Earl of C. now dead and found that by fine and recovery he conveyed an estate in this land to the use of his brother that now is Earl of C. in tail the remainder over to c. and died having a daughter now Countess of Dorset who moved by Dodderidge the Kings Serjeant in the Court of wards that this office was insufficient for by the pretence of the said Countess the first estate given to the Cliffords by E. 2. was a general tail and then the fine levied and the recovery suffered by the last Earl her father is no Bar but that it may discend to this Countess as his heir in tail and therefore Serjeant Dodderidge said to the Lord Treasurer then present in Court that if this should be allowed that Iurors may finde generally a grant made and shew no quallitie of the conveyance nor any place or time but if this were a grant of reversion or of a possession he said that many men by such offices should have their lands given away whereunto they had no means for uncertainties to take a Traverse and as to insufficiency of this office he said that the insufficiency therein consisted first in matter Secondly in form for the insufficiency of the matter is two fold First because that the office findes only that King H. 6. by sufficient conveyance not limited any manner of conveyances nor any qualitie thereof which ought to be shewed and it is material because we may give a different answer thereunto for against letters Patents we may plead one thing and against an other conveyance we may plead another thing and so our answer differeth according to the qualitie of the conveyance Secondly it is insuffient in matter because it is found that H. 6. granted the possession and that he granted the reversion nec non manerium which is repugnant for if the King grant a reversion then no possession passeth and if he pass a possession then no reversion passeth and therefore it is repuguant to say that he granted Reversionem nec non manerium which implieth a possession also he said that his exceptions to the office as to the Mannor of it are two-fold First the office doth finde any time of the grant made by H. 6. and this is material for the grants upon Record take their force from the time of their date as appears by Ludfords Case in Plowdens Commentaries and he said that at this time the case is material to be exprest in respect that H. 6. was for part of his reign deposed and after restored and it might be in the time that he was deposed by Edward the fourth but unto that it was answered by the attorney of the wards that the office found that H. 6. granted c. that it was not in the time when he was deposed the second insufficiency in the Mannor is because it is not found at what place H. 6. made the said grant and that this is material to be found by office he vouched 36. H. 6.32 and he said that it is very requisite that in such offices all circumstances ought to be expressed in as ample certaintie as in a declaration so that the partie prejudiced by the office may know where to search for the conveyance but the Attorney general said that there needs no such express finding of all circumstances by a Iury as it ought to be in pleading for it shall be taken by intendment in divers cases but yet he said that it appears by 1. Eliz. Dyer 174. it is a good plea to say that A. granted a reversion c. to the King without shewing how much more in office which is the Act of the Iurors and therefore Serjeant Harris cited the Book of 14 15. H. 7.22 where an office found an estate tail without mention of the Donor and yet good and the Attorney general said also that it appears by the finding of the Iury in Fulwoods Case Cook lib. 4. that the Iury need not precisely to finde all circumstances for if there be convenient certaintie the residue shall be supplied by intendment as it is there said and the Attorney said that whereas it hath been objected that the issue is evil because it is found that H. 6. granted the reversion and also the Mannor and Castle aforesaid and doth not limit incertaintie that the King granted a reversion or that he granted a Mannor in possession to that he said that it is clear that the King may after recital of a particular estate grant the reversion nec non terras sive manerium and then be the land in lease or be the lease void in Law yet the land shall pass and this is his course alwayes in granting the Kings lands to others and therefore the Iury did well to finde the truth without determining what should pass for admit that there were no estate precedent in being yet by this finding it appears plainly that the Mannor and Castle should pass by the grant in the time of H. 6. to which the Lord Cook agreed for Law and so he said it was his use when he was Attorney general to which also the Lord Treasurer Flemming chief Justice and Tanfield chief Baron agreed and the Attorney general said that his use was if A. had a lease from the King of B. acre which by effluction is to determine in Anno. 1612. and the said A. doubting that this lease was not good in Law prayed to have a new lease that in this case he recited the first lease in the new letters Patents and thereby granted the land for twentie years from c. which shall be in Anno 1612. or from the sooner determination of the former lease and the Iudges allowed it to be good and Dodderidge Serjeant said that after the difference taken between the pleading and the finding of the Iury it seemed to him that there is a great difference between them but after the finding of the Iury upon an office as our case is and a pleading there is no difference for the office is a thing to which an answer may be made but a verdict given upon issue joyned between the parties hath no other proceeding but to judgement immediately and therefore such a verdict shall be divers times supplied by the construction of the Iudges but a verdict upon an office ought to be as certain as an indictment because the partie may Traverse and to prove that upon such uncertain offices there is no remedy by Traverse he vouched the case of 3. H. 4 5. upon an insufficient office after the outlawry of A. and no time is found of the outlawry and he observed out of the said book that the partie outed by the said insufficient office had no remedy by Traverse but was compelled to make a motion to the Court and after this case for difficultie was referred to the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron to consider upon who the said Term at Serjeants Inne appointed it to be
an actual surrender before made for the consideration but whereas it hath been objected of the other part that the word modo doth often signifie the time past and some instances according to Grammatical construction were given in proof thereof and thereupon they would infer that the Queen by these words modo habens did intend no other but lately having or injoying to that he gave a double answer to the first he said that there was no cause shewed or instance given That modo habens joyned together will signifie a time past though taken â—everally that may signifie so much which makes a plain difference betwixt those instances and this present case Secondly admitting in a Grammatical construction they did signifie as the other side would have it yet the judges ought to adjudge thereof according to the most natural sence of these words in Common understanding and that so it may be done he vouched one Talbots Case in 32 Eliz. in Banco Regis in which after the Iudges had conferred in the Court with divers learned Schollers touching the Grammatical construction of a word used in a Convey ance they afterwards notwithstanding did wave the Grammatical construction and adjudged the word to signifie in Law according to the Common received sense of the word and according to this he vouched 12. H. 8. where the word uterque received the like construction also he vouched the 20. Eliz. Dyer fol. 262. where it is admitted that the word modo is to be taken in the present Tense and to this purpose he also vouched Billings Case in 38. H. 6. and Bozuns Case Coo. lib. 4. and then he concluded that in asmuch as the special verdict had definitively found no consideration but generally for the consideration above exprest he held that the second Patent was good for a Patent cannot be void because there is no consideration to move the King to grant but a Patent may be void as is pretended for a false consideration which is not in this case and therefore c. Fourthly admitting that the consideration in this Case was for an actual surrender before made and that in this case no such actual surrender was before made yet he held that in this Case the second lease is good notwithstanding the false consideration for it appears by 37. H. 8. Brook title patents 100. that a Patent shall never be void for a false consideration but by reason of a false surmise it may but he confessed this difference was generally denied because a Patent shall be void by reason of a false consideration but he said that the differences were infinite also upon this ground for some take a difference where a consideration is real and where it is personal and they hold that a real consideration being false shall not avoid the grant but otherwise of a personal and so they take the Book of 37. H. 8. before cited to be good Law and upon this difference others also have taken a difference where the consideration is to come to the King himself and where it is to come to a stranger others also have taken a difference where the consideration is of a thing valuable and where it is not of value yet they take a difference where that is past and executed and where it is to come or Executorie but he said that although divers of these differences seemed to be good with great reasons and were backed with some Authorities yet he needed not to take advantage of any of them for the maintenance of this Case and for that he took this general difference for the maintenance of this Patent viz. that if the consideration be such which brings a benefit or commonditie to the King and this is false that this avoyds the grant but if it bring no commoditie to the King although it be false yet the grant is good and to prove this diversitie he cited Harris and Wings Case to be adjudged in Banco Regis and Barwicks Case Cook lib. 5. and Sir Hugh Cholmleys Case Cook lib. 2. to be adjudged accordingly of a false recital and he said although it be admitted that the consideration which the King intended to have was an actual surrender yet in asmuch as this cannot be intended a thing more to his advantage then a surrender in Law the which plainly appears to be in this case that the Patent is good and for that he held that the second lease shall not be avoided for such a falsitie and also he said that this Case is more strong of his side then any Case which may be cited in asmuch as the King had no discommoditie or loss by the falsitie of the consideration but in this Case also he should be at a loss if the second lease were not good for the second lease reserveth a greater rent to the King then was reserved by the first and therefore it is for his benefit that the Law should allow of the second lease to the intent it may make a surrender of the former lease for the Kings advantage and if the King granteth probis hominibus de O. rendring rent they are by this grant impliedly made a corporation for the benefit of the King to render him the rent whereas otherwise the grant would be void and so he took it in the principal case although the grant should be void by reason of the false consideration yet it should be good to this purpose for the Kings benefit and after Termino Mich. Anno Sexto Jacobi Regis this Case was argued again and Nicholas Serjeant for the Defendant said that the sole point of the Case is if the consideration of the lease made in 27. Eliz. be good or not and this is exprest to be Tam in consideratione sursum reddditionis praedict quam pro aliis Causiis et Considerationibus c. then it is to be considered if here be such a surrender as is meant to be within the intent of the Consideration of the Queen and he said that in this Case here was a good surrender in law clearly by the Book of 37. H. 6. for in all Cases where a Teimer for years accepts a lease of him in Reversion as here the Lord Seymor did then this is a surrender in Law of his first interest but the Earl of Salisbury Lord Treasurer said that this is not properly a surrender of this Antient Term but an extinguishment thereof to which the Lord chief Baron Tanfield agreed and Serjeant Nichols further said that the Consideration which moved the Queen to her grant was only the sufficient surrendring of the precedent estate of the Lord Seymor and not the restoring of the letters Patents and therefore although it be admitted that here was not a sufficient restoring of the letters Patents nor an actual surrender by this means yet here is an effectual surrender by the operation of Law and then this being the sole Consideration which moved the Queen to her grant the not sufficient restoring of
to commit a contempt by his refusing to return and so to save his lands by this conveyance in respect this countermand is a thing whereof he could not have divined to that I answer that the contempt subsequent is a sufficient proof of such precedent conjecture and that the conveyance was made fraudulently to prevent the prejudice which might accrew unto him by such contempt and this opinion will appear by the makers of the Statute of 13. Eliz. cap. 3. and 14. Eliz. cap. 6. made against fugitives and may well be collected upon the perusal of those Statutes and that the Iudges here ought to make such construction upon the subsequent Act he vouched the case of Doctor Ellis in Plowden and Saunders case in the matters of the Crown happening at Salop by which cases it appeareth that the Iudges proved the first intent by secondary Actions subsequent by way of discourse and therefore in Saunders case the partie having an express intent to poyson his wife delivered unto her a poysoned apple and the wife not knowing it to be poysoned gave it to her child who died thereof there the indictment against Saunders was that of malice forethought c. he intended to murder the child although this was not his first intention so in the other case there cited if a man intend only the death of A. and being fighting with him be a stranger interposeth himself to part the affray and he is slain this is wilful murder although here was no primer intent to kill B. but this is made an intention by legal collection and so in our case here is intentio Jegalis and not actualis and yet aswel unavoidable as any other also although it hath been objected that by the common Law none shall avoid a conveyance by reason of fraud except he who hath a former interest and the Statutes give no authoritie to any but to purchasors upon valuable consideration yet I say that the Statute of 13. Eliz. is to avoid all fraudulent conveyances against such as by any means may be hindred thereby yet the intention was not to defraud the partie who is thereby defrauded but some other and therefore although it was not to defraud the King in our case yet being fraudulent it is void against him by this Statute for he should be hindred thereby also the proviso in this Statute saveth such conveyances only which are upon good consideration and bona fide and that is such wherein simple and plain dealing are used but in this conveyance there was not any simple and plain dealing used for the Bargainees paid no money nor ought to take no profits of the land nor dispose of any estate therein and therefore fraud for Dolus est Machinatio cum aliud dissimulat aliud agit also the preamble of the Statute of the 27. Eliz. willeth that conveyances shall be void which are made to the use of him who maketh the conveyance or otherwise to defraud purchasors although that the body of the Act mentioneth such only which are to defraud purchasors and he vouched the Statute of the 28. Eliz. made against couveyances by resumption and he said that Twines case in Cook lib. 3. proveth our case effectually to be a void conveyance which cannot be answered but the Lord Treasurer said that there was fraud in both parties and he argued further and vouched Goodales case Cook lib. 5. to prove that a Deed shall not be deemed to be good except it be free from all fraud or clandestine agreement as it was there resolved that the payment for performance of a condition was not good as to strangers by reason of a precedent agreement and Burrels case Cook lib. 6. where it appeareth that no fraud shall be accounted bona fide as to strangers which is accompanied with trust c. also although here is not any fraud expresly found by the office yet he thought that the equity of the case appears plainly and that it shall be for the King and he vouched divers decrees in this Court to prove it as 43. Eliz. Howse was outlawed and took divers bonds of Carne in the names of others his friends viz. of Marlow and others in trust also took Statutes in their names in trust and it was decreed here that the King should have all vy reason of the fraud although it be not found by any office and in Hoards case it was decreed here that whereas the said Hoard betwixt the years of 25. and 32. had sent divers summes of money to Sheldon of Bealie and had taken divers obligations and other securities of him in others names before his conviction yet it was decreed to the King in this Court without any fraud found by office and in Sir Walter Raughlies case the same year decreed in this Court that whereas Sir Walter Raughlie being possessed of a tearm of 100. years of _____ he having a determination to purchase the reversion in fee of the same land conveyed his Tearm to his eldest son to the intent it should not be drowned and therefore about 40. Eliz. he purchased the fee and after in the year c. of our King that now is he committed Treason and was attainted and it was decreed here that the King should have the land discharged of this lease viz. in possession and although no fraud be found in the case but only it appeareth by circumstances of witnesses here examined that Sir Walter Raughley took the profits of the laud and held Courts in his own name until the attainder yet the said assignment was conceived to be in trust and therefore decreed to be void against the King as for fraud although he was convicted of Treason a long time after and so the Kings title subsequent to the said assignment and he vouched Walter de Chirtons case in 24. E. 3. Rot. 4. also as to Mr. Wardenfords case in 2. and 3. Eliz. Dyer 193. and the 9 and 10. of Eliz Dyer 267. but our case is different from them in two material circumstances which alter the law in the cases First we are in a Court of equitie by English Bill where the Iudges are only to adjudge upon the fraud and there they were in a Court of Law and the fraud was the matter of fact which ought to be expressy found by the Iury as appears by the books Secondly in that case the Iury found expressy that the conveyance was not by fraud to deceive the King of his wardship but only to deceive the Creditors c. but in-our case there is no such negative and therefore it differeth much see Dyer 267. and 268. as to the finding in the negative at another day in the same Term of Easter 7. Jac. the Barons decreed for the King and the Lord Treasurer agreed and he then demanded of Tanfield chief Baron if upon the return of Sir Robert Dudley he ought to have his lands again of right or if but upon special grace and the Lord chief
Slade and Morleys case a case was put which proves it to be according Snig Baron agreed that Iudgement ought to be given for the Plantiff and by Tanfield if I take your goods and detain them until I have caused you to pay me 10. l. a general Action of Trespass lieth and not an Action upon the case and it is cited 7. H. 4. or 7. E. 4. to be accordingly but yet he agreed that judgement should be entred and so it was appointed to be done but then Chibborn for the Defendant said that here is a mistrial for if this trust be not material because it is not effectually shewed in the Declaration as you have argued then the Venue shall come only from the parish where the Wares were laid upon the land and not from the parish also where the appointment or trust was made by the Plantiff and therefore the trial also being from both parishes is a mistrial and the Court agreed that this is a mistrial upon that reason for now the appointment or Trust is but an inducement and therefore needs not to be shewed within what parish it was made and therefore a new Venire facias was granted and upon that a new trial and damages more then before and judgement was given accordingly Arden against Darcie NOta a good case of Attornament which was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood betwixt Arden and Darcie and it was this one Arden was seised in fee of divers lands in the County of c. and made a lease for years and after made a feofment with words of Grant of those lands to A. and B. to the use of the feoffor and his wife for their lives the remainder to Arden his son in tail and after the feoffor said to the Lessee that he had conveyed his land which the Lessee held in lease to the uses aforesaid and the Lessee said I like it well and after he paid his rent to the feoffor generally and it was decreed in the Exchequer Chamber that this is no Attornament because the Attornament ought to be to the feoffees and it appeareth not that the Lessee had notice of the names of the feoffees and therefore it cannot be said to amount to an Attornament but notwithstanding that Decree Arden the same to whom the remainder was limited had his Action depending in the Kings Bench to trie the point again as he said to me also this Term a point concerning the said Decree was in question upon another Bill exhibited in the Exchequer Chamber by Sir Edward Darcie against Arden and the case was as followeth Sir Edward Darcie exhibited his Bill here in the nature of a scire facias against Arden to shew cause wherefore the said Edward Darcie should not have execution of a Decree made in the time of Baron Manwood and the Defendant shewed that Darcie in his first suit supposed by his Bill that he had a grant of the land then and now in question from Queen Elizabeth rendring rent as it appears by the letters Patents and in facto there was no rent reserved upon the Patent and that the Defendant gave answer to the said Bill and admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and after a Decree was made against the Defendant and the Defendant now having shewed this special matter demurred upon this Bill in respect that by his pretence the Court had not jurisdiction to hold plea in the first suit and here it was shewed that the first decree was made upon a matter in Law not properly examinable by English Bill and that in facto the Law was therein mistaken and therefore the Defendant prayed that the decree may be re-examined Tanfield chief Baron it is usual in the office of Pleas that if an action be brought as a debtor of our Lord the King this is good although that de facto no suggestion be made thereof if it be not shewed on the other side and therefore a writ of Error for this falsity shall not cause the judgement to be reversed as it was resolved in a case in which I was of Councel and so here as it seemeth Altham Baron here we are in equity wherein we are not tied to so strickt a course as if it were in the office of pleas Brock of the Inner Temple for the Defendant in a Court of equity it is in the discretion of the Court to deny Execution of a decree if good cause be shewed and in 18. E. 4. fo 1. judgement was given against a married wife by the name of a feme sole and reversed although she did not shew in the first suit that she was married and in 8. E. 4. judgement was given in the Kings Bench in a suit and by writ of error was reversed although the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and the chief Baron and all the Court inclined that Arden may exhibit a Bill to reverse this Decree made against him and may shew what point in Law the Iudges mistook in the Decree or otherwise we should not do as Law and Iustice requireth for it is not expedient to be examined by way of Bar to this Bill in the nature of a scire facias and after Arden according to the Decree of the Court and their direction did exhibit his Bill in the nature of a writ of error Comprising how the first decree was erroneously made and prayed that the said decree might be reversed and in his Bill he shewed the point in Law which was decreed and that upon divers long conveyances appears to be thus and so it was agreed by Councel on both parties that Arden the father was seised of the Mannor of Cudworth in the County of c. and was also seised of the Mannor of Parkhal in the same County and of Blackclose c. which was parcel of the Mannor of Cudworth but lying neer unto Parkhal and alwayes used and occupied with it and reputed parcel thereof but in truth it was parcel of Cudworth and that Arden the father made a Conveyance of the Mannor of Parkhal and of all the lands thereunto belonging and reputed as parcel thereof or occupied with it as part or parcel thereof and of all other his lands in England except the Mannor of Cudworth to the use of Arden his son that now is Plantiffe here and if Blackclose will pass to the son by this conveyance or if by intendment it shall be excepted by the exception made it was the question here and was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood that it is excepted by the exception but all the Barons now thought it to be a strong case that Blackclose is not excepted by the exception of the Mannor of Cudworth and so the first decree was upon a mistake out of the Law and Tanfield chief Baron said that the point is no other but that I infeoffe you of Blackacre parcel of the Mannor of D. exceyt my Mannor of D. this doth not except the King
Baron answered that he should have them of right see Bartues case in Dyer but the Lord Treasurer said that he saw no reason to satisfie himself thereof Doillie against Joiliffe DOillie Plantiff against Joiliffe in an Action upon the case for false imprisonment of the Plantiffs wife the case was that Leonard Lovies was formerly Plantiff in an action in the Common Pleas against Julian Goddard a feme sole and in this action the Plantiff and Defendant were at issue and a venire facias was awarded and before the return thereof the said Julian took to husband Doillie now Plantiff and after upon a special verdict found in the suit judgement was given in the Common Pleas for the said Julian against th◠said Leonard upon which judgement Leonard brought error in the Kings Bench and a scire facias was awarded against Julian by the name of Julian Goddard as a feme sole and she appeared by Attorney as a feme sole and this as the Defendant said in his answer was by the consent of her husband now Plantiff and after judgement was given to reverse the judgement in the Common Pleas and the entrie of that judgement as it was pleaded by the Defendant here was quod praedict Leonard Lovies recuperet c. versus praedict Julianam c. and costs and damages were taxed c. upon which judgement the said Lovies sued a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Julian Goddard and by vertue of that writ the Defendant here the Sheriff or Devon took the said Julian being the Plantiffs wife and imprisoned her until the Plantiff paid 10. l. which was the cost taxed by the Kings Bench for her deliverance upon which imprisonment the husband only hath brought his action against the Defendant being Sheriff Davenport of Grayes Inne argued for the Defendant and first he thought that between the parties to the error and the first action in the Common Pleas there is an estoppel and admittance that the said Julian continued a feme sole for the process in all the proceedings ought to be as it was in the Original and he vouched 18. Assise pla 16. by which book it appears that if a man bring an assise for lands in the Countie of O. and the Tenants plead a Common recovery of the same land in the Common Pleas this doth conclude the partie to say that the lands did lie else where c. also if an original be depending and before the first Capias or process awarded the Defendant intermarrieth and after a capias issueth against her as a feme sole this is well awarded lib. 5. E. 4.16 and also 5. E. 3. fo 9. and 10. also he said that such a thing as is done between the plea and not after the judgement is not material to alter the proceedings in that course it was begun for the same partie against whom judgement is given shall error have against him for whom the judgement is given except she had married after the judgement for then he agreed that the writ of error shall be brought by the husband and wife in case judgement had been given against the wife while she was sole 35. H. 6. fo 31. and 12. Assise pla 41. and it also appears by 18. E. 4. fo 3. if Trespas he brought against a married wife as against a feme sole and she appears as a feme sole and judgement is given and execution accordingly this is good until it be reversed by error and the Sheriff in such case never ought to examine if it be evil or nor no more then if Trespas be brought against A. my servant by the name of B. and A. is taken in execution the Master shall not take benefit of this misnaming admitting that A. should punish the Sheriff for it also he vouched one Shotbolts case 10. and 11. Eliz. Dyer and 15. Eliz. Dyer 318. in the Earl of Kents case which prove that the Sheriff is to be excused for taking me by a false name and if the Iudges admit this false name yet this judicial writ ought not to be examined by the Sheriff and it was adjourned Shoftbey against Waller and Bromley SHoftbey brought an action upon the case against Waller and Bromley and declared that the Defendants conspired that the said Bromley should commence a suit against the Plantiff and that the Plantiff was then worth 5000. l. and that he was then dwelling in Middlesex and that the Defendants knowing thereof maliciously and falsely agreed that the said Bromley should lay his action in London and prosecute it until the Plantiff were outlawed in the said suit to the intent that his goods should be forfeited to the King and after in performance of the agreement aforesaid the Plantiff suggested that he was dwelling in London and laid his action here which was prosecuted until the Plantiff here was outlawed to his damage c. Tanfield chief Baron thought that if the suggestion was by Bromley to make the process into a wrong County it seemed that the Action should lie against him only but in regard it is shewed in the Declaration that the said suggestion was made by him in performance of the precedent agreement that the action lieth against both which the Court granted Godfrey in this action moved in arrest of judgement and that for two causes the action lieth not upon the matter here it appears by the 4. Eliz. Dyer 214. that a man may say his action wherein an outlawry lies in London and then by the Statute of 6. H. 8. cap. 4. proclamation shall issue into the Countie where he dwelleth therefore the suing of him in another Countie is no such act wherefore an action should be brought no more then if before the Statute of W. 2. cap. 12. a man had brought an appeal Maliciosè yet no remedy before the said Statute as appears in the 13. H. 7. in Kellawaies case because it was lawful to bring an appeal and so notwithstanding the said Statute no action did lie against him who brought an appeal if it abated 9. H. 5. cap. 1. also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth remedy for false appeals or judgement in another Countie maliciosè c. by action of the case whereby it appeareth that in such case the Common Law allowed no action also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth another remedy then that Statute and therefore no action lies against us no more then in the case aforesaid at the Common Law Secondly here is no issue joyned if the Defendants be guiltie of the execution of this practice but only if they be guiltie of the agreement and this is found for the Plantiff but clearly such agreement without execution giveth no cause of action and the word Practizatione comprehends only the going about and not the executing of this conspiracy and therefore the issue should have been general if the Defendants be guiltie or not and therefore he prayed judgement might be stayed and he cited Owen
to be paid before induction 20 Forfeiture by Tenant for life by what Acts 38 Forfeiture by a contempt for not returning upon a command by Privy Seale and what and how long the forfeiture continueth an excellent Case 42 43 False imprisonment see Action Fine if void for uncertainty 55 Where it shall be directed by the Covenant ibid G. GRant of the King what shall be a good surrender thereof 1 And what shall be a good consideration therein 4 Where such a Grant is aided by 43. Eliz. cap. 1. ibid Grant by the King of a reversion nec non manerium de Skipton 39 I. INformation upon 3. 4. E. 6. for buying of Butter against two and one found guilty 19 An information against one for refusing to pay Impost for Currants a famous Case 23 An information for ingrossing 1000. quarters of Corne one Defendant found of 700. only 59 Informer where he shall have a moity upon 23. Eliz. but not upon 28. Eliz. against a Recusant 60 Judgement must be paid before a debt to the King 65 Judges if bound to take notice of a generall pardon 71 Injunction to enjoy possession no hindrance to him that claimeth Common therein 96 Information of intrusiion into a Close and for asportation of 9. Cart loads of wheat between the 24. of March and 1. of October the Jury found him guilty of 3. loads the 24. of March and dammages taxed for all no judgement can be given for any part 97 98 Indentures severall with severall powers therein to declare uses how to be expounded 118 119 K. THE King where he may extend for outlawry after alienation 20 The King where he may take without inrolment and what Acts amounts to an inrolment 31 35 60 The King where he shall have his rent of the Assignee in trust in the Interim before a reassignment made 39 The King where he may extend a Term conveyed in trust 50 51 The King shall not charge the successors of a Bishop for a subsidie but the Executor or the heire 51 The King where he shall be ordered in equity to perform a trust by an English Bill 54 King see Judgement 65 King what interest he hath by an outlawry 83 King where he shall have his debt of his Debtor or Trustee 91 King cannot distrain the Cattell of one Tenant in Common for the debt of the other 96 97 King may charge the debtor of his debtors Debtor 112 113 L. LIvery and seifin of Lands in 2. Towns by Letter of Atturney countermanded by livery in one by the Lessor himself 97 Livery if it can be made upon the Queens Lessee 114 M. A Memorandum in the Exchequer and the operation thereof 5 Misnomer of a Corporation where it voids a Grant 15 33 Mistriall and a venire facias de novo awarded 68 Misnomer of a Corporation 35 N. NOtice of an use or promise maketh a man lyable to execute the same 60 Notice see Judges 71 Notice of payment upon a condition ought to be givea to an infant 100 101 O. OYer of a Deed must be demanded the same Term in the Common Pleas but otherwise in the Kings Bench note the diversity 39 Outlawry in Northumberland for a debt in Durham if the King or the Bishop be intitled 90 P. PAtent of Denization what words therein make it conditionall 58 59 Patent where void for false recitall or want of consideration 75 76 and 108 109 Pleas before a Justice of Nisi prius what allowable and what not 81 82 86 Plea discontinued for want of a day given 89 A Parliament pardon the debt being agreed withall relates ab initio 118 R. A Remainder where contingent 22 Rent where it must be demanded and where not 56 57 Record what makes a double matter of Record to make the party sue by Petition 58 59 Recusancie see S. Remitter in what cases 93 94 c. Recusant if chargable for lands bought in trust and if seisible after his death and if liable by 1. Jacobi 104 105 S. THe Statute of 43. Eliz. cap. 1. well expounded 5 c. The Statute of 33. H. 8. cap. 39. well explained 51 Simony in what Cases and excellent matter thereof 71 72 100 Statutes of 23.28 Eliz. and 1. Iacobi expounded concerning Recusants 91 92 Surrender where countermandable 99 Statute of 1. Ed. 6. of Chantries and the meaning thereof amplie debated by the Barons 113 114 T. TIthes where due for Head-land 16 Tithes where discharged by unity of possession 17 Traverse where good 18 Trust where a Recusant convict is capable thereof 39 Tithes a prescription therein for the Kings Coppyholder it must be tried in the Exchequer 39 Trust where forfeitable 54 55 The tenth according to the Statute leviable only upon part of the lands out of which c 56 Tenorem platiti or Tenorem recordi as good as Recordum praedictum 83 A trust in a Term by the Wife belongs not to the Husband after her decease 113 V. USes where fraudulent against a Purchasor 22 Venire facias de Vicineto of a forrest 33 Vses see Indentures 118 119 A Catalogue of LAVV BOOKES and such as appertain to the LAVV. AShes Tables 2. Volumes Folio Ashes Tables to Cooks Reports Epeciea or table of equity Fasiculus Florum Arguments on the Writ of Habeas Corpus Assise of Bread Atturnies Guide Atturney of the Common Pleas. BRooks Abridgement Readings on Magna Charta Cases Reading on the Stat. of Limitations Boultons Justice Bulstrodes Reports Bracton Brownlows Reports 2. parts Pleadings in 2. parts Judiciall Writs Lord Bacons Elements of the Law Cases of Treason Ordinances Reading of the Statute of Uses Britton Book of Oaths Bollewes Reports of R. the 2d Blunts Glossographia expounding Terms of the Law Boones Examen Legum Angliae Cooks Reports 11 parts French 12th Report English Entries on Littleton the first part of his Institutes 1. on Magna Charta 2. Pleas of the Crown 3d. Jurisdiction of Courts 4th Compleat Coppyholder of Baile and Mainprise Cragge de Feudis Customes of Normandie Mr Cooks Vindication of the Law Pooremans Case City Law Cromptons Justice Iurisdiction of Courts Cowells Interpreter Institutes Callis Readings on Sewers Ignoramus Crook and Hultons Arguments on Ship-money Compleat Clerk and Scriveners Guide Calthrops Relation of Mannors and Coppyhold Cases about the customes of London Conference about the liberty of the Subject Clerks Vade Mecum Presidents Clerks Guide in 2. parts Collins Summary of the Statutes Compleat Justice Caries Reports in Chancery Claytons Reports Topick of the Law Compleat Atturney 2. parts Charter of Rumney Marsh Chancery Orders Court Leet DAvis Reports of Impositions abridgement of Lord Cooks Reports Daltons Justice Office of a Sherif Abridged Dyers Reports Abridgement in French Abridgement in English Doderidges English Lawer Principality of Wales Compleat Parson Deggs proposals Declarations and Orders 4º Dr and Student in Lattin idem in English Abridged Davenports Abridgement of Cook on Littleton Deerehams Mannuall Dallison