Man brings an Action of Debt against B. Sheriff of the County Palatine of Lancaster and sues him to an Outlawry upon mean Process and has a Capias directed to the Chancery of the County Palatine who makes a Precept to the Coroners of the County being six in all to take his body and have him before the Kings Iustices of the Court of Common-Pleas at Westminster such a day One of the Coroners being in sight of the Defendant and having a fair opportunity to Arrest him doth it not but they all return non est inventus though he were easie to be found and might have been taken every day Hereupon the Plaintiff brings an Action against the Coroners and lays his Action in Middlesex and has a Verdict for 100 l. Serj. Baldwin moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Action ought to have been brought in Lancaster he agreed to the cases put in Bulwer's case 7 Rep. where the cause of Action arises equally in two Counties but here all that the Coroners do subsists and determines in the County Palatine of Lancaster for they make a Return to the Chancery of the County Palatine only and it is he that makes the Return to the Court He insisted upon Dyer 38 39 40. Husse Gibbs 2. He said this Action is grounded upon two wrongs one the not arresting him when he was in sight the other for returning non est inventus when he might easily have been taken now for the wrong of one all are charged and entire damages given He said two Sheriffs make but one Officer but the case of Coroners is different each of them is responsible for himself only and not for his Companion Serjeant Turner Pemberton contra They said the Action was well brought in Middlesex because the Plaintiffs damage arose here viz. by not having the body here at the day They cited Bulwer's case Dyer 159. b. the Chancery returns to the Court the same answer that the Coroners return to him so that their false Return is the cause of prejudice that accrues to the Plaintiff here The ground of this Action is the return of non est inventus which is the act of them all that one of them saw him and might have arrested him and that the Defendant was daily to be found c. are but mentioned as arguments to prove the false Return And they conceived an Action would not lie against one Coroner no more then against one Sheriff in London York Norwich c. But to the first exception taken by Baldwin they said admitting the Action laid in another County then where it ought yet after Verdict it is aided by the Statute of 16 17 Car. 2. if the Ven. come from any place of the County where the Action is laid it is not said in any place of the County where the cause of Action ariseth now this Action is laid in Middlesex and so the Trial by a Middlesex Iury good let the cause of Action arise where it will Cur̄ That Statute doth not help your case for it is to be intended when the Action is laid in the proper County where it ought to be laid which the word proper County implies But they inclined to give Iudgment for the Plaintiff upon the reasons given by Turner Pemberton Adjornatur Bird Kirke IT was resolved in this case by the whole Court 1. That if there be Tenant for life the Remainder for life of a Copy-hold and the Remainder-man for life enter upon the Tenant for life in possession and make a surrender that nothing at all passeth hereby for by his entry he is a Disseisor and has no customary Estate in him whereof to make a surrender 2. That when Tenant for life of a Copy-hold suffers a Recovery as Tenant in Fee that this is no forfeiture of his Estate for the Free-hold not being concern'd and it being in a court-Court-Baron where there is no Estoppell and the Lord that is to take advantage of it if it be a forfeiture being party to it it is not to be resembled to the forfeiture of a Free-Tenant that Customary Estates have not such accidental qualities as Estates at Common Law have unless by special Custom 3. That if it were a forfeiture of this and all other forfeitures committed by Copy-holders the Lord only and not any of those in Remainder ought to take advantage And they gave Iudgment accordingly North Chief Justice said that where it is said in King Lord's case in Cr. Car. that when Tenant for life of a Copy-hold surrenders c. that no use is left in him but whosoever is afterward admitted comes in under the Lord that that is to be understood of Copy-holds in such Mannors where the Custom warrants only Customary Estates for life and is not applicable to Copy-holds granted for life with a Remainder in Fee Anonymus A Writ of Annuity was brought upon a Prescription against the Rector of the Parish Church of St. Peter in c. the Defendant pleads that the Church is overflown with the Sea c. the Plaintiff demurs Serjeant Nudigate pro Querente The Declaration is good for a Writ of Annuity lies upon a prescription against a Parson but not against an heir F. N. B. 152. Rastall 32. the plea of the Church being drowned is not good at best it is no more then if he had said that part of the Glebe was drowned it is not the building of the Church nor the consecrated ground in respect whereof the Parson is charged but the profits of the Tythes and the Glebe Though the Church be down one may be presented to the Rectory 21 H. 7. 1. 10. H. 7. 13. 16 H. 7. 9. Luttrel's case 4 Rep. Wilmote contra The Parson is charged as Parson of the Church of St. Peter we plead in effect that there is no such Church and he confesseth it 21 Ed. 4. 83. Br. Annuity 39. 21 Ed. 4. 20. 11 H. 4. 49. we plead that the Church is submersa obruta c. which is as much a dissolution of the Rectory as the death of all the Monks is a dissolution of an Abbathie It may be objected that the Defendant has admitted himself Rector by pleading to it but I answer 1. An Estoppel is not taken notice of unless relyed on in pleading 2. The Plaintiff by his demurrer has confessed the Fact of our plea. By which mean the matter is set at large though we were estopped The Court was clearly of opinion for the Plaintiff The Church is the Cure of Souls and the right of Tythes If the material Fabrick of the Parish-Church be down another may be built and ought to be Judicium pro Quer ' nisi c. Term. Trin. 27 Car. II. in Communi Banco Vaughton versus Atwood alios TRespass for taking away some Flesh-meat from the Plaintiff being a Butcher The Defendant justifies by virtue of a Custom of the Mannor of c. that the Homage used
the Lady Ann Countess of Newport all that my House called Newport-house and all other my Lands c. in the County of Middlesex for her life And after her death I give and bequeath the premisses to my Grand-child Ann Knollis viz. the Plaintiff and to the heirs of her body Provided always and upon condition that she marry with the consent of my said Wife and the Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Manchester or of the major part of them And in case she marry without such consent or happen to dye without Issue Then I give and bequeath it to George Porter viz. the Defendant The Earl dyed Ann the Plaintiff married Charles the Plaintiff she being then about fourteen or fifteen years old without the consent of either of the Trustees And thereupon now a Bill was preferred to be relieved against this Condition and Forfeiture because she had no notice of this Condition and Limitation made to her c. To this the Defendant had demurred but that was over-ruled Afterwards there were several Depositions c. made and testified on each side the effect of which was this On the Plaintiffs part it was proved by several that it was always the Earls intention that the Plaintiff should have this Estate and that they never heard of this purpose to put any Condition upon her and believed that he did not intend to give away the Inheritance from her But that this Clause in the Will was only in terrorem and Cautionary to make her the more obsequious to her Grandmother The two Earls swore that they had no notice of this Clause in the Will but if they had they think it possible such reasons might have been offered as might have induced them to give their consents to the Marriage and that now they do consent to and approve of the same Some proof was made that the Countess of Newport had some design that the Plaintiff should not have this Estate but that the Defendant should have it But at last even she viz. the Countess was reconciled and did declare that she forgave the Plaintiffs Marriage and that she shewed great affection to a Child which the Plaintiff had and directed that when she was dead the Plaintiff and her Child should be let into the possession of the premisses and should enjoy them c. It was proved also that when there had been a Treaty concerning the Marriage betweén my Lord Morpeth and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff would not marry him her Grandmother said she should marry where she would she would take no further care about her the Countess was dead at the time of this Suit It was proved that Mr. Fry was of a good Family and that the Defendant had 5000 l. appointed and provided for him by his Grandfather by the same Will On the Defendants part It was sworn by the said late Countess of Newport viz. In an answer made formerly to a Bill brought against her by the now Defendant for preferring of Testimony which was ordered to be read that the Marriage was private and without her consent and approbation and that she did not conceive it to be a fit and proportionable Marriage he being a younger Brother and having no Estate The like was sworn by the Earl of Portland the said Countesses then Husband and that it appeared she leapt over a Wall by means of a Wheel-Barrow set up against it to go to be married and that as soon as the Trusteés did know of the Marriage they did disavow and dislike it and so declared themselves several times and said That had they had any hint of it they would have prevented it Others swore that the Earl of Portland declared upon the day of her going away That he never consented thereto and that the Countess desired then that he would not do any thing like it and that the Earl of Warwick said He would have lost one of his Arms rather then have consented to the said Marriage On hearing of this Cause before the Master of the Rolls viz. Sir Harbottle Grimstone Baronet the Plaintiff obtained a decretal Order viz. That Anne the Plaintiff and her Heirs should hold the Premisses quietly against the Defendant and his Heirs and that there should be an Injunction perpetual against the Defendant and all claiming under him And now there was an Appeal thereupon and re-hearing before Sir Orlando Bridgman Knight then Lord-Keeper assisted by the two Lord Chief Justices and the Chief Baron before whom it was argued thus Serjeant Maynard The Plaintiff ought not to have relief in this Case The Plaintiffs Mother had a sufficient provision by the Earl of Newport's Care And therefore there is less reason that this Estate should be added to the Daughter The noble Lords the Trusteés when the thing was fresh did disapprove the Marriage however they may consent thereunto now The Devise was to the Plaintiff but in tail and afterwards to the Defendant We disparage not Mr. Fry in blood nor Family But people do not marry for that only but for Recompence and like Fortune There was a publique Fame or Report it is to be presumed of this Will in the house and were there not yet it was against her Duty and against Nature that she should decline asking her Grand-Mothers consent and Mr. Fry in Honour and Conscience ought to have asked it And therefore this practice ought not to receive the least encouragement in Equity 'T is true when there was a Demurrer it was over-ruled because the Bill prayed to be relieved against a Forfeiture for which there might be good cause in Equity But now it does not appear there is any in the Case The Estate is now in the Defendant and that not by any act of his own but by the Devisor and the Plaintiff this is a Limitation not a Condition For my Lord Newport had Sons It is somewhat of the same effect with a Condition though it is not so We have a Title by the Will of the dead and the act of the other party without fraud or other act of us and therefore it ought not to be defeated I take a difference betweén a devise of Land and money For Land is not originally devisable though Money is By the Civil Law and amongst civil Lawyers it has beén made a question Whether there shall be Relief against such a Limitation in a Devise But be that how it will Chattels are small things but a Freéhold setled ought not to be devested thus No man can make a Limitation in his Will better and stronger to disappoint his Devise conditionally than this is made If my Lord Newport had béen alive would he have liked such a practice upon his Grand-daughters as want of Notice In Organ's Case and Sir Julius Caesar's Case there was a Grant to an Infant on condition to pay 10 s. and no Notice given thereof before 't was payable yet because no body was bound to give notice it was adjudged
Modern Reports OR SELECT CASES Adjudged in the COURTS OF Kings Bench Chancery Common-Pleas and Exchequer since the Restauration of HIS MAJESTY King Charles II. Collected by a Careful Hand LONDON Printed for T. Basset J. Wright R. Chiswell and S. Heyrick MDCLXXXII THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER THese Reports the first except the Lord Chief Justice Vaughans Arguments that have been yet printed of Cases adjudged since His Majesties happy Restauration though they are not Published under the Name of any Eminent Person as some other Spurious Ones have been to gain thereby a Reputation which in themselves they could not Merit yet have been Collected by a Person of Ability and Judgment and Communicated to several of known Learning in the Laws who think them not Inferior to many Books of this Nature which are admitted for Authority A great and well-spread Name may be Requisite to render a Book Authentick and to defend it from that common Censure of which this Age is become so very liberal But it s own worth is that only which can make it Vseful and Instructive The Reader will find here several Cases as well such as have been Resolved upon our modern Acts of Parliament as others relating to the Common Law which are primae Impressionis and not to be found in any of the former Volumns of the Law and the Pith and Substance of divers Arguments as well as Resolutions of the Reverend Judges on many other weighty and difficult Points And indeed though in every Case the main thing which it behoves Vs to know is what the Judges take and define to be Law yet the short and concise way of reporting it which is affected in some of our Books doth very scantily answer the true and proper end of reading them which is not only to know what is Law but upon what Grounds and Reasons 't is adjudged so to be otherwise the Student is many times at a loss and left in the dark especially where he finds other Resolutions which seem to have a tendency to the contrary Opinion In this respect these Reports will appear to be more satisfactory and inlightning than many others several of the Cases especially those of the most important Consideration containing in a brief and summary way what hath been offered by the Counsel Pro and Con and the Debates of the Reverend Judges as well as their Vltimate Resolutions than which nothing can more Contribute to the Advantage of the studious Reader and to the setling and guidance of his judgment not only in the Point controverted but likewise in other matters of Law where the Reason is the same Ubi eadem ratio idem jus As to the truth of these Reports though the modesty of the Gentleman who Collected them hath prevailed above the importunity of the Book-Seller and he hath rather chosen to see his Book than himself gain the Publick Acceptation and Applause whereby it hath lost some seeming Advantage which the prefixing of his Name would have undoubtedly given it yet the Reader may rest assured that no little Care hath been taken to prevent any Mistakes or Mis-representations The Judgments having been examined and the Authorities here cited industriously compared with the Books out of which they were taken A TABLE of the Names of CASES contain'd in this Book A. ABbot and Moor. 12 Jacob Aboab 107 Addison versus Sir John Otway 250 Alford and Tatnel 170 Amie and Andrews 166 Anonymus 75 81 89 105 113 163 169 170 180 185 200 209 211 213 216 249 253 258 272 Daniel Appleford 82 Atkinson and Rawson 208 Austin and Lippencott 99 B. BAker and Bulstrode 104 Bascawin and Herle versus Cook 223 Bassett and Bassett 264 Barker and Reate 262 Barrow and Parrott 246 Barry and Trebeswycke 218 Sir Anthony Bateman's Case 76 Bear and Bennett 25 Beckett and Taylor 9 Benson and Hodson 108 Birch and Lake 185 Bird and Kirke 199 Birrel and Shaw 24 Blackburn and Graves 102 120 Blissett and Wincott 13 Blythe and Hill 221 225 Bonnefield 70 Boswill and Coats 33 Bradcatt and Tower 89 Brooking and Jennings 174 Brown versus 118 Brown versus London 285 Buckly and Turner 43 Buckly and Howard 186 Bucknal and Swinnock 7 Butler and Play 27 Burgis and Burgis 114 Burnett and Holden 6 Burrow and Haggett 219 C. CAlthrop and Philippo 222 Caterall and Marshall 70 Clerk versus Rowel and Phillips 10 Clerk and Heath 11 Cockram and Welby 245 Cole and Forth 94 Compton and uxor versus Ireland 194 Coppin and Hernall 15 Cox and St. Albanes 81 and Crisp versus the Mayor of Berwick 36 Crofton 34 D. COrporation of Darby 6 Darbyshire and Cannon 21 Davies and Cutt. 231 Daw and Swaine 4 Deering and Farrington 113 Delaval versus Maschall 274 Dodwell and uxor versus Burford 24 Draper and Bridewell 121 Sir Francis Duncomb's Case 285 Dyer and East 9 E. ELlis and Yarborough 227 Edwards and Weeks 262 F. FArrer and Brooks 188 Farrington and Lee. 268 Fettyplace versus 15 Fitsgerard and Maschal 90 Fits and al. versus Freestone 210 Fountain and Coke 107 Fowl and Doble 181 Fox and al. Executors of Pinsent versus Tremayn 47 72 296 Franklyn's Case 68 Furnis and Waterhouse 197 Fry and Porter in Chancery 300 G. GAvel and Perked 31 Gayle and Betts 227 Glever and Hynde 168 Goodwin and Harlow 2 Gostwick and Mason 3 Grafton 10 Green and Proude 117 H. HAll and Wombell 7 Hall and Sebright 14 Jacob Hall's Case 76 Hall and Booth 236 Haley's Case 195 Haman and Truant 72 Haman and Howell 184 against the Hambourough Company 212 Owen Hanning's Case 21 Harwood 77 79 Haspurt and Wills 47 Hastings 23 Healy and Warde 32 Heskett and Lee. 48 Higden versus Whitechurch 224 Holloway 15 Horn and Ivy. 18 Horn and Chandler 271 Horton and Wilson 167 Hoskins versus Robins 74 Howell and King 190 Hughes and Underwood 28 Humlock and Blacklow 64 I. JAmes and Johnson 231 Jefferson and Dawson 29 Jemy and Norrice 295 Ingram versus Tothill and Ren. 216 Jones and Tresilian 36 Jones and Wiat. 206 Jones and Powel 272 Jordan and Fawcett 50 Jordan and Martin 63 Justice and White 239 K. The King versus Baker 35 Morrice 68 Leginham 71 Holmes 73 Sir Francis Clark 195 Thornbor ' and Studly 253 The Bishop of Worc. Jervason and Hinkly 276 Leginham 288 Neville 295 King versus Standish 59 Sir John Kirle versus Osgood 22 Knowles versus Richardson 55 L. LAke versus King 58 Lampiere and Meriday 111 Lassells and Catterton 67 Lee and Edwards 14 Doctor Lee's Case 282 Legg and Richards 77 Leginham and Porphery 77 Lepping and Kedgewin 207 Liese and Satingstone 189 Love versus Wyndham and Wyndham 50 Lucy Lutterell versus George Reynell George Turbervile John Cory and Anne Cory 282 M. MAddox 22 Magdalen-Colledge Case 163 Major and Stubbing versus Bird and Harrison 214 Maleverer and Redshaw 35 Manby and Scot. 124 Martin and Delboe 70 Medlicot and Joyner 4 Gabriel Miles's Case 179
it was said that the Act of Parliament only takes away a Writ of Error in such case but there is no day in Bank to plead It was order'd to stand in the paper Corporation of Darby THe Corporation of the Town of Darby prescribe to have Common sans number in grosse Sanders I conceive it may be by prescription what a man may grant may be prescribed for Co. Lit. 122. is express Keel In a Forest the King may grant Common for Sheep but you cannot prescribe for it And if you may prescribe for Common sans number in grosse then you may drive all the Cattel in a Fair to the Common Sanders But the prescription is for their own Cattel only Twisd If you prescribe for common sans number appurtenant to Land you can put in no more Cattel then what is proportionable to your Land for the Land stints you in that case to a reasonable number But if you prescribe for common sans number in grosse what is it that sets any bounds in such case There was a case in Glyn's time betwéen Masselden and Stoneby where Masselden prescribed for common sans number without saying levant couchant and that being after a Verdict was held good but if it had been upon a Demurrer it would have been otherwise Livesey said he was agent for him in the case Bucknall Swinnock INdebitat Assumpsit for money received to the Plaintiffs use the Defendant pleads specially that post assumptionem praedictam there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant that the Defendant should pay the money to J. S. and he did pay it accordingly The Plaintiff demurrs Jones This plea doth not only amount to the general issue but is repugnant in it self It was put off to be argued Hall versus Wombell THe question was whether an Action of Debt would lie upon a Iudgment given by the Commissioners of Excise upon an Information before them Adjornatur Vaughan Casewell A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given at the grand Sessions in Wales in a Writ of Quod ei deforciat Sanders The point in Law will be this whether a Tenants vouching a Vouchee out of the line be peremptory and final or that a Respondeas ouster shall be awarded Mr. Jones In an Assise the Tenant may vouch another named in the Writ 9 H. 5. 14. and so in the Com. fo 89. b. but a voucher cannot be of one not named in the Writ because it is festinum remedium In Wales they never allow foreign vouchers because they cannot bring them in If there be a Counterplea to a Voucher and that be adjudged in another Term it is always peremptory otherwise if it be determined the same Term. An Action of Trover and Conversion was brought against husband and wife and the wife arrested Twisd The wife must be discharged upon Common bail so it was done in the Lady Baltinglasse's case And where it is said in Crook that the Wife in such case shall be discharged it is to be understood that she shall be discharged upon Common bail So Livesey said the course was It was said to be the course of the Court That if an Attorney be sued time enough to give him two Rules to plead within the Term Iudgment may be given otherwise not Russell Collins AN Assumpsit was brought upon two several promises and entire damages were given Moved by Mr. Sympson in arrest of Iudgment that for one of the promises an Action will not lie It was a general indebitatus pro opere facto which was urged to be too general and uncertain But per Cur ' it is well enough as pro mercimoniis venditis pro servitio without mentioning the Goods or the Service in particular And the Plaintiff had Iudgment Dyer versus East AN Action upon the Case upon a promise for Wares that the wife took up for her wearing Apparel Polyxfen moved for a new Trial. Keel The husband must pay for the wives Apparel unless she does elope and he give notice not to trust her that is Scott Manby's case which was a hard Iudgment but we will not impeach it The Plaintiff had Iudgment Beckett Taylor DEbt upon a Bond to submit to an Award Exception was taken to the Award because the concurrence of a third person was awarded which makes it void They award that one of the parties shall discharge the other from his undertaking to pay a Debt to a third person and it was pretended that the third person being no party to the submission was not compellable to give a discharge But it was answered that he is compellable for in case the debt be paid him he is compellable in equity to give a Release to him that had undertaken to pay it Rolls 1 part 248. Giles Southwards case Mich. 1653. Judgment nisi Seventéen Serjeants being made the 4th of November a day or two after Serjeant Powis the Junior of them all coming to the Kings Bench bar the Lord Chief Iustice Keeling told him that he had something to say to him viz. That the Rings which he and the rest of the Serjeants had given weighed but 18 s. apiece whereas Fortescue in his book de laudibus legum Angliae says That the Rings given to the Chief Iustices and to the Chief Baron ought to weigh 20 s. apiece and that he spake this not expecting a recompence but that it might not be drawn into a president and that the young Gentlemen there might take notice of it Clerke versus Rowell Phillips A Trial at bar in Ejectment for Lands settled by Sir Pexall Brockhurst The Court said a Trial against others shall not be given in Evidence in this cause And Twisden said that an Entry to deliver a Declaration in Ejectment should not work to avoid a Fine but that it must be an express Entry Vpon which last matter the Plaintiff was non-suit Redmans Case IT was moved that one Redman an Attorney of the Court who was going into Ireland might put in special Bail Twisd A Clerk of the Court cannot put in bail You have filed a Bill against him and so waved his putting in bail Keel You may remember Woolly's case that we discharged him by reason of his priviledge and took Common bail Twisd You cannot declare against him in custodia But though we cannot take bail yet we may commit him and then deliver him out by mainpernancy Jones If he be in Court in propria persona you cannot procéed against his bail The Court agréed that the Attorney should not put in bail Grafton GRafton one of the Company of Drapers was brought by Habeas Corpus In the Return the cause of his Imprisonment was alledged to be for that being chosen of the Livery he refused to serve Per Cur ' they might have fined him and have brought an Action of Debt for the sum but they could nor imprison him Keel The Court of Aldermen may imprison a
have but one Elegit At another day the Iudges gave their Opinions severally that Iudgment ought to be given in this Court upon the whole Record for that it is an entire Record and the Execution one and if Iudgment were to be given there upon the demurrer there must be two Executions And because the Record shall not be remanded Twisden said the Record it self was here and that it had been so adjudged in King and Holland's case and in Dawkes Batter's case though my Lord Chief Baron being then at the Bar urged strongly that it was but the tenour of the Record that was sent hither And it is a Maxim in Law that if a Record be here once it never goes out again for that here it is coram ipso Rege so that if we do not give Iudgment here there will be a failer of Iustice because we cannot send the Record back The Iury that tries the Issue must assess the damages upon the demurrer The Record must not be split in this case Accordingly Iudgment was given here Willbraham Snow TRover Conversion Vpon Issue Not-guilty the Iury find a special Verdict viz. that one Talbot recovered in an Action of Debt against one Wimb and had a Fierr facias directed to the Sheriff of Chester whereupon he took the Goods into his possession and that being in his possession the Defendant took them away and converted them c. and the sole point was whether the possession which the Sheriff has of Goods by him levied upon an Execution is sufficient to enable him to bring an Action of Trover Winnington I conceive the Action does not lie An Action of Trover and Conversion is an Action in the right and two things are to be proved in it viz. a Property in the Plaintiff and a Conversion in the Defendant I confess that in some cases though the Plaintiff have not the absolute property of the Goods yet as to the Defendants being a wrong-doer he may have a sufficient property to maintain the Action against him But I hold that in this case the property is not at all altered by the seizure of the Goods upon a Fieri facias for that he cited Dyer 98 99. Yelvert 44. This case is something like that of Commissioners of Bankrupts they have power to sell and grant and assign but they cannot bring an Action their Assignees must bring all Actions It is true a Sheriff in this case may bring an Action of Trespass because he has possession but Trover is grounded upon the right and there must be a Property in the Plaintiff to support that whereas the Sheriff takes the Goods by vertue of a nude Authority As when a man deviseth that his Executors shall sell his Land they have but a nude Authority Cur. The Sheriff may well have an Action of Trover in this case As for the case in Yelvert 44. there the Sheriff seiz'd upon a Fieri facias then his Office determined then he sold the Goods and the Defendant brought Trover And it was holden that the Property was in the Defendant by reason of the determining of the Sheriffs Office and because a new Fieri facias must be taken out for that a venditioni exponas cannot issue to the new Sheriff They compared this case to that of a Carryer who is accountable for the Goods that he receives and may have Trover or Trespass at his Election Twisden said the Commissioners of Bankrupts might have an Action of Trover if they did actually seize any Goods of the Bankrupts as they might by Law Rainsford said let the Property after the seizure of Goods upon an Execution remain in the Defendant or be transferred to the Plaintiff since the Sheriff is answerable for them and comes to the possession of them by the Law it is reasonable that he should have as ample remedy to recover damages for the taking of them from him as a Carryer has that comes to the possession of Goods by the delivery of the party Morton said if Goods are taken into the custody of a Sheriff and the Defendant afterward become Bankrupt the Statute of Bankrupts shall not reach them which proves the Property not to be in the Defendant Twisd I know it hath been urged several times at the Assizes that a Sheriff ought to have Trespass and not Trover and Counsel have pressed hard for a special Verdict Morton My Lord Chief Justice Brampston said he would never deny a special Verdict while he lived if Counsel did desire it Gavell Perked ACtion for words viz. You are a Pimp and a Bawd and fetch young Gentlewomen to young Gentlemen Vpon Issue Not-guilty there was a special Verdict found Jones The Declaration says further whereby her Husband did conceive an evil Opinion of her and refused to cohabit with her But the Iury not having found any such special damage the question is whether the words in themselves are Actionable without any relation had to the damage alledged I confess that to call one Bawd is not Actionable for that is a term of reproach used in Scolding and does not imply any act whereof the Temporal Courts take notice for one may be said to be a Bawd to her self But where one is said to be a Bawd in such actions as these it is actionable 27 H. 8. 14. If one say that another holds Bawdry it is Actionable 1 Cro. 329. Thou keepest a Whore in thy House to pull out my Throat these words have been adjudged to be Actionable for that they express an act done and so are special and not general railing words In Dimock's case 1 Cro. 393. Two Iustices were of Opinion that the word Pimp was Actionable of it self But I do not relie upon that or the word Bawd but taking the words all together they explain one another the latter words show the meaning of the former viz. that her Pimping and Bawdry consisted in bringing young men and women together and what she brought them together for is sufficiently expressed in the words Pimp and Bawd viz. that she brought them together to be naught And that is such a Slander as if it be true she may be indicted for it and is punishable at the Common Law The Court was of the same Opinion and gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Nisi c. Healy Warde ERror of a Iudgment in Hull Weston The Action is brought upon a promise cum inde requisitus foret and does not say cum inde requisitus foret infra Jurisdictionem Twisd Though the agreement be general cum inde requisitus foret yet if he does request within the Iurisdiction it is good enough and so it has been ruled and this Error was disallowed Boswill Coats TWo several Legacies are given by Will to Alice Coats and John Coats the Executors deposit these Legacies in a third persons hand for them and take a Bond of that third person conditioned That if the Obligor at the request of
receive the bodies of James Earl of Salisbury Anthony Earl of Shaftsbury and Philip Lord Wharton Members of this House and keep them in safe custody within the said Tower during his Majesties pleasure and the pleasure of this House for their high Contempt committed against this House And this shall be a sufficient Warrant on that behalf To the Constable c. John Browne Cler ' Parl ' The Earl of Shaftsbury's Counsel prayed that the Retorn might be Filed and it was so And Friday following appointed for the debating of the sufficiency of the Retorn and in the mean time directions were given to his Counsel to attend the Iudges and the Attorny-General with their Exceptions to the Retorn and my Lord was remanded till that day And it was said that though the Retorn was Field the Court could remand or commit him to the Marshal at their Election And on Friday the Earl was brought into Court again and his Counsel argued the insufficiency of the Retorn Williams said That this cause was of great consequence in regard the King was touched in his Prerogative The Subject in his Liberty and this Court in its Iurisdiction The cause of his Commitment which is retorned is not sufficient for the general allegation of high Contempts is too uncertain for the Court cannot judge of the Contempt if it doth not appear in what act it is Secondly It is not shewed where the Contempt was committed and in favour of Liverty it shall be intended they were committed out of the House of Peers Thirdly The time is uncertain so that peradventure it was before the last Act of general Pardon 1 Roll 192 193. and 219. Russells case Fourthly It doth not appear whether this Commitment were on a Conviction or an Accusation only It cannot be denied but that the Retorn of such Commitment by any other Court would be too general and uncertain Moore 839. Astwick was bailed on a Retorn Quod commissus fuit per mandatum Ni. Bacon Mil. Domini Custodis magni Sigilli Angliae virtute cujusdam Contempt ' in Curia Cancellariae fact ' and in that book it appears that divers other persons were bailed on such general Retorns and the cases have been lately affirmed in Bushells case repeated by the Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan where it is expresly said that on such Commitment and Retorns being too general and uncertain the Court cannot believe in an implicite manner that in truth the Commitment was for causes particular and sufficient Vaughans Rep. 14. accord 2 Inst 52 53 55. and 1 Roll 218. And the Commitment of the Iurors was for acquitting Pen and Mead contra plenam manifestam Evidentiam and it was resolved to be too general for the Evidence ought to appear as certain to the Iudge of the Retorn as it appeared before the Iudge authorized to Commit Russells case 137. Now this Commitment being by the House of Peers will make no difference for in all cases where a matter comes in Iudgment before this Court let the question be of what nature it will the Court is obliged to declare the Law and that without distinction whether the question began in Parliament or no. In the case of Sir George Binion in C. B. there was a long debate whether an Original might be Filed against a Member of Parliament during the time of priviledge and it was urged that it being during the Sessions of Parliament the determination of the question did belong to the Parliament But it was resolved an Original might be Filed and Bridgman then being Chief Iustice said That the Court was obliged to declare the Law in all cases that come in Iudgment before them Hill 24 E. 4. Rot. 4. 7. 10. in Scacc ' in Debt by Rivers versus Cousin The Defendant pleads he was a Servant to a Member of Parliament and ideo capi seu arrest ' non debet and the Plaintiff prays Iudgment and quia videtur Baronibus quod tale habetur privilegium quod magnates c. et eorum familiares capi seu arrestari non debent Sed nullum habetur privilegium quod non debent implacitari Ideo respondeat oustr ' So in Treymiards case a question of priviledge was determined in this Court Dyer 60. In the 14 E. 3. in the case of Sir John and Sir Geoffrey Staunton which was cited in the case of the Earl of Clarendon and is entred in the Lords Iournal an Action of Waste depended between them in the Common-Pleas and the Court was divided and the Record was certified into the House of Parliament and they gave direction that the Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff Afterwards in a Writ of Error brought in this Court that Iudgment was reversed notwithstanding the Objection That it was given by Order of the House of Lords for the Court was obliged to proceed according to the Law in a matter which was before them in point of Iudgment The construction of all Acts of Parliament is given to the Courts at Westminster And accordingly they have adjudged of the Validity of Acts of Parliament They have searched the Rolls of Parliament Hob. 109. Lord Hudsons case They have determined whether the Iournals be a Record Hob. 110. When a point comes before them in Iudgment they are not foreclosed by any Act of the Lords If it appears that an Act of Parliament was made by the King and Lords without the Commons that is Felo de se and the Courts of Westminster do adjudge it void 4 H. 7. 18. Hob. 111. and accordingly they ought to do If this Retorn contains in it that which is fatal to it self it must stand or fall thereby It hath been a question often resolved in this Court when a Writ of Error in Parliament shall be a Supersedeas And this Court hath determined what shall be said to be a Session of Parliament 1 Roll 29. and if the Law were otherwise there would be a failour of Iustice If the Parliament were Dissolved there can be no question but the Prisoner should be discharged on a Habeas Corpas and yet then the Court must examine the cause of his Commitment and by consequence a matter Parliamentary And the Court may now have cognisance of the matter as clearly as when the Parliament is Dissolved The party would be without remedy for his Liberty if he could not find it here for it is not sufficient for him to procure the Lords to determine their pleasure for his Imprisonment for before his enlargement he must obtain the pleasure of the King to be determined and that ought to be in this Court and therefore the Prisoner ought first to resort hither Let us suppose for it doth not appear on the Retorn and the Court ought not to enquire of any matter out of it that a supposed contempt was a thing done out of the House it would be hard for this Court to remand him Suppose he were committed to a Forreign prison during the
tail and the remainder over is so too and both these parties are in aequali gradu to the Devisor and therefore their being both in a parity it would be hard to take the Estate from him to whom and in whose Scale the Law hath thrown the advantage 3 It appears by the body of the Will that the Earl did as really intend it should go over if she married without consent as if she died without Issue for they are both in the same clause There may be as much reason to turn it into a Fee-simple in case as she had died without Issue as in this case For so I doubt the penning of this decretal Order does And 4 I rest upon this It is a Case without a President I remember after that Lanyett's Case had been adjudged that 6 Car. there was a Case I suppose Saunders versus Cornish of a Limitation in Tail Cro 3 part fo 230 it was of a Lease for years and so was adjudged void and then a devise over and it was adjudged void And the Iudges said so far it is gone and we will go no further because we do not know where it will rest I know there is no intrinsical difference in Cases by Presidents But there is a great difference in a Case wherein a man is to make and where a man sees and is to follow a President in the one Case a man is more strictly bound up but in the other he may take a greater liberty and Latitude For if a man be in doubt in aequilibrio concerning a Case whether it be equitable or no in prudence he will determine according as the Presidents have been especially if they have been made by men of good authority for Learning c. and have been continued and pursued Here must be some boundary or we shall go we know not whither It were hard a Court of Equity should do that that is not fit to be done in any Court below a Parliament The Presidents do not come home to the Case Most of them are in case of money Legacies and in some of those Cases we may give allowance in respect of the Law of another forum to which they belong But this is in case of Land only vid ' Swynborne 4. Co. 12. chap. indeed he is no authority but there is a very good Exemplification of this matter 5 I shall consider the allays and circumstances which are observed and offered to qualifie this Case and induce relief 1 'T is said that this clause was only in terrorem and some Witnesses have been examined to prove it But I am not satisfied how collateral averments can be admitted in this case For then how can there be any certainty 2 Cro 145. A Will will be any thing every thing nothing The Statute appointed the Will should be in writing to make a certainty and shall we admit collateral averments and proofs and make it utterly uncertain 2 'T is said in this Case the effect of the Proviso has beén obtained for the Trustees have now declared their consent I must say it is not full for they do not say they would have consented but that possibly such reasons might have been offered as they should have done it And possibly I say not They like good men have only declined the shewing an ineffectual contradicting of a thing which is done and cannot now be recalled undone or altered Besides if there had been but a circumstantial variation the consent afterwards might have been somewhat But here it is in the very substance In the Case before cited at the Bar by Mr. Serjeant Ellis where the consent was to be had in writing and it was had only by Paroll there was great Equity that it should be relieved because it was only a provident circumstance and wisdom of the Devisor viz. for the more firme obliging the party to ask consent which the Devisor considered might be pretended to be had by slight words in ordinary and not solemn Communication or else in passion and heat as in this case when the Plaintiff would not consent to the approved Marriage with the Lord Morpeth the Countess said she might marry where she would Which words imported a neglect of care for the future over the Plaintiff because she would not be ruled by the Countess in accepting the tender of so commendable a Marriage as also for the benefit of the Devisee in the Case aforesaid That in case the Devisee did marry with the consent of the Trustee he might not after through prejudice c. avoid it by denial of such consent and so defeat or perplex the Devisee for want of proof of such his consent 3 'T is said the party is an Infant Why an Infant is bound by a Condition in Fact by Law 't is true we are now in Equity But in Equity since this refers to an Act which she though an Infant is capable of doing viz. to marry it were unreasonable that she should be able to do the Act and not be obliged by Equity to observe the Conditions and Terms which concern and relate to that Act. So that it is all one as if she had been of full age The Statute of Merton cap. 5. provides that Usury shall not run against Infants and yet the same Statute cap. 6. appoints That if an Infant marry without the Licence of his Lord c. he shall forfeit double the value of his Marriage and it is reasonable because Marriage is an Act which he may do by Law while he is under age 4 As to the point of Notice 1 Whether Notice be requisite or no in point of Law I will not determine But I must needs say that it must be referred to Law But 2 If it be not requisite in Law how far a Court of Equity might relieve for want of it I will not now take upon me to determine I will not trench upon matters Gratis of which I know not what will be the consequence But I conceive in this case the Fact is not yet settled whether there were notice or not and it were a hard matter That because no Notice is here proved it should be taken for granted there was none For here are several circumstances that seem to shew there might be Notice and a publick voice in the House or an accidental Intimation c. may possibly be sufficient Notice I shall therefore leave it as a fit thing to be tryed and till that the case in my understanding is not ripe And therefore I will add no more I think this Decree ought to be altered if not set aside But as this Case is there ought to be no relief Vaughan Chief Justice I shall conclude as my Lord Chief Baron did That as this case is there ought to be no relief I will single out this case from several things not material to it as my Lord Chief Baron did c. I think if Land be devised on Condition to pay
pleasure of the Lords no doubt that would have been an illegal Commitment against Magna Charta and the Petition of Right There the Commitment had been expresly illegal and it may be this Commitment is no less For if it had been expresly shewn and he be remanded he is committed by this Court who are to answer for his Imprisonment But secondly The duration of the Imprisonment during the pleasure of the King and of the House is illegal and uncertain for since it ought to determine in two Courts it can have no certain period A Commitment until he shall be discharged by the Courts of Kings-Bench and Common-Pleas is illegal for the Prisoner cannot apply himself in such manner as to obtain a discharge If a man be committed till further Order he is bailable presently for that imports till he shall be delivered by due course of Law and if this Commitment have not that sense it is illegal for the pleasure of the King is that which shall be determined according to Law in his Courts as where the Statute of Westm ' 1. cap. 15. declares that he is not replevisable who is taken by command of the King it ought to extend to an extrajudicial command not in his Courts of Iustice to which all matters of Iudicature are delegated and distributed 2 Inst 186 187. Wallop to the same purpose he cited Bushells case Vaughan's Rep. 137. that the general Retorn for high Contempts was not sufficient and the Court that made the Commitment in this case makes no difference for otherwise one may be imprisoned by the House of Peers unjustly for a matter relievable here and yet shall be out of all relief by such a Retorn for upon a supposition that this Court ought not to meddle where the person is committed by the Peers then any person at any time and for any cause is to be subject to perpetual Imprisonment at the pleasure of the Lords But the Law is otherwise for the House of Lords is the supream Court yet their Iurisdiction is limited by the Common and Statute Law and their excesses are examinable in this Court for there is great difference betwéen the errors and excesses of a Court betwéen an erroneous proceéding and a proceeding without Iurisdiction which is void and a meer nullity 4 H. 7. 18. In the Parliament the King would have one Attaint of Treason and lose his Lands and the Lords assented but nothing was said of the Commons wherefore all the Iustices held that it was no Act and he was restored to his Land and without doubt in the same case if the party had been imprisoned the Iustices must have made the like resolution that he ought to have been discharged It is a Sollecism that a man shall be imprisoned by a limited Iurisdiction and it shall not be examinable whether the cause were within their Iurisdiction or no. If the Lords without the Commons should grant a Tax and one that refused to pay it should be imprisoned the Tax is void but by a general Commitment the party shall be remediless So if the Lords shall award a Capias for Treason or Felony By these instances it appears that their Iurisdiction was restrained by the Common Law and it is likewise restrained by divers Acts of Parliament 1 H. 4. cap. 14. No Appeals shall be made or any way pursued in Parliament And when a Statute is made a power is implicitely given to this Court by the fundamental constitution which makes the Iudges Expositors of Acts of Parliament And peradventure if all this case appeared upon the Retorn this might be a case in which they were restrained by the Statute 4 H. 8. cap. 8. That all Suits Accusements Condemnations Punishments Corrections c. at any time from henceforth to be put or had upon any Member for any Bill speaking or reasoning of any matters concerning the Parliament to be communed or treated of shall be utterly void and of none effect Now it doth not appear but this is a correction or punishment imposed upon the Earl contrary to the Statute There is no question made now of the power of the Lords but it is only urged that it is necessary for them to declare by virtue of what power they proceed otherwise the Liberty of every Englishman shall be subject to the Lords whereof they may deprive any of them against an Act of Parliament but no usage can justifie such a proceeding Ellismeres case of the Post-nati 19. The Duke of Suffolk was impeached by the Commons of High Treason and Misdemeanors the Lords were in doubt whether they would proceed on such general Impeachment to imprison the Duke And the advice of the Iudges being demanded and their resolutions given in the negative the Lords were satisfied This case is mentioned with design to shew the respect given to the Iudges and that the Iudges have determined the highest matters in Parliament At a conference between the Lords and Commons 3 Aprilis Car. 1. concerning the Rights and Priviledges of the Subject It was declared and agreed that no Freeman ought to be restrained or committed by command of the King or Privy-Council or any other in which the House of Lords are included unless some cause of the Commitment Restraint or Deteynor be set forth for which by Law he ought to be committed c. Now if the King who is the Head of the Parliament or his Privy Council which is the Court of State ought therefore to proceed in a legal manner this solemn resolution ought to end all Debates of this matter It is true 1 Roll 129. in Russells case Coke is of Opinion that the Privy-Council may commit without shewing cause but in his more mature age he was of another Opinion And accordingly the Law is declared in the Petition of Right and no inconvenience will ensue to the Lords by making their Warrants more certain Smith argued to the same purpose and said That a Iudge cannot make a Iudgment unless the Fact appears to him on a Habeas Corpus the Iudge can only take notice of the Fact retorned It is lawful for any Subject that finds himself agrieved by any Sentence or Iudgment to Petition the King in an humble manner for Redress And where the Subject is restrained of his liberty the proper place for him to apply himself to is this Court which hath the supreme power as to this purpose over all other Courts and an Habeas Corpus issuing here the King ought to have an accompt of his Subjects Roll tit Habeas Corp. 69. Wetherlies case And also the Commitment was by the Lords yet if it be illegal this Court is obliged to discharge the Prisoner as well as if he had been illegally imprisoned by any other Court The House of Peers is an high Court but the Kings-Bench hath ever been entrusted with the Liberty of the Subject and if it were otherwise in case of Imprisonment by the Peers the power of the King were
this whole Court in the case of Barnadiston and Soames that the Action for the double Retorn could not be brought in this Court before the Parliament had determined the right of the Election lest there should be a difference between the Iudgments of the two Courts When a Iudgment of the Lords comes into this Court though it be of the reversal of a Iudgment of this Court this Court is obliged to execute it but the Iudgment was never examined or corrected here In the case of my Lord Hollis it was resolved that this Court hath no Iurisdiction of a misdemeanour commited in the Parliament when the Parliament is determined the Iudges are Expositors of the Acts and are intrusted with the lives liberties and fortunes of the Subjects And if the Sessions were determined the Earl might apply himself to this Court for the Subject shall not be without place where he may resort for the recovery of his liberty but this Session is not determined For the most part the Royal Assent is given the last day of Parliament as saith Plow Partridges case Yet the giving of the Royal Assent doth not make it the last day of the Parliament without a subsequent Dissolution or Prorogation And the Court Iudicially takes notice of Prorogations or Adjournments of Parliament Cro. Jac. 111. Ford versus Hunter And by consequence by the last Adjournment no Order is discontinued but remains as if the Parliament were actually assembled Cro. Jac. 342. Sir Charles Heydon's case so that the Earl ought to apply himself to the Lords who are his proper Iudges It ought to be observed that these Attempts are primae Impressionis and though Imprisonments for Contempts have been frequent by the one and the other House till now no person ever sought enlargement here The Court was obliged in Iustice to grant the Habeas Corpus but when the whole matter being disclosed it appears upon the Return that the case belongs ad aliud examen they ought to remand the party As to the limitation of the Imprisonment the King may determine his pleasure by Pardon under the Great Seal or Warrant for his discharge under the Privy Seal as in the case of Reniger Fogassa Plow 20. As to the Exception that no Commitment is returned the Constable can only shew what concerns himself which is the Warrant to him directed and the Writ doth not require him to return any thing else As to the Exception that he is otherwise named in the Commitment then in the Writ the Writ requires the body of Anthony Earl of Shaftesbury quocunque nomine Censeatur in the Commitment The Court delivered their Opinion and first Sir Thomas Jones Justice said such a Retorn made by an ordinary Court of Iustice would have been ill and uncertain but the case is different when it comes from this high Court to which so great respect hath been paid by our Predecessors that they deferred the determination of doubts conceived in an Act of Parliament until they had received the advice of the Lords in Parliament But now instead thereof it is demanded of us to comptroll the Iudgment of all the Peers given on a Member of their own House and during the continuance of the Session The cases where the Courts of Westminster have taken cognizance of Priviledge differ from this case for in those it was only an incident to a case before them which was of their cognizance but the direct point of the matter now is the Iudgment of the Lords The course of all Courts ought to be considered for that is the Law of the Court Lane's case 2 Rep. And it hath not been affirmed that the usage of the House of Lords hath been to express the matter more punctually on Commitments for Contempts And therefore I shall take it to be according to the course of Parliament 4 Inst 50. it is said that the Iudges are Assistants to the Lords to inform them of the Common Law but they ought not to judge of any Law Custom or usage of Parliament The objection as to the continuance of the Imprisonment hath received a plain answer for it shall be determined by the pleasure of the King or of the Lords and if it were otherwise yet the King could pardon the Contempt under the Great Seal or discharge the Imprisonment under the Privy Seal I shall not say what would be the consequence as to this Imprisonment if the Session were determined for that is not the present case but as the case is this Court can neither Bail nor discharge the Earl Wyld Justice The Retorn no doubt is illegal but the question is on a point of Iurisdiction whether it may be examined here this Court cannot intermeddle with the transactions of the high Court of Peers in Parliament during the Session which is not determined and therefore the certainty or uncertainty of the Retorn is not material for it is not examinable here but if the Session had béen determined I should be of Opinion that he ought to be discharged Rainsford Chief Justice This Court hath no Iurisdiction of the cause and therefore the form of the Retorn is not considerable we ought not to extend our Iurisdiction beyond its due limits and the Actions of our Predecessors will not warrant us in such Attempts The consequence would be very mischievous if this Court should deliver the Members of the Houses of Peers and Commons who are committed for thereby the business of the Parliament may be retarded for perhaps the Commitment was for evil behaviour or undecent Reflections on the Members to the disturbance of the affairs of Parliament The Commitment in this case is not for safe custody but he is in Execution on the Iudgment given by the Lords for the Contempt and therefore if he be bailed he will be delivered out of Execution because for a Contempt in facie Curiae there is no other Iudgment or Execution This Court hath no Iurisdiction of the matter and therefore he ought to be remanded And I deliver no Opinion if it would be otherwise in case of Prorogation Twisden Justice was absent but he desired Justice Jones to declare that his Opinion was that the party ought to be remanded And so he was remanded by the Court. Term. Trin. 26 Car. II. 1674. in B. R. Pybus versus Mitford ante 121. THis case having been several times argued at the Bar received Iudgment this Term. The case was Michael Mitford was seised of the Lands in question in Fee and had Issue by his second wife Ralph Mitford and 23. Jan ' 21 Jac. by Indenture made betwéen the said Michael of the one part and Sir Ralph Dalivell and others of the other part he covenanted to stand immediately seised after the date of the said Indenture amongst others of the Lands in question by these words viz. To the use of the Heirs Males of the said Michael Mitford begotten or to be begotten on the body of Jane his wife the