer to the time of suing it forth 103 157 3. Doubtful Words must be Expounded always against the Lessor 230 4. To make an Assurance to the Obligee and his Heirs the Conjuction and shall be taken in the disjunctive 235 F. Fair See Trade IF the place where it should be kept is not limited by the Grant it may be kept where the Grantee will 108 False Imprisonment It will not lye against a Sheriff for taking the Body by vertue of a Casa upon an Erronious Judgment for the Execution is good till avoided by Writ of Error 325 Fees Of the Clerks of the Crown-Office the Court will not regulate upon a Motion but if oppressive they must be indicted for Extortion 297 Fines levied See Tenant at Will 6. One of the Cognisors died before the return of the Writ of Covenant 't is Error but not in the case of a Purchaser for a valuable consideratino for the Court will interpose 99 2. If the Cognisor doth dye after the Entry of the Kings-Silver the Fine is good 140 3. Writ of Covenant Teste 15th of January returnable in Crastino Purificationis taken by Dedimus 18th of Januarii The Cognizor died in Easter-Week following but four days before her Death the Kings-Silver was entred as of Hillary-Term precedent this was held a good Fine 141 4. Where a person is in possession by vertue of a particular Estate for Life and accepteth a greater Estate it shall not divest the Estate of those in Remainder for Life so as the same may be barred by Fine and Non-claim 195 5. Lease for one hundred years in Trust to attend the Inheritance cestuy que Trust being in possession Demises to another for fifty years and levied a Fine and the five years passed the Term for a hundred years is divested by this Fine and turned to a right and so barred 196 6. In what Cases a Fine is a Bar and what not 198 Fines upon Admittance See Admittance Copihold Debt 2. Infant 9. The Judges are to determine whether it be reasonable or not 134 2. Lord cannot enter for non-payment of an unreasonable Fine 134 Forfeiture If Tenant for years make a Feoffment 't is a Forfeiture but if he make a Lease and Release ' tho 't is of the same Operation yet 't is no forfeiture 151 Fraud See Evidence G. Grants Grantor and Grantee WHere an Interest is coupled with a Trust in a Grant it shall go to the Executor of the Grantee 43 2. Grants must be certain otherwise they are void 134 Grants of the King Not good for the sole Printing of Blank Bonds exclusive of all other Printers 75 2. A Grant to restrain trading to particular places is good 77 3. But of sole making Cards not good because it restrains a whole Trade ibid. 4. A Grant cannot divest the Subject of a Right enjoyed long before it was made ibid. 5. Cannot discharge a person of a Duty to which he is made lyable by a subsequent Act of Parliament 96 6. Difference between his Grants and Prohibitions 7. Where his Grants ought to be taken very strictly 168 8. In a Quo Warranto the Defendant pleaded that the King was seised in Fee of a Franchise who granted it to another Habendum the Hundred whether good or not 199 Gun See Iustice of Peace 3. Conviction before a Justice of Peace upon the Statute of H. 8. for keeping a Gun not having 100 l. per Annum quashed because it was said non habuisset instead of nunquam Habuit 100 l. per Annum 280 H. Habendum WHere it shall be said to explain the general Words preceding 81 2. Nothing passes in the Habendum but what was mentioned in the Premisses 199 Heir Error by the Plaintiff ut Consanguineus Haeres viz. Filius c. 't is sufficient without shewing the descent from more Ancestors 152 2. Where he shall take by Descent and where by Purchase 205 3. In a Bond where the word Heir is a word of Limitation and not a designation of the person 233 4. Reversion in Fee descended to an Heir after the Estate Tail spent and an Action was brought against him upon a Bond of his Ancestor 't is not necessary that the Plaintiff name all the intermediate Remainders but him who was last actually seized of the Fee 255 Heriot Lease for 99 years if A. B. C. so long live paying an Heriot upon the death of either A. assigns the term no Heriot shall be taken of the Assignee 231 2 May seize or distrain for Heriot Service if distrain it may be the Beast of any man upon the Land but if he seise it must be the very Beast of the Tenant ibid. 3. Where an Heriot is reserved upon a Demise it differs from those which are due by Tenure 231 4. Lease for 99 years if M. and D. so long live reserving an Heriot after death of either provided if D. survive no Heriot to be paid but M. survived the Court was divided whether a Heriot should be paid 230 Highways A Man cannot be exempted from repairing by the Grant of the King if made before the Statute of Ph. Mar. which charges him to repair 96 Homine Replegiando Brought for a Monster and upon the Return of the Sheriff that he had replevyed the Body he was bailed 121 2. Brought for a young Woman taken out of her Parents Custody and married against her Consent 169 Hue and Cry See Robbery Hundred Court This Court was first derived from the County Court 200 2 Hundreds were usually granted to Abbots and their Possessions coming to the Crown by dissolution of their Abbies are merged and cannot be regranted 200 I. Ideot HOW it differs from a Lunatick 43 2. The King hath power to grant his Estate to any person without Accompt to be given ibid. 3. Grant of an Ideot by the King the Grantee dieth his Executor hath an Interest in him ibid. Ieoffails See Indictment 8. Travers 4. Variance 2. None of the Statutes help an insufficient Indictment 79 2. Variance between original and declaration not aided by the Statute of Ieofails 136 3. Want of concluding without a Travers is but matter of form and aided 319 Indictment For using of Alias Preces than enjoined by the Book of Common Prayer it may be upon an extraordinary occasion and so no Offence 79 2. For scandalous words whether it lieth as it doth for Libels the one being a private the other a publick Offence 139 3. For Baretry in soliciting of a Suit against another who was not indebted to the person 97
Remainder during her Life 84 2. There must be proof of the Stealing an Heiress either by slight or force to bring the person within the Statute of Phil. Mar. 169 3. There must be a continued disassent of the Parent or Guardian for if she once agree 't is an assent within the Statute though she or they disagree afterwards 169 4. Marriage de facto is triable in the Temporal Courts but de Jure in the Spiritual Court only 165 Mandamus Denied to restore a person to a Fellowship of a College 265 2. Denied to restore a Proctor to his Office in Doctors Commons 332 3. It hath been granted to restore an Attorny 333 4. It will not lye to restore a Steward of a Court-Baron 334 Master and Servant See Robbery 2. Where the Act of the Servant shall charge the Master 323 2. Where the Master may have an Action for a Robbery done upon the Servant 287 Melius Inquirendum Not granted but for a Misdemeanour in the Jury 80 2. It never helps a defective Inquisition 336 3. Whether it may be granted to a Coroner in the Case of a Felo de se who makes his Enquiry super visum corporis 238 Merchants See Custom Pleas and Pleading Misfeazance Not Guilty is a good Plea to any Misfeazance whatsoever 324 Misprision of Clerk See Amendment Mistrial 'T is not a Mistrial where the day and place of the Assises is left out of the Distringas for the Jurata is the Warrant to try the Cause 78 Mortuary 'T is not due but by particular Custom of the Place 268 Monopoly The Definition of it 131 N. Ne exeat Regum IS a Writ grounded upon the Common Law and not given by any particular Statute 127 2. It was brought to prevent a person who had married an Heiress without her Parents consent to go beyond Sea 169 Nolle prosequi Whether it may be entred after the Jury is sworn 117 Non compos Mentis If he releaseth his Right that shall not bar the King but he shall seize his Lands during Life 303 2. Surrender made by him is void 305 3. He may purchase Lands and may grant a Rent-Charge out of his Estate and shall not plead Insanity to avoid his own Acts 309 Notice See Executor 115. A Settlement was made in Trust for A. provided she married with the consent of Trustees Remainder to B. she married without consent Whether the Trustees ought not to give notice of this Settlement before the Marriage or whether the Estate is forfeited without notice 29 30 2. Where Conditions are annexed to Estates to pay Mony notice is necessary but where Estates are limitted upon performance of collateral acts 't is not necessary 30 3. Lapse shall not incur upon a Deprivation but after notice given to the Patron by the Ordinary himself 31 4. The Heir himself ought to have notice of such Conditions which his Ancestor hath put upon his Estate because he hath a good title by descent 34 5. Where it ought to be given of Debts to an Executor 115 Number Where the singular number shall be intended by the plural as by Children is meant Child 63 O. Obligation Obligor and Obligee DEbt upon Bond will not lie before the day of payment is past but it may be released before 61 2. Where the Debt is confessed under and Hand Seal whether that will amount to an Obligation 154 Office and Officer Whether the Office of Marshal of B.R. can be granted in Trust 145 2. It cannot be granted for years ibid. 3. Non-Attendance whether a Forfeiture or not 146 4. Non-Feazance is a Forfeiture ibid. 5. It lies in Grant and cannot be transferred without Deed 147 6. Neither a Judicial or a Ministerial Officer may make a Deputy unless there is an express Clause in the Grant that it may be executed per se vel Deputatum 147 150 7. Marshal of B. R. may grant that Office for Life but cannot give the Grantee power to make a Deputy 147 8. That Office may be granted at will 149 9. Deputy may be made without Deed 150 Ordinary Probate of Wills did not originally belong to him 24 2. He had no power at Common Law over the Intestate's Estate 25 3. An Action lay against him at Common Law if he got the Goods and refused to pay the Intestate's Debts 25 4. Was alone entrusted by the Common Law as to the distribution of the Intestates Estate 59 5. Afterwards by the Statute of W. 2. was bound to pay Debts so far as he had Assets 60 6. Then and not before an Action of Debt might be brought against him if he did dispose the Goods without paying Debts ibid. 7. By the Statute of the 31st of Ed. I. he was bound to grant Administration to the next of Kin ibid. 8. Afterwards by the Statute of 21 H. 8. was compelled to grant it to the Widow or next of Kin or both ibid. 9. Before the Statute of Distributions he always took Bond of the Administrator to distribute as the Ordinary should direct ibid. Outlary See 5 Ed. 6. For Treason cannot be reversed without the Consent of the Attorney-General 42 2. For Treason the Party was taken within the year but because he was apprehended and did not render himself he had not the benefit of the Statute 47 3. For Treason and a Rule of Court for the Execution of the person 72 4. For Murder against three persons it was reversed because it did not appear that the Court was held pro Comitatu 2dly 't is said Non comperuit but doth not say nee eorum aliquis comperuit 90 P. Pardon THE King hath power to pardon by general words as felonica interfectio for Murder 37 2. Where his Power is restrained by Act of Parliament yet a Non obstante is a Dispensation to it 38 3. A Suit was commenced for Dilapidations which is to have satisfaction for Damages sustained 't is not pardoned by these general words viz. Offences Contempts and Penalties 56 4 If an Interest is vested in the King a Pardon of all Forfeitures will not divest it without particular words of Restitution 101 241 242 5. An Exception in a Pardon ought to be taken as largely as the Pardon it self 242 6. A Pardon of all Offences except Offences in collecting of the King's Revenue that must be of the stated Revenue and not what arises by any Forfeiture ibid. Parish See Indictment Parliament Writ of Error upon a Judgment in B. R. returnable in Parliament Prorogued from the 28th of April to the 29th of November whether this was a Supersedeas to the Execution because a whole Term intervened between the Teste and Return of the Writ of Error 125 Pedegree Where persons are named by way of Title and where by way of Pedegree 255 Perjury See Information Pleading In pleading of the Statute of Usury you must set forth what Agreement was made and what Sum was taken more than six pound in the Hundred 35 2.
the six Months by this means the Conusee of the Statute is defeated for after the inrollment the Land passeth ab initio and the Bargainee in Iudgment of Law was seised thereof from the delivery of the Deed but not by way of Relation but by immediate Conveyance of the Estate by vertue of the Statute of Vses But the Law will not suffer contingent Remainders to waver about and to be so incertain that no Man knows where to find them which they must be if this Doctrine of Relation should prevail Now suppose the Surrendree had made a Grant of his Estate to another person before he had accepted of the Surrender and the Grantee had entred would this subsequent assent have divested this Estate and made the Grant of no effect if it would then here is a plain way found out for any Man to avoid his own acts and to defeat Purchasors Therefore 't is with great reason that the Law provides that no person shall take a Surrender but he who hath the immediate Reversion and that the Estate shall still remain in the Surrenderor until all acts are done which are to compleat the Conveyance Those who argued against the Iudgment E contra held that the Estate passed immediately without the assent of the Surrenderor and that even in Conveyances at the Common-Law 't is divested out of the person and put in him to whom such Conveyance is made without his actual assent 'T is true in Exchanges the Freehold doth not pass without Entry nor a Grant of a Reversion without an Attornment but that stands upon different Reasons from this Case at the Bar for in Exchanges the Law requires the mutual acts of the Parties exchanging and in the other there must be the consent of a third person But in Surrenders the assent of the Surrendree is not required for the Estate must be in him immediately upon the execution of the Deed if he doth not shew some dissent to it If a Man should plead a Release without saying ad quam quidem relaxationem the Defendant agreavit yet this Plea is good because the Estate passeth to him upon the execution of the Deed. It may be a Question whether the actual assent must be at the very time that the Surrender was made for if it should be afterwards t is well enough and the Estate remaineth in the Surrendree till dis-agreement Presumption stands on this side for it shall never be intended that he did not give his Assent but on the contrary because t is for his benefit not to refuse an Estate Therefore where a Feme Sole had a Lease and married Hob. 203. the Husband and Wife surrendred it to another in consideration of a new Lease to be granted to the Wife and her Sons c. this Estate vests immediately in her tho' a Feme Covert and that without the assent of her Husband for the Law intends it to be her Estate till he dissent 't is true in that Case his assent was held necessary because the first Lease could not be divested out of him without his own consent So a Feoffment to three 2 Leon. 224. and Livery made to one the Freehold is in all 'till disagreement So if a Bond be given to a Stranger for my use and I should die before I had agreed to it my Executors are entituled to an Action of Debt and will recover A Feme Covert and another were Ioint-tenants for Life 1 Rol. Rep. 401 441. she and her Husband made a Lease for years of her moiety reserving a Rent during her Life and the Life of her partner then the Wife died this was held to be a good Lease against the surviving Ioint-tenant till disagreement which shews that the agreement of the Parties is not so much requisite to perfect a Conveyance of this nature as a disagreement is to make it void And this may serve as an answer to the second point which was not much insisted on that Mens Titles would be incertain and precarious if after the assent of the Surrendree the Estate should pass by Relation at the very time that the Deed was executed and that it was not known where the Free-hold was in the mean time for if he had agreed to it immediately it had been altogether as private Then as to the Pleadings 't is true that generally when a Surrender is pleaded 't is said ad quam quidem sursum redditionem the Party adtunc ibidem agreavit which implies that the Surrendree was then present and in such Case he ought to agree or refuse Besides those Actions to which an Agreement is thus pleaded were generally brought in disaffirmance of Surrenders and to support the Leases upon which the Plaintiffs declared and then the proper and most effectual Bar was to shew a Surrender and express Agreement before the Action brought It might have been insufficient pleading not to shew an Acceptance of the Surrendree but 't is not substance for if Issue should be taken whether a Surrender or not Cro. Eliz. 249. and a Verdict for the Plaintiff that defect of setting forth an Acceptance is aided by the Statute of Ieofails In this Case there is not only the Word Surrender but * Grant and Release which may be pleaded without any consent to it and a Grant by operation of Law turns to a Surrender because a Man cannot have two Estates of equal dignity in the Law at the same time Neither can it be said that there remained any Estate in Simon Leach after this Surrender executed for 't is an absurd thing to imagine that when he had done what was in his power to compleat a Conveyance and to divest himself of an Estate yet it should continue in him Therefore the Remainder in Contingency to the Lessor of the Plaintiff was destroyed by this Surrender of the Estate to him in reversion for by that means when it did afterwards happen there was no particular Estate to support it But notwithstanding the Iudgment was affirmed and afterwards Anno quarto Gulielmi Mariae upon a Writ of Error brought in the House of Lords it was reversed Idem versus Eundem THIS Point having received a legal determination the same Plaintiff brought another Action of Trespass and Ejectment against the same Defendant Surrender by a person Non compos is void and at a Trial at the Barr in Easter Term nono Gulielmi Regis another special Verdict was found upon which the Case more at large was viz. That Nicholas Leach being seised in Fee of the Lands in question made his Will in these Words viz. In the Name of God Amen c. I devise my Mannors of Bulkworth Whitebear and Vadacot in Devonshire and Cresby Goat and Cresby Grange in Northallerton in Yorkshire unto the Heirs Males of my Body begotten and for want of such Issue Male I devise the same unto my Brother Simon Leach for Life and after his decease to the