Bulleyn and Grants case 244 p Boyton and Andrews case 259 p Bunbury and Birds case 265 p Bradstocks case 288 p Bagshaw and Earl of Shrewsburies case 292 p Bishop and Harecourts case 295 p Byne and Playns case 303 p Blaygrave and Woods case 309 p Bownsel and Tylers case 314 p Beal and Tailors case 320 p Blunt and Whitacres case 327 p Bishop of Lincolns and Cowpers case 336 p Bennet and Frenches case 339 p Bracebridges case 355 p Bishop and Redmans case 375 p Baskervile and Bishop of Herefords case 379 p Bedingfield and Bedingfeilds case 385 p Burgess and Fosters case 395 p Barret and Kings case 412 p Bighton and Sawls case 428 p Bond and Richardsons case 432 p Beares case 440 p Beal and Carters case 462 p Bond and Bails case 464 p Burchets case 466 p Birchleys case 466 p C. CAters case 12 p Cham and Dovers case 19 p Cordel and Gibbons case 22 p Carters case 55 p Case of the Mannor of Wadhurst 70 p Cooke and Songats case 137 p Sir Julius Caesars case 144 p Cibelt and Hills case 149 p Charnock and Worsleys case 157 p Carter and Booths case 170 p Colborn and Mixtons case 176 p Chamberlain and Thorps case 178 p Chamberlain and Stantons case 193 p Carie and Dennis case 201 p Chapman and Hursts case 208 p Lord Conniers case 228 p Creckmere and Patersons case 242 p Churchwardens of Fetherstons case 248 p Cheney and Langleys case 252 p Cockshall and the Mayor of Barltons case 269 p Collman and Sir Hugh Portmans case 273 p Cranmers case 279 p Castle and Ouldmans case 282 p Cottons case 297 p Cheney and Smiths case 298 p Lord Cobham and Browns case 299 p Chamberlains case 302 p Cook and Huets case 317 p Cleypools case 369 p Carriton and Godburies case 372 p Caries case 380 p Cole and Friendships case 391 p Crisp and Goldings case 405 p Collet and Andrews case 417 p Carter and Cleycocks case 427 p Corbets case 434 p Crossman and Reads case 448 p Cole and Walls case 463 p Cony and Barhams case 444 p Crew and Bayles case 465 p Lord Cromwel and All Souls case 467 p Corbet and Cleers case 467 b D. DUke of Northumberlands case 27 p Dayrel and Thynns case 28 p Sir Wolston Dixies case 125 p Docton and Priests case 136 p Dellabay and Hassalls case 167 p Dorrington and Dorringtons case 179 p Lord Dudley and Lacies case 195 p Sir Ed. Dyers case 203 p Degory and Roes case 211 p Dean and Cannons of Windsors case 228 p Dove and Williots case 243 p Dethicks case 337 p Danvers case 180 p Lord Darcie and Sharps case 381 p Lord Dacres case 394 p Darsley and Nevills case 414 p Dennis and Saint Johns case 453 p Dormers case 132 p E. EStops case 33 p Earl of Warwick and Lord Barckleys case 68 p Earl of Arundel and L. Dacres case 117 p English and Pellitories case 169 p Earl of Lincolns case 238 p Edwards and Tedburies case 268 p Erbery and Lattons case 270 p Estons case 341 p Englishes case 157 p Earl of Leicester Tanfields case 377 p Elmes and Medcalfs case 426 p Evesq of Coventry and Liechfields case 427 p F. FOrman and Bohans case 18 p Floud and Sir John Perrots case 35 p Fullwood and Fullwords case 74 p Fordleys case 88 p Ferrers case 146 p Foster and Thorns case 173 p Sir George Farmer and Brooks case 199 p Fox and Collins case 205 p Fisher and Boys case 228 p Fish and Browns case 253 p Fenwick and Mitfords case 256 p Foster and Pitfalls case 347 p Ferrand and Ramseis case 362 p Flemings case 403 p Fabian and Windsors case 425 p Frend and Batts case 450 p Foster and Wilsons case 458 p G. GIlbert and Sir George Harts case 5 p Gray and Jets case 63 p Gamock and Cliffes case 78 p Gill and Harewoods case 80 p Gellibrand and Harts case 83 p Gunerston and Hutchers case 103 p Gerings case 107 p Glosse and Haymans case 110 p Sir Thomas Greshams case 113 p Gates and Holliwels case 130 p Lord Greys case 156 p Gage and Paxtins case 158 p Gatefould and Penns case 174 p Gomersal and Bishops case 175 p Sir Henry Goodiers case 185 p Geslin and Warburtons case 187 p Gibbs case 225 p The Gild of Bostons case 228 p Galliard and Archers case 267 p Greenwood and Weldens case 294 p Green and Edwards case 300 p Gawton and Lord Dacres case 301 p Gore and Dawbneys case 316 p Greenliff and Bakers case 317 p Green and Pendletons case 318 p Guilfords case 322 p Gallery and Bunburies case 328 p Geofries and Coites case 329 p Greens case 348 p Gibbs and Rowleys case 367 p Gerrard and Sherringtons case 388 p Gravenor and Masseys case 398 p Glanvil and Mallaries case 421 p Gillam and Lovelaces case 435 p Greeves case 436 p Green and Hundred of Bucklechurches case 456 p H. HAddons case 10 p Harvy and Hervyes case 26 p Hungerfords case 36 p Higham and Harewoods case 42 p Henly and Broads case 53 p Hudson and Leighs case 65 p Heydons case 96 p Hawkes and Mollineux case 100 p Hamington and Ryders case 120 p Howel and Trivanians case 121 p Hudsons case 121 p Higham and Reynolds case 123 p Haithsome and Harvies case 166 p Hoskins and Jones case 177 p Hunt and Gilborns case 182 p Hedd and Challoners case 204 p Hayes and Allens case 210 p Hawkins and Lawses case 214 p Huson and Webbs case 229 p Hambleden and Hambledens case 230 p Hauxwood and Husbands case 249 p Howe and Connys case 254 p Holland and Franklyns case 257 p Hill and Hills case 321 p Hill and Lockhams case 331 p Harvy and Thomas case 332 p Hartopps case 342 p Henningham Windhams case 346 p Hales case 374 p Huddy and Fishers case 377 p Hollingshed and Kings case 384 p Harris and Bakers case 417 p Hare and Okeleys case 439 p Hudsons and Leighs case 447 p Hoskins and Stapers case 468 p I. SIr Henry Isleys case 102 p Jerome and Neales case 143 p Jerome and Knights case 146 p Jennings and Winches case 214 p Ivory and Fryers case 216 p Isleys case 264 p. James case 264 p Jones case 281 p Jennings and Gowers case 311 p Jeofry and Coites case 329 p Johnson and Bellamies case 330 p Jennor and Hardeys case 383 p K. KEmpe and Hollingborns case 25 p Kimpton and Bellamies case 56 p Knights case 37 p Kinters case 59 p Kempe and Carters case 70 p Keys and Stedds case 105 p Knight and Footmans case 124 p Kinnersly and Smarts case 206 p Kirdler and Leversages case 209 p Kimpton and Dawbennets case 227 p Knight and Savages case 260 p Kirby and Eccles case 261 p Kensam and Redings case 334 p Kellet and Kellets case 355 p Kempton and Coopers case 437 p Knightly and Spencers case 467 p L. LEndel
I do Allow of the Reprinting of These Four Parts of Leonards Reports Febr. 20. 1685 / 6. EDWARD HERBERT REPORTS AND CASES OF LAW Argued and Adjudged in the Courts at Westminster In the Times of the Late QUEEN ELIZABETH AND KING JAMES In Four Parts The Second Impression carefully Corrected with the Addition of Many Thousand of References never before Printed Collected by a Learned Professor of the LAW WILLIAM LEONARD Esquire Then of the Honourable Society of GRAYS-INN Published by William Hughes of Grays-Inn Esquire With Alphabetical TABLES of the Names of the Cases and of the Matter contained in each Part. LONDON Printed by William Rawlins Samuel Roycroft and Miles Flesher Assigns of Richard and Edward Atkins Esquires For H. Twyford H. Herringman T. Basset R. Chiswell B. Griffin C. Harper T. Sawbridge J. Place and S. Keble MDCLXXXVII Academiae Cantabrigiensis Liber TO THE READER Courteous Reader THese Cases were Collected and taken in the French Tongue by William Leonard Esquire sometimes of the Honourable Society of Grays-Inn a Learned Professor and Practiser of the Common Law in the time of the Reign of the late Queen Elizabeth One Copy of some of these Cases many years past came into the hands of Sir Robert Hitcham Knight afterwards Serjeant at Law Another Copy of other of these Cases came then into the hands of Humphry Davenport Serjeant at Law afterwards Sir Humpry Davenport Knight late Lord chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer Both which said learned persons approved of them and made use of them in the course of their several Practice Some other Copies of some of these Cases are now dispersed abroad and are in the hands of divers Practisers and Students of the Law who make the like use of them The Originals themselves of all these Cases amongst many others of the said Mr. Leonards collecting all of them under his own hand-writing are now in my hands having been delivered to me by a worthy Gent. of the said Society of Grays-Inn who had them out of the Library somtimes belonging to the said Mr. Leonard These Cases having been lately truly and carefully Translated by me out of the Original French Copy into English have since the Translation thereof been perused and approved of by many Eminent Professors of the Law. Wherefore I finding that the same do contain many excellent Matters and Points of Law which have not heretofore been Printed or published do here offer the same unto thy Judgment upon a serious consideration hoping they may be of some use and benefit to thee in the like course of thy study and practice of LAW From my Study at Grays-Inn Novemb. 20th 1658. Will. Hughes The Names of the Learned Lawyers Serjeants at Law and Judges of the several Courts at Westminster who argued the cases and were Judges of the several Courts where the Cases were argued viz. A. ANderson Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Anger Altham afterwards one of the Barons of the Exchequer Atkinson Ayliffe Justice of the Kings Bench. B. BEamount Serjeant at law afterwards Judge of the Common Pleas. Bromley Lord Chancellor of England Barkley C. COok after Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Clench one of the Judges of the Kings Bench. Cooper Serjeant at Law. Clark Baron of the Exchequer D. DAniel Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Drew Serjeant at Law. Dyer Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. E. EGerton Solicitor of the Queen after Lord Chancellor F. FLeetwood Serjeant at Law Recorder of London Fuller Fenner Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. G. GAwdy Judge of the Kings Bench. Golding Serjeant at Law. Glanvile Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Gent Baron of the Exchequer Godfrey H. HAughton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Hammon Serjant at Law. Harris Serjeant at Law. Heale Serjeant at Law. Hobart K. KIngsmil Judge of the Kings Bench. L. LAiton M. MEad Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Morgan Manwood Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Mounson Justice of the Common Pleas. O. OWen Serjeant at Law after Baron of the Exchequer P. POpham Attorney General of the Queen after Lord Chief Justice of B. R. Periam Judge of the Common Pleas. Pepper Attorney of the Court of Wards Plowden Puckering the Queens Serjeant at Law. R. RHodes Judge of the Common Pleas. S. SNag Serjeant at Law. Shuit Judge of the Kings Bench. Shuttleworth Serjeant at Law. TAnfield Serjeant at law after Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Topham W. WRay Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. Windham Judge of the Common Pleas. Walmesley Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Y. YElverton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. The Names of the Cases Note 1. P. stand for Principal Case 2. B. stand for a Vouched Case A. Sect. ALlington and Bails Case 34 p Albany and Bishop of Saints Asaphs Case 39 p Ashpool and Inhabitants of Everinghams Case 72 p Arden and Gents Case 75 p Arundel and Morris case 98 p Allen and Palmers case 133 p Atkinson and Rolfs case 141 p Atkins and Hales case 192 p Askew and Earl of Lincolns Case 196 p Ashegel and Dennis case 272 p Arundel and Bishop of Gloucesters case 278 p Alexander and Greshams case 306 p Askew and Fuliambs case 310 p Austin and Smiths case 441 p Lord Abergavennies case 469 p Anonimus 2 p 8 p 15 p 17 p 38 p 40 p 45 p 61 p 73 p 75 p 81 p 83 p 86 p 94 p 104 p 108 p 109 p 116 p 132 p 145 p 150 p 157 p 173 p 220 p 221 p 222 p 224 p 226 p 266 p 285 p 290 p 296 p 308 p 335 p 349 p 350 351 252 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 365 371 386 390 392 393 396 397 400 401 408 418 443 444 451. B. Bornford and Packingtons case 1 p Benicomb and Parkers case 31 p Bedows case 32 p Braybrooks case 51 p Bullers case 64 p Bishop of York and Mortons case 69 p Bunny and Wright and Staffords case 77 p Bonefant and Sir Richard Greenfields case 78 p Beverleys and Cornwallis case 84 p Bracebridge Baskarviles case 87 p Barker and Pigets case 89 p Blaunchstower and Friars case 91 p Basset and Kerns case 92 p Bret and Auders case 95 p Brook and Kings case 99 p Baldwin and Cocks case 101 p Bret and Shepherds case 114 p Baxter and Bales case 115 p Butler and Ayres case 118 p Bushies case 122 p Birds case 125 p Branchers case 139 p Bear and Underwoods case 142 p Beverley and Bawds case 148 p Beares case 154 p Bronker and Robothams case 162 p Brook and Doughties case 173 p Bilford and Foxes case 189 p Burgesses of Southamptons case 199 p Lord Buckhurst and Bishop of Winchesters case 213 p Brookesley and Wickams case 232 p Bowâ—y and Popes case 234 p Bedel and Moors case 238 p
petit quod inquiratur per patriam praedict Brett similiter It was moved that the parties should replead for this matter upon which they are at Issue scil the appearance is not triable by Iury but by the Record And the Court was clear of opinion that the parties should replead for the cause aforesaid And it was moved by the Lord Anderson that if A. be bound to appear in the Kings Bench at such a day and A. at the said days goe to the Court but there no process is returned then the party may go to one of the chief Clerks of the Court and pray him to take a Note of his appearance And by Nelson we have an acient form of entry of such Appearance in such Cases Ad hunc diem venit I. S. propter indemnitatem suam Manucaptorum suorum petit quod comparentia sua in Curia hic recordetur And see for the same 38 H. 6. 17. And afterwards the Lord Anderson inspecto Rotulo ex assensu sociorum awarded a Repleader And so by Nelson it hath been done oftentimes here before and put in ure The same Law is where at the day of appearance no Court is holden or the Iustices do not come c. he who was bound to appear ought to have an Appearance recorded in such manner as it may be and if the other party pleadeth Nul tiel Record it behoveth that the Defendant have the Record ready at his peril for this Court cannot write to the Iustices of the Kings Bench for to certifie a Record hither CXV Baxter and Bales Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt not extinct by administration BAxter brought Debt upon a Bond as Executor of I. against Bale who pleaded that the Plaintiff after the death of the Testator was cited to appear before the Ordinary or his Commissary to prove the Will of the said I. and at the day of his appearance he made default upon which the Ordinary committed Letters of Administration to the Defendant by force of which he did administer so the debt is extinct c. but the whole Court was clear of opinion that the debt was not extinct for now by the probate of the Will the administration is defeated and although the Executor made default at the day which he had by the Citation before the Ordinary yet thereby he is not absolutely debarred but that he may resort to the proving of the Will whensoever he pleaseth But if he had appeared and renounced the Executorship it had been otherwise and the debt is not extinct by the Administration in the mean time CXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Franchise the parties are at Issue upon a matter triable out of the Franchise And it was moved if now the Record should be sent into the Common Pleas and there tryed and after trial sent back into the Franchise Which Periam and Anderson utterly denied and by Periam there is no reason that we should be their Ministers to try Issues joyned before them And it is not like 2 Len. 37. where in a Liberty or Franchise a Forrein Voucher is to warrant Lands in such cases we shall determine the Warranty but that is by a special Statute of Glocester cap. 12. And Nelson Prothonotary said that such an Issue was tryed here of late Quod nota CXVII The Earl of Arundel and the Lord Dacres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. At Serjeants Inne PHilip Earl of Arundel and the Lord William Howard his Brother marryed the Daughters and Co-heirs of the late Lord Dacres And now came Francis Lord Dacres as heir male of the said Family and claimed the Inheritance c. And after long sute betwixt both parties they submitted themselves to the award of Gilbert Lord Talbot and of Arthur Lord Grey of Wilton and Windham and Periam Iustices And before them at Serjeants Inne the matter was well debated by the Council learned on both sides and as unto Greistock Lands parcel of the Lands in question the Case was That Tenant in tail makes a Feoffment in fee unto the use of himself for his life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son with divers Remainders over with a Proviso that if any of the Entailees do any act to interrupt the course of any entail limited by the said Conveyance that then the use limited to such person should cease and go to him who is next inheritable And afterwards Tenant in tail dieth his eldest Son to whom the use in tail was first limited entreth and doth an Act against the said Proviso and yet held himself in and made Leases the Lessees enter the Lessor dieth seised his Heir being within age and in ward to the Queen It was holden by Shutleworth Serjeant Yelverton Godfrey Owen and Coke who were of Council with the Heirs general of the Lord Dacres that here is a Remitter for by this Act against the Proviso the use Remitter and so the possession doth accrue to the enfant Son of him to whom the use in tail was limited by the Tenant in tail Then when the Tenant in tail after his said Feoffment holds himself in this is a disseissin for a Tenancy by sufferance cannot be after the cesser of an estate of Inheritance But admit that he be but a Tenant at sufferance Hâ—b 255. Dy. 54. yet when he makes Leases for years the same is clearly a disseisin and then upon the whole matter a Remitter and although the Enfant taketh by the Statute yet the right of the tail descending to him afterwards by the death of his Father doth remit him as if Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son inheritable to the first intail notwithstanding that the eldest Son takes his Remainder by the Statute and so be in â—â— force thereof yet when by the death of his Father the right of the Entail descends to him he is remitted CXVIII Butler and Ayres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower BUtler and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Thomas Ayre Son and Heir of Bartholmew Ayre first Husband of the said Margaret Wife of the Plaintiff and demanded Dower of Lands in A. and B the Tenant pleaded never seised que Dower and the Iury found that the said Bartholmew was seised during the Coverture de omnibus tenementis infra script preterquam the Tenements in sic ut dicta Margareta dotari potuit Exception was taken to this Verdict because that this preterquam c. doth confound the Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the preterquam is idle and surplusage for it is of another thing than that which is in demand and the seisin of the first Husband of Lands in A. and B. is confessed and the preterquam works nothing Another matter was objected because here the Iury have assessed damages
and Pinfolds case 24 p Lodge and Luddingtons case 26 p Lassels case 28 p Lepur and Wrothes case 44 p Lewknor and Fords case 62 p Leigh and Hamwers case 67 p Liveseys case 106 p Littleton and Perns case 186 p Lee and Maddox case 235 p L. Lumley and Fords case 263 p Long and Hemmings case 289 p Lancasters case 291 p Linacres case 313 p Lancaster and Lucas case 316 p Lacies case 363 p Lodges case 376 p Lees case 387 p Lee and Curetons case 412 p Lacy and Fishers case 413 p Loves case 421 p Lemons case 427 p Leigh and Okeleys case 438 p M. MOore and Farrands case 6 p Manies case 7 p Marquess of Winchesters case 18 p Marsh and Smiths case 33 p Molleneux case 39 p Marquess of Northamptons case 44 p Mascals case 82 p Moile and Earl of Warwicks case 85 p Martin and Stedds case 111 p Mounson and Wests case 112 p Mitchel and Hides case 119 p Lord Mountioys case 157 p Musket and Coles case 168 p Mebb and Friends case 178 p Mounson and Wests case 181 p Lady Mallories case 189 p Mallet and Ferrers case 191 p Marsh and Astreys case 203 p Marriot and Pascalls case 228 p Mustid and Hoppers case 241 p Matthew and Hassals case 245 p Mills and Snowbals case 287 p Matheson and Trotts case 293 p Martingale and Andrews case 319 p L. Mortdant and Vaux case 330 p Mordants case 207 p Manning and Andrews case 345 p Maunser and Annesleys case 374 p Mayor of Lynns case 404 p Maidwel and Andrews case 429 p Marshes case 433 p Mitchel and Hares case 452 p Marshes case 459 p Marbery and Worrels case 466 p N. LOrd Norris and Braybrooks case 28 p Nash and Edwards case 155 p Nash and Mollins case 325 p Norwood and Dennis case 455 p O. OLdfeild and Wilmers case 194 p Osbon and Kirtons case 258 p Offley and Sattingstons case 321 p Ognel and Underwoods case 339 p Ognel and Sheriffs of London 374 p Oglethorp and Hides case 430 p P. LOrd Paget and Sir Walter Ashtons case 4 p Lord Paget and the Bishop of Coventries case 9 p Punsany and Leaders case 14 p Parmort and Griffins case 47 p Partridge and Patridges case 48 p Pendleton and Gunstons case 60 p Potter and Steddals case 66 p Parson of Facknams case 67 p Prowse and Caries case 131 p Pearl and Edwards case 134 p Pawlet and Lawrences case 138 p Peirce and Leversuches case 163 p Page and Jordans case 165 p Piers and Hoes case 171 p Pierce and Howes case 179 p Palmer and Smalebrooks case 180 p Provost of Queens Colledge case 183 p Park and Mosses case 200 p Pexhals case 156 p Palmer and Thorps case 239 p Palmer and Knowles case 247 p Petty and Trivilians case 276 p Pagets case 284 p Palmes and Bishop of Peterboroughs case 312 p Pet and Basdens case 318 p Page and Fawcets case 328 p Pendleton and Haw's case 175 p Pawley and Siers case 370 p Penruddock and Newmans case 378 p Perry and Alleins case 420 p Pett and Callys case 422 p Piggot and Harringtons case 445 p Q. QUeen and Lord Vaux case 49 p Queen and the Bishop of Londons case 50 p Queen and Middletons case 58 p Queen and Lewes and Greens case 162 p Queen and Bishop of Canterburies case 190 p Queen and Buckberds case 207 p Queen and the Bishop of Canterburie and Fanes case 280 p Queen and the Bishop of Yorks Case 307 p Queen and Braybrooks case 364 p Queen and the Dean of Christchurch case 399 p R. REaresby and Rearesbies case 16 p Richards and Bertletts case 23 p Rumney and Eves case 128 p Rivet and Rivets case 159 p Read and Nashes case 205 p Read and Johnsons case 217 p Rockwood and Rockwoods case 275 p Rigden and Palmers case 277 p Russel and Pratts case 278 p Randal and Browns case 339 p Russell and Handfords case 368 p Rotchesters case 380 p Rolston and Chambers case 382 p Ruddoll and Millers case 409 p Rawlins case 416 p Rider and Cobbams case 447 p S. STonely and Bracebridges case 10 p Sutton and Dowses case 13 p Smith and Peazes case 21 p Stacie and Carters case 30 p Lord Sturtons case 33 p Searches case 93 p Smith and Kirfoots case 97 p Savell and Woods case 122 p Sulhard and Everets case 126 p Stebbs and Goodlacks case 127 p Saint John and Pettits case 129 p Staffords case 151 p Samford and Wards case 152 p Stamp and Hutchins case 153 p Stone and Withypolls case 156 p Smith and Smiths case 159 p Stretton and Taylors case 161 p Skipwiths case 163 p Severen and Clarks case 164 p Leonard Sturtons case 171 p Stransham and Medcalfes case 177 p Stephens case 188 p Smith and Bustards case 198 p Schollers of All-souls and Tamworths case 212 p Seaman and Brownings case 223 p Slywright and Pages case 231 p Same 's and Paines case 233 p Salloway and Lusons case 236 p Smith and Lanes case 237 p Sherly and Albanies case 240 p Sweeper and Randalls case 250 p Slugge and the Bishop of Landaffs case 255 p Smith and Edmunds case 291 p Steed and Courtneys case 265 p Smalwood and the Bishop of Lichfeilds case 284 p Sutton and Hallowaies case 286 p Somes case 297 p Sheldens case 326 p Sly and Mordants case 333 p Strait and Braggs case 338 p Sherewood and Nonnes case 339 p Sybthorp and Turners case 206 p Smith and Hitchcocks case 340 p Shaw and Nortons case 362 p Lord Staffords case 396 p Short and Shorts case 389 p Southcotes case 395 p Symms and VVestcotes case 410 p Stile and Millers case 411 p Scovel and Cavells case 446 p Stevensons case 457 p Sovers case 461 p Sutton and Danses case 467 p T. TReshams case 11 p Tringe and Lewes case 20 p Taylor and Moores case 41 p Troublefield and Troublefields case 46 p Tacker and Elmers case 90 p Toff and Tompkins case 172 p Tempest and Mallets case 246 p Thetford and Thetfords case 274 p Thetford and Thetfords case 283 p Tillocks and Holts case 323 p Trupenies case 330 p Thomas and VVards case 331 p Tedcastel and Halliwells case 344 p Tooly and Prestons case 406 p Trivilians case 414 p Tracy and Ives case 431 p Trussels case 460 p U. VPton and Wells case 202 p Vandrink and Archers case 304 p Vaughan and Alcocks case 305 p Underhil and Savoyes case 442 p W. WAde and Bemboes case 3 p Withy and Sanders case 29 p Wates and Jourdains case 37 p Watkins and Astwichs case 43 p Wilshalge and Davidges case 52 p VVood and Fosters case 54 p VValker and Nevills case 71 p Wiseman and Wisemans case 73 p Wakefords case 135 p VVilks and Prestons case 140 p VVheeler and Twogoods case 160 p VVaynemans case 172 p VVignal and Brookes case 177 p VVooden and Hazells case 184 p VVard and Blunts case
Will he cited Chicks case 19 Eliz. 357 and 23 Eliz. 371. Dyer At another day it was argued by Cook That both the Houses pass and the words take the profit do not restrain the general words before viz. All my Lands and Tenements but rather expounds them sci such profits that they might take of a Reversion cum acciderit for it may be that the Brother shall die within ten years And he cited the case 34 H. 6. 6. A man seised of diverse Reversion upon estates for life devises them by the name of omnium terrarum tenementorum which were in his own hands and by those parols the Reversion did pass and yet the Reversion to speak properly was not in his hands and if the Brother had died in the life of the devisor they had clearly passed and then his death or life shall not alter the case And he resembled the case to the case in 39 E. 3. 21. The King grants to the Abbot of Redding That in time of vacation the Prior and Monks shall have the disposition of all the possessions of the said Abbey ad sustentationem Prioris Monachorum 3 Cro. 290. and if in the time of vacation they shall have the Advowsons was the question for it was said That advowsons could not be to their sustentation But yet by the better opinion the grant of the King did extend to Advowsons for it shall be intended such sustentation as Advowsons might give Godfrey Our Case is not like to the case of 34. H. 6. for there the Devisor had not any thing in possession and therefore if the Reversion did not pass the devise should be utterly void Gawdy conceived that the house in possession only passed for the devise extends to such things only whereof the Profits might be taken but here is not any profit of a Reversion Clench and Wray contrary The intent of the devise was to perform the Will of his Father and also of his own Will and in case the house in possession was not sufficient to perform both the Wills all shall pass and therefore the devise by favorable construction is to be taken largely so as the Wills might be throughly performed and also the devise is general and further all his Lands and Tenements which are not restrained by the Subsequent words to take the profits for to have and to hold and to have and to take the profits is all one CCLV. Slugge and the Bishop of Landaffs Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SLugge libelled against the Bishop of Landaff in the Ecclesiastical Court because where he was presented by the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester to the Church of Penner the Bishop did refuse to admit him and now the Bishop sued a Prohibition and shewed Prohibition Quod non habetur talis Rectoria cum cura animarum in eadem diocesi sed perpetua vicaria And by Popham a Prohibition doth not lye but the matter ought to be determined in the Ecclesiastical Court and when he who is presented to the same Church whether it be a Church or not shall be tried in an action of trespass and the like matter was ruled Mich. 14. Eliz. betwixt Weston and Grendon who was presented by the Queen and it was holden that because institution and admission do belong to the Ecclesiastical Court and not to the Kings Court that no Prohibition should lye and therefore he prayed a Consultation And note That the Defendant in the Prohibition did not demur formally upon the suggestion for the Iudges use if the suggestion be not sufficient to maintain the Prohibition to grant a Consultation without any formal demurrer upon the Suggestion if the insufficiency of the Suggestion be manifest Trial. which was granted by the whole Court. Cook That a Consultation ought not to be granted for whether there be such a Rectory or not shall be tried here So 2 H. 4. 30. Prior or not Prior 49 E. 3. 17 18. Wife or not Wife but never accoupled in loyal matrimony by the Bishop Ante. 53. 54. 44 E. 3. So within or without the Parish 50 E. 3. 20. So 45 E. 3. Quare Impedit 138. In a Quare Impedit no such Church within the County Afterwards at another day Popham put the case Slugge was presented to the vicaridge of Penner the Bishop refused to admit him and admitted one Morgan Bletthen unto the Parsonage of Penner at the presentment of the Lord St. John Slugge sued the Bishop for contumacy per duplicem querelem The Bishop said Non habetur talis vicaria upon which matter he sued a Prohibition and he conceived That the Prohibition did not ly for a Vicar is but he that gerit vicem Personae to supply his place in his absence so as the same is a spiritual matter which ought not to be tried here Also the libel is to have Admission and Institution and the other matter ariseth by their Plea sci Quod Rectoria de Penner est Ecclesia cum cura animarum absque hoc quod habetur talis Vicaria and so it is but an incident to the principal matter wherefore it shall be tried there and he prayed a Consultation Cook We have shewed That in the time of E. 3. one L. was seised of the Manour of Penner to which the Church of Penner is appendant and we alledge presentments from the time and we convey it to the Lord St. John which now is and they would now defeat us by this surmise That there is no such Church with cure of Souls which is triable here Popham the libel doth contain nothing but contumacy in the Bishop in that he hath not admitted Slugge and the other matter comes in the Replication and afterwards by assent of the parties a Consultation was granted quoad institutionem of Slugge only but that they should not proceed further CCLVI. Fennick and Mitfords Case Pasch 31 Eliz. Rot. 154. In the Kings Bench. Moâ—e 284. 2 Co. 91. THe Case was A man seised of Lands in Fee levieth a Fine to the use of his wife for life the remainder to the use of his eldest son the heirs males of his body the Remainder to the use of the right heirs of the Conusor The Conusor makes a Lease for a thousand years to B. the eldest son dieth without issue male having issue a daughter the Conusor dieth the wife afterwards dieth the eldest son enters and leaseth the Lands to the Plaintiff Atkinson That upon this conveyance a Reversion was left in the Conusor although by the fine all is conveyed out of the Conusor and so as it hath been objected the use limited to the right heirs of the Conusor is a new thing For it is to be observed When a man is seised of Lands he hath two things the Land or the Estate and secondly the use which is the profits and if he make a Feoffment without consideration by that the estate and possession passeth
extinct as if he solely had been seised so if he in the Reversion and a Stranger disseise for life and make a Feoffment over the Seigniory is gone and yet it is the Livery of the Lessee only And although it be but the confirmation of him in the Remainder for life yet thereby the Remainder is gone and extinct And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Entry of him in the Remainder in tail was lawful And it was said by the L. Dyer That if Tenant for life be the Remainder for life the Remainder in fee Tenant for life in possession alieneth in fee that he in the Remainder in fee cannot enter for it was not to his disinheriâ—in CCCL 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was That a Capias ad Satisfaciend was delivered to the Sheriff 5 Co. 88 89. and after the Sheriff did arrest the party against whom the Capias issued by force of a Capias Utlagatum and then the party in the Capias came to the Sheriff and prayed that the party remain in Execution for his debt also and notwithstanding that the Sheriff let the Prisoner go at large and upon both Writs returned Non est inventus It was the opinion of all the Iustices That the Sheriff was not bound in point of Escape to detain the Prisoner for the Debt of the Plaintiff and it is not like where one is in the Fleet in Execution there if other condemnations in other Courts be notified to the Warden of the Fleet he shall be chargeable with them all It was holden also per Curiam That if the Body had been returned by Capias Utlagatum that the Court at the prayer of the party would grant that the Prisoner might remain in Execution for the debt as in case of a Capias pro fine CCCLI The Lord Saint John and the Countess of Kents Case 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Evidence given to the Iury in an Action of Debt brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Grants of Executors of omnia bona sua 1 Cro. 6. It was said by Dyer and Manwood Iustices That if Executors grant omnia bona sua that the goods which they have as Executors do not pass which see 10 E. 4. 1. b. by Danby but the contrary was holden by Wray chief Iustice of the Kings Bench and by Plowden in Bracebridges case P. 18 Eliz. and they denied the opinion of 10 E. 4. to be Law for by such Grant made by Executors the goods of the Testator do pass CCCLII. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was said by Dyer and Manwood Iustices That if one be condemned in an Action upon the Case Abatement of Writ 3 Len. 68. or Trespass upon Nihil dicit or demurrer c. And a Writ issueth forth to enquire of the Damages and before the return of it the Defendant dieth that the Writ shall not abate for the awarding of the said Writ is a Iudgment And it was said by Manwood Account In a Writ of Account the Defendant is awarded to account if the Defendant account and be found in Arrearages and dieth the Writ shall not abate but Iudgment shall be given that the Plaintiff shall recover and the Executor shall be charged with the Arrearages and yet account doth not lye against them CCCLIII 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. Did recover in Debt against B. whereupon a Fieri facias issued to the Sheriff of Devon and the Defendant seeing the Writ of Execution in the Sheriffs hands Attachment of Goods after the Money is in the Sheriffs hand is void said to him that he would pay the Debt recovered at Exeter such a day to satisfie the Execution at which day the Defendant paid the mony accordingly and presently came an Officer of the City of Exeter and attached the mony in the Sheriffs hand supposing the said A. to be indebted so much to one C. in whose name he made the Attachment Antea 29. 1 Cro. 6â— and now on the behalf of the said A. a Certiorare was prayed to remove the Attachment hither and it was therefore holden by the whole Court that the Attachment was void and a Certiorare granted And Wray said If it can be proved by Oath that if the Defendant did procure or was assenting to the said Attachment that Process of Contempt should issue against him and the Sheriff demanded of the Court what return he should make because the monies were attached in his hands and taken from him by force to which Wray answered That the Sheriff ought to answer the monies to the Plaintiff which were once in his hands by force of the Execution and that it was his folly to suffer the mony to be taken from him by colour of the said Attachment and if the mony was taken by force the Sheriff had his remedy by an Action of Trespass for the Attachment was void but the Sheriff at the return of the Writ ought to answer for the Mony. CCCLIV. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life bargained and sold his Lands to A. and his Heirs and afterwards levied a Fine to the Bargainee Forfeiture 4 Len. 124. â— Len. 60 65. Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. It was holden by the Court that it was a forfeiture committed by the Bargainee not by the Bargainor who at the time of the Fine had nothing to forfeit and it was said by Manwood Iustice That if Tenant for life be disseised and takes a Fine ut supra of a Stranger it is a forfeiture and yet he in the Reversion hath but a right in Reversion so that if Tenant for life be disseised and the Disseisor commits Wast he in the Reversion shall have an Action of Wast against Tenant for life and if two Tenants for life be disseised by two A. and B. and one of the Tenants for life doth release unto A. and the other Tenant for life doth re-enter he hath the Moiety in common with the other to whom the Release was made and he hath revested the intire Reversion in him in whom the Reversion was before c. CCCLV. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Bracebridges Case THe Case was Thomas Bracebridge seised of a Manor in Fee leased a Messuage parcel of it to one Curtes for 21 years and afterwards 35 H. 8. leased the same to one Moore for 26 years to begin after the expiration of the former Lease and afterwards 5 E. 6. he enfeoffed Griffith and others to the use of the Feoffees themselves and their Heirs upon condition That if the Feoffees did not pay to the said Thomas Bracebridge 2000 l. within 15 days after that then immediately after the said 15 days the Feoffees should stand seised of the said Manor to the use of the said Thomas Bracebridge and Joyce his wife for their lives without impeachment of Wast and afterwards to the use of T. B. their second Son in tail with divers Remainders
If now because the Tithes are not expresly named in the Habendum the Grantee shall have them for life only was the Question It was moved by Popham Attorney General That the Grantee had the Tithes but for life and to that purpose he cited a Case adjudged 6 Eliz. in the Common Pleas A man grants black Acre and white Acre Habendum black Acre for life nothing of white Acre shall pass but at will and in the argument of that case Anthony Browne put this case Queen Mary granted to Rochester such several Offices and shewed them specially Habendum two of them and shewed which in certain for forty years It was adjudged that the two Offices which were not mentioned in the Habendum were to Rochester but for life and determined by his death And so he said in this Case The Tithes not mentioned in the Habendum shall be to the Grantee for life and then he dying his Executors taking the Tithes are Intrudors But as to that It was said by Manwood chief Baron That the cases are not alike for the Grants in the cases cited are several intire and distinct things which do not depend the one upon the other but are in gross by themselves But in our Cases The Tithes are parcel of the Rectory and therefore for the nearness betwixt them i. the Rectory and the Tithes the Tithes upon the matter pass together with the site of the Rectory for the term of twenty years and Iudgment was afterwards given accordingly CCCLXXXI The Lord Darcy and Sharpes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas Mich. 27 28 Rot. 2432. Debt THomas Lord Darcy Executor of John Lord Darcy brought Debt upon a Bond against Sharpe who pleaded that the Condition of the Bond was That if the said Sharpe did perform all the Covenants c. contained within a pair of Indentures c. By which Indentures the said John Lord Darcy had sold to the said Sharpe certain Trees growing c. And by the same Indentures Sharpe had covenanted to cut down the said Trees before the seventh of August 1684. and shewed further That after the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture the said Lord Darcy now Plaintiff Razure of Deeds 11 Co. 27. caused and procured I. S. to raze the Indenture quod penes praedict Querentem remanebat and of 1684. to make it 1685. and so the said Indenture become void And the opinion of the whole Court was clear against the Defendant for the razure is in a place not material and also the razure trencheth to the advantage of the Defendant himself who pleads it and if the Indenture had become void by the razure the Obligation had been single and without Defeasance CCCLXXXII Rollston and Chambers Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Costs where Damages are given 2 Len. 52. ROllston brought an Action of Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible Entry against Chambers and upon Issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages assessed by the Iury and costs of suit also and costs also de incremento were adjudged And all were trebled in the Iudgment with this purclose quae quidem damna in toto se attingunt ad c. and all by the name of Damages It was objected against this Iudgment that where damages are trebled no costs shall be given as in Wast c. But it was clearly agreed by the whole Court That not only the costs assessed by the Iury but also those which were adjudged de incremento should be trebled and so were all the Presidents as was affirmed by all the Prothonotaries and so are many Books 19 H. 6. 32. 14 H. 6. 13. 22 H. 6. 57. 12 E. 4. 1. And Book of Entries 334. and Iudgment was given accordingly And in this case it was agreed by all the Iustices That the party so convicted of the force at the suit of the party should be fined notwithstanding that he was fined before upon Indictment for the same force CCCLXXXIII Jennor and Hardies Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin. 27 Eliz. Rot. 1606. THe Case was Lands were devised to one Edith for life upon condition that she should not marry and if she died or married Devises that then the Land should remain to A. in tail and if A. died without Issue of his body in the life of Edith that then the Land should remain to the said Edith to dispose thereof at her pleasure And if the said A. did survive the said Edith that then the Lands should be divided betwixt the Sisters of the Devisor A. died without Issue living Edith Shutleworth Serjeant Edith hath but for life and yet he granted That if Lands be devised to one to dispose at his will and pleasure without more saying That the Devisee hath a Fee-simple but otherwise it is when those words are qualified and restrained by special Limitation As 15 H. 7. 12. A man deviseth that A. Goldsb 135. Shepherds Touch-stone 439. shall have his Lands in perpetuum during his life he hath but an estate for life for the words During his life do abridge the Interest given before And 22 Eliz. one deviseth Lands to another for life to dispose at his will and pleasure he hath but an estate for life And these words If A. dieth without Issue in the life of Edith That then the Lands should remain to Edith to dispose at her pleasure shall not be construed to give to Edith a Fee-simple but to discharge the particular estate of the danger penalty and loss which after might come by her marriage so as now it is in her liberty And also he said That by the Limitation of the latter Remainder i. That the Lands should be divided betwixt the Daughters of his Sister the meaning of the Devisor was not that Edith should have a Fee-simple for the Remainder is not limited to her Heirs c. if A. dieth in the life of the said Edith for the Devisor goeth further That if A. overlives Edith and afterwards dieth without Issue that the said Land should be divided c. Walmesley contrary And he relyed much upon the words of the Limitation of the Remainder to Edith Quod integra remaneat dictae Edithae and that she might dispose thereof at her pleasure Ante 156. for the said division is limited to be upon a Contingent i. if A. survive Edith but if Edith survive A. then his intent is not that the Lands should be divided c. but that they shall wholly remain to Edith which was granted by the whole Court and the Iustices did rely much upon the same reason and they were very clear of opinion That by those words Edith had a Fee-simple And Iudgment was given accordingly Anderson conceived That it was a Condition but although that it be a Condition so as it may be doubted if a Remainder might be limited upon a Condition yet this devise is as