in which was parcel demised and demiseable according to the custome of the said Manor by Copy in Fee whereof Langley was a Copiholder in Fee c. and the said Earl so seised enfeoffed divers persons of the said Manor unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Lord Lumley and Elizabeth his wife daughter of the said Earl and the heirs of their two bodies begotten who made a Lease of the said Customary lands by Indenture unto the Plaintiff for 100 years and the question was If by this Lease the lands be so severed from the Manor that the Copihold is extinct Walmesly took exception to the pleading for that Langley pleads That the custome within the Manor is That if any Copiholder seised of Customary lands of the said Manor dieth thereof seised having many sons That the youngest son shall inherit and he sheweth That the Lord of the said Manor granted to his father and his mother the said customary lands by Copy to have to his said father and mother and the heirs of his father c. And that his father died and that his mother survived him and died and he as youngest son according to the custome entred and he said That this custome set forth by the Defendant doth not maintain his entry For the custome intendeth but a general and immediate descent upon a Copy made unto a man and to his heirs but such is not the descent here for the wife surviveth during whose life the heir cannot enter nor is there here such Estate in the father of the Defendant unto whom the custome set forth in the Avowry can extend For the custome is alledged Where a Copyholder hath a Copyhold Estate to him and his heirs And here the Title of the Defendant is That a customary Estate was granted to the father and the mother and the heirs of the father so as this Estate is not within the Letter of the custome And to that purpose he cited the Case of Sir John Savage Sir John Savage's Case ante 109. late adjudged Where one entitled himself to a Copihold in this manner That within the Manor there is such a custome that if one taketh to wife any customary Tenant of the said Manor in Fee and hath issue by her he if he over-live such wife should be Tenant by the Curtesie and the Case in truth was That he married a woman who at the time of the marriage had not any Copihold but afterwards during the coverture a Copihold descended to her In that Case it was holden That no Tenancy by the Curtesie did accrue by that custome which did not extend but where the wife is a Copiholder at the marriage and a custome shall be in construction taken strictly and shall not be extended beyond the words of it And as to the matter in Law he said That by this Lease the custome was gone and then by consequence the customary Tenancy as to that land is determined for the Estate of the Copiholder is Secundum consuetudinem Manerii ad voluntatem Dom. And now by the Lease Langley cannot hold Secundum consuetudinem Manerii for now the services reserved upon the Copy and the advantages of Waste and other forfeitures are extinct so that if notwithstanding the Lease the customary interest should endure then such a Copiholder should hold this land discharged of all services c. in better Estate than any Freeholder at the Common Law and because the services in Law are discharge and cannot be recovered for that cause the customary interest is determined For the Case is 7 E. 4. 19. by Danby That the Copiholder shall have remedy against his Lord if he put him out for he payes a Fine when he enters but here during this Lease no Fine can be paid upon any descent c. and the Fine is the cause for which the Copiholder shall maintain his possession against the Lord But here no descent or surrender can be presented for there is not any Tenant who can do it See 21 E. 4. 80. by Brian As long as the Copiholder payeth unto the Lord the customs and services If the Lord putteth him out he shall have an Action of Trespass 42 E. 3. 25. If the Copiholder will not do his services the Lord shall seize the lands Dyer 100. 1 Cro. 35. And he resembled this Case to the case where the King grants lands probis hominibus de D. the same is a good Grant and that onely in respect of the Rent and for the reason of that it is a good Corporation But if the King releaseth the Rent the Corporation is dissolved and the Grant is become void Fenner Serjeant contrary and he said That by this Lease being the act of the Lord himself the customary interest is not determined c. And the whole Court was of clear opinion with Fenner That the Copihold did remain for otherwise by such practices of the Lords all the Copiholders in England might be defeated and if any prejudice be grown to the Lord by this act it is of his own doing and against his own act he shall not be relieved And by Periam Iustice The Lord by his act i. e. the making of the Lease hath destroyed his Seignory and lost the services as to this land And Windham Iustice said That the Lord himself had destroyed the custome as to the services but not as to the customary interest of the Tenant but the Lord Anderson was of opinion That the Rents and services do remain and if the Copiholder after such Lease committeth Waste that it is a forfeiture to the Lord and that will fall in evidence upon a trial although such Waste cannot be found by an ordinary presentment and the same Law which alloweth the Copiholder his Copihold interest against this Lease will allow unto the Lord his Rents and services and he said That the Lord shall have the Rents and services and not the Lessee Quod mirum against his own Lease See 33 Eliz. between Murrel and Smith now reported by the Lord Coke in his 4 Report fol. 20. CCLVIII. Russel and Broker 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RUssel brought Trespass against Broker 3 Len. 218. for cutting down of four Oakes The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. and that he is seised of a Messuage in D. And that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consuerunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad libitum suum capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in quolibet tempore anni but in fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is within the Forrest of c. and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de boscis c. per liberationem Forrestarii vel ejus Deputati prout boscus pati potest non ad exigentiam
the Case of making this Statute it was not to overthrow a foundation as it hath been said but it was rather a gratuity of the Subjects to the King for his bounty towards them for whereas by the Statute of Vses Vses were executed in possession so as the Subjects could not dispose of their Lands by their Wills as before the Vses Now by this Statute the King was pleased to give his Royal assent to an Act by which Lands might become devisable in respect of which the Subjects added to this Act the last clause to give him Wardship where it did not lie before by the Common Law and that as a recompence from the Subjects for the King's bounty and therefore it ought to be construed beneficially for the King. And to prevent covin and fraud was not the scope of this Statute For if three purchase Lands unto them and to the heirs of two of them now it is uncertain whose heirs shall inherit for non constat which of them shall survive and therefore no covin is averrable in such case and yet if the survivor of two to whom the Fee is limited dieth his heir within age such heir shall be in Ward So if such Lands be given to two and to the heirs of him of those two who shall first come to the Church of Paul Now it is uncertain which of them shall first come to the Church of Paul yet if he who first cometh to the Church of Paul dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward which Cases prove that covin and fraud were not the cause of making this Statute but onely the thankfulness of the Subjects unto the King for his bounty as abovesaid for if this Act had not been made the Subjects should not have power to dispose of their Lands for the advancement of their children but all should descend So as now the King hath lost the Wardship and Primer seisin of two parts of the Lands of his Tenant and hath also lost the averment of covin which he had by the Common Law where Estates were made by the King's Tenant for advancement of their children In respect of which losses the Subjects gave unto the King Wardship in case where the Lands continue in jointure as to that which hath been said That this Statute shall not be taken by equity I conceive the contrary the words of the Statute are In every such case i. e. In every like case not onely where two or more persons hold jointly to them and the heirs of one of them but also in every the like Case as the Case now in question and in every Case where the life of him who hath the Freehold is the sole impediment quo minus the heir hath not the Land by descent in Demesne And it may be resembled unto the Statute of Marlbridge of Collusion which speaks of Leases for years Quas tradere voluerint ad terminum annorum and yet a Lease for life or Lease for years is within the said Statute for the Statute was made in restraint of an ill liberty that the Tenants had by the Common Law in prejudice of their Lords which see 4 E. 6. 53. Plow 59. And as to the word otherwise that may be construed for payment of his Legacies And as to equity enlarging the Statute speaks where many hold and to the heirs of one yet if two hold to them and the heirs of one of them the same is within the Statute And as to Equity restraining he puts this case Land is given to the Husband and Wife and the heirs of the body of the Wife who have issue the Wife dieth the issue within age he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute but because that other matter That the Estate for life in the Husband is an impediment Quo minus he shall be in Ward It is a maxim of the Common Law That the father shall have the Wardship of the son and heir apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within the Letter of the Statute So if Lands be given to my Villain and to another and to the heirs of my Villain who dieth seised his heir within age I seise the Villain and claim the remainder he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute But I conceive in our Case the King shall have two Wards Simul semel the heir general of Wiseman and the issue in tail the heir general by the Common Law by reason that his father was the King's Tenant who disposed of his Lands for the advancement of his children and therefore the Queen shall have the third part in Ward And also the heir special shall be in Ward for that part of the Statute And it is no new thing to have two Wardships for one and the same Lands As 14 H. 8. of the heir of Cestuy quae use and also of the Feoffee and if the Tenant dieth seised having issue a daughter who is his heir the Lord seiseth the daughter and marrieth her and afterwards a son is born he shall have the Wardship also of him So of the heirs of the Disseisor and Disseisee and he said If Lands holden in chief be leased for life the remainder to A. in Fee A. dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward and that by reason of these words in the Statute In every such case it is not the same Case but the like Case for if he who hath the Fee dieth so as the Freehold survives to the other now the Estate becomes as an Estate for life the remainder over It was adjourned CLXXXIV The Lord Howard and the Town of Walden 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer More Rep. 159. Post 162 163. BEtwixt the Lord Howard and the Town of Walden the Case was That the King made a Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster Tenend in feodi forma reddend inde sibi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. The question was How and of whom the Tenure should be It was argued by Plowden That it should be holden of the King as of his Dutchy he said The King is not bounden by the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum but here upon this Feoffment the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy All Grants of the King notwithstanding that they be of Lands yet they savour of the person of the King and his Prerogative being wrapt up in his person shall guide the disposition of the land and he said that this Tenure shall be implyed by reason and in respect of his person And the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum extends to Tenants onely Libere tenentes magnatum aliorum but the King is not Libere tenens alicujus magnat 32 H. 6. 21 22. The King hath an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy to which
first Fine doth not make any discontinuance and yet he conceived it is not altogether void against the issues before that they enter for no Right remains in the Conusor against his Fine and he conceived also that this clause ex uberiori gratia nostra did extend to pass more than passed before for he conceived that the Queen intended more liberally viz. the Reversion for this same is not any matter of Prerogative but this is a matter of interest which might even in the Case of the King pass out of the King by general words And see 3 H. 6. 6 and 7 Br. Patents A Grant of the King ex insinuatione shall not hinder the force of the words ex mero motu And the opinion of the Court was That the Reversion which was in the King did not pass by this Grant For the scope of the whole Patent was as was conceived to grant the same onely which the Queen had ratione attincturae Anderson held the Patent insufficient because that the Prohibition was not full and certain Also he said That ex speciali gratia c. would not help this Case if it were well argued for the Estate tail is not well recited but onely that he was seised de Statu haereditario c. so as the Queen was deceived Periam contrary The Queen was apprised well of the mischief and Grant aforesaid viz. of such Estate with which he departed by the Fine And as to the other point it was the opinion of Walmsley That the Fine with Proclamation did bind the Entail And as to the Objection which hath been made That the Conusor at the time of the Fine levied was not seised by force of the Entail the same had been good matter to avoid a common Recovery to alledge such matter in the Tenant to the Praecipe but not to this purpose for if Tenant in tail levieth a Fine although he was not seised at the time of the Fine levied by force of the Entail yet such a Fine shall bind the issues So if the Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth the Discontinuee and so levieth a Fine And he conceived That the issue in tail is bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. even of the Gift of the King. And see 19 H. 8. 6. and 7. where it is holden That the issue in tail is bound by the Act of 4 H. 7. And whereas it hath been objected That it doth not extend but to such Fines which make a discontinuance at the Common Law the same is not so for if Tenant in tail of a Rent or Common levieth a Fine with Proclamation it is very clear that the issues shall be barred thereby And he relied much upon the Book of 29 H. 8. Dyer 32. Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King levyeth a Fine or suffereth a common Recovery although it be not a discontinuance because the Reversion is in the King yet it is a bar unto the issue But note That that was before the Statute of 34 H. 8. And see now Wiseman's Case 27 Eliz. Co. 2. part and see the Lord Stafford's Case 7 Jacob. Co. 8 Reports fo 78. CXCII Pleadal 's Case 21 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THe Case was That a man seised of Lands in fee took a Lease by Indenture of the Herbage and Pawnage of the same Land It was the Opinion of the whole Court that the same was no Estoppel to him to claim the Soil or the Freehold And it was said by Plowden and agreed by the Court That if the Father and Son be Ioint-tenants for an hundred years and the Son takes a Lease of his Father of the Lands for fifteen years to begin c. the same shall conclude the Son to claim the whole term or parcel of it by Survivor CXCIII 21 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber NOte That in the Star-Chamber it was resolved by the Advice of many of the Iustices That an Infant having levyed a Fine may declare the uses upon it and such Declaration is good notwithstanding his Nonage and Mr. Plowden affirmed 2 Co. 10 42 57. that so it was adjudged in his own Case by which he lost Lands of the yearly value of 40 l. So a Declaration by a man in duresse is good which Anderson denyed CXCIV The Lord Awdley 's Case 21 Eliz. In the Court of Chancery THE Lord Awdley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Sommerset Dy. 166 324 325. and afterwards by Indenture reciting the said Feoffment and the date of it and also that it was to the intent that his Feoffees should perform his Will as follows in effect viz. My Will is 6 Co. Sir Ed. Cloer's Case That my said Feoffees shall stand seised to the use That the said Hoddy shall receive of the yearly Profits of the said Lands one hundred pounds which he had lent to the said Lord Awdley and also stand seised to pay all his Debts upon Bills signed with his Hand and after the Debts paid That the said Feoffees shall make Estate of the said Lands unto him the said Lord Awdley and Ioan his Wife and to the Heirs of their Bodies c. with divers Remainders over The said Lord had issue by the said Joan and also had issue by a former Wife a Daughter The Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his Wife And it was the Opinion of divers of the Iustices and Sages of the Law That upon this matter no use was changed for it is not a last Will but an intent And although that the Feoffees shall be seised unto the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because that no consideration was for which they should be seised to their own use yet the same cannot make a new use unto the said Lord and his wife in tail without conveying an Estate for the wife is a stranger unto the land and also to the other use And it cannot be a Testament or last Will for the Estate mentioned in the said Writing ought to be made to the said Lord and his wife who cannot take by his own Will. And this matter was depending in the Chancery and the advice of the Iustices being there required they did deliver their opinions That by this Writing no use was changed nor any Estate vested in the said Lord and his wife and a Decree was made accordingly untill proof might be made of such an Estate made CXCV. Borough and Holcroft 's Case 21 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Co. 3. Inst 31. 4 Co. 45. IN an Appeal of Murther by the son of the Lord Borough of the death of his elder brother Henry Borough against Thomas Holcroft who pleaded That heretofore he had been indicted of the Murther of the said Henry Holcroft before J. S. Coroner of the Verge and also Coroner of the Country of Middlesex within which County the Verge was and upon that indictment he was arraigned and confessed the
he said Misnosmer shall be tried where the Writ is brought c. So Ne unque administer as Executor c. Manwood Here the Lease is said to be made at Durham in a place certain if now there be not any other local thing said which might draw the trial elsewhere it shall be tried at Durham where the Lease is made An Infant makes a lease for years rendring Rent and afterwards re-enters and avoids his Lease by reason of his nonage and Title is made against him by the Lease upon which he pretended nonage it shall be tried where the Lease was made and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXIX Ross and Morrice 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench EDward Ross was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Edward Morrice 1 Cro. 108 109. and George Manly Defendants who made Conusance as Bailiffs to Jerom Weston The Plaintiff declares of the taking of two Geldings 20 Decemb. 29 Eliz. at Nayland in the County of Suffolk in a certain place called Nayland-Court-Meadow And the Conusance is that the place where was a Freehold of the said Jer. Weston c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance shewed That long time before Sir Christopher Danby was seised of 30 acres of Meadow in Nayland whereof the place where c. and Leased the same by Indenture to Thomas Calton 19 Maii 31 H. 8. Habendum from the Feast of the Annunciation 1553. for the term of 45 years Who 1 E. 6. assigned his Interest to Edw. Ross the Plaintiff's Father who 1 Maii the said 1553. entred and 11 Eliz. granted his Interest to Bamford and Mascal who entred and were possessed Sir Christopher Danby died seised of the Reversion 13 Eliz. and the same descended to Thomas Danby his son and heir 14 Eliz. Mascal died Bamford 15 Eliz. granted to the Plaintiff Habendum from the 17 of March 1583. for three years which expired 26 Eliz. Bamford entred and afterwards Thomas Danby granted the Reversion to Edw. Rockwood in Fee to which the said Bamford Attorned and the Plaintiff by force of the said Lease put in his Cattel c. The Plaintiff Replicando said That long time before that Danby had any thing Jeofry Lord Scroop had issue of his body Henry Lord Scroop and died And that one John Guntwarby was seised of the said Manor of Nayland whereof c. in Fee by his Charter 25 E. 3. gave to the said Henry Lord Scroop the same Et haeredibus corpore suo exeuntibus who had issue Stephen who entred and died seised having issue John who entred and died seised having issue Thomas who entred and 3 H. 7. suffered a Common Recovery to the use of himself and his heirs The Recoverers enfeoffed Thomas seised also of many other Lands and had issue Ralph Jeofry Alice Elizabeth and Margery and afterwards died seised Ralph Lord Scroop entred and thereof did enfeoff divers persons unto the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and the heirs males of the said Ralph and afterwards the said Ralph being possessed of the said Charter of entail made ut supra by Guntwardy 7 H. 8. Devised that the Feoffees should be seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and if they died without issue of the body of the said Ralph the said Jeofry then living that then the Feoffees should be seised to the use of the said Jeofry being his Vncle for his life and after his decease ad usum Rectorum haeredum in perpetuum secundum antiquam Evidentiam inde ante factam with an averment that the said Ralph at the time of the said Devise and of his death was possessed of the Charter of Entail made by the said Guntwardy and that the said Charter was the most ancient Evidence of the said concerning the said Manor Ralph died without issue possessed of the said Charter by which the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to his use for life and after to the use of the said Jeofry for life and after his decease of the right heirs of the body of Henry Lord Scroop lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and the said Charter and of the residue of the Manors to the use of the said Jeofry and his heirs Eleanor died after whose decease the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of the said Jeofry right heir of the said Henry Lord Scroop of his body begotten and of the other lands to the use of the said Jeofry in Fee Jeofry died without issue by which the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery Cosins and heirs of the body of the said Henry Scroop c. And of the heirs of the bodies of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and Charter as to the said Manor of Nayland and of the other Manors to their use in Fee And afterwards the said Alice took to husband James Strangways who had issue Thomas Elizabeth took to husband Fitz Randolph who had issue Elizabeth Dorothy Agnes Alice Margery took to husband Danby who had issue Sir Christopher Danby named in the Bar and afterwards all the said husbands and their wives died by force of which the said Feoffees were seised of one part of the said Manor of Nayland in three parts to be divided to the use of the said Thomas Strangways and of another part to the use of the four daughters of the said Elizabeth and her husband Fitz Randolph and of another such part to the use of the said Christopher Danby and of their heirs in Tail and of the other lands to the use of them in Fee in degree of Coparcinary Elizabeth the eldest daughter of Fitz Randolph took to husband Shirley Dorothy her sister took to husband Eshe Agnes took to husband Maynel and Alice took to husband Dranfield Thomas Strangways had issue James and died And afterwards partition was made by which to James Strangways were allotted lands in Kent and agreed that the Feoffees should be seised of the said lands to the use of the said James and his heirs and to no other use To Sherley and Elizabeth his wife lands in Essex were allotted and agreed upon the partition that the Feoffees should be seised to the use of them c. in Fee c. And to Danby the said Manor of Nayland in tail by reason of the Devise and Charter aforesaid as to the said Manor of Nayland and of other lands in Fee. And afterwards 23 E. 8. notice was given to the Feoffees of the said partition and averred that the partition was equal c. and that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said partition untill 27 H. 8. and confessed the Lease made by Danby to Calton and all the assignments set forth in the Bar to the Avowry and farther shewed That Thomas Danby
è contr 17 E. 3. 8. A man may make a Feoffment of a Manor by the name of a Knights Fee à fortiori in case of the Devise and in our case the Marquiss conceived That the Rent and Services reserved out of the Manor of Fremmington was the Manor of Fremmington and the Law shall give strength to that intention Walmsly conceived That the Rent did not pass by the name of Manor c. for this Rent nec in rei veritate nor in reputation was ever taken for a Manor Also the words Of the Manor and Hundred of Fremmington are put amongst others which are Manors in truth by which it seemeth That the Devisor did not intend to pass but one Manor and no other Hereditaments by that Manor of Fremmington It is a Rule in Law That in the construction of a Will a thing implyed shall not controul a thing expressed But here if by implication the Rent shall pass then the Manor of Camfield shall not pass which it was the intent of the Devisor to pass and that by express words See 16 Elizab. Dyer 330. Clatche's Case and see 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman's Case But in our Case here there are not any sufficient words to warrant any implication for neither in truth nor in reputation was it taken to be a Manor 22 H. 6. 2. Green Acre might pass by the name of a Manor although it were but one Acre of Land because known by the name of a Manor See accordingly 22 H. 6. 39. And see where before the Statute of Vses a man had Recoverors to his use and he wills by his Will That his Trustees should sell his Lands they may sell And he said That if a man seised of a Manor parcell in Demesne and parcell in service and he grants the Demesnes to one and his Heirs and afterwards deviseth his Manor peradventure the services shall pass but this Rent hath no resemblance to a Manor Gawdy This Rent shall pass by the name aforesaid Favourable construction is to be always given to Wills according to the intent of the Devisor and no part of a Will shall be holden void if by any means it may take effect then here it appeareth that his meaning was that upon these words every thing should pass to the Devisee concerning the said Manor of Fremmington for otherwise the words of the Manor of Fremmington should be void and frivolous which shall not be in a Will if any reasonable construction can be for it is found expresly by the Iury That neither at the time of the Will made nor at the time of the death of the Devisor the said Devisor had any thing in the said Manor of Fremmington but onely the said Rent of one hundred and thirty pounds And it may well be taken that the Devisor being ignorant what thing a Manor is though that the Rent was a Manor because that he had Rents and services out of the Manor For in construction of Wills the words shall serve the intent of the party and therefore if a man deviseth That his Lands shall be sold for the payment of his debts his Executors shall sell them for the intent of the Testator naming the Vendors is sufficient And see Plowden 20 Eliz. 5. 24. L. after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Executors shall be seised to the use of A. and his Heirs in Fee whereas then there was no Feoffees to his use the same was holden a good Devise of the Lands of A. and the Iudges conceived that the Devisor was ignorant of the operation of the Statute in such case and therefore his ignorance was supplied See Br. Devises 44. 29 H. 8. A. had Feoffees to his use and afterwards after the Statute of 27 H. 8. willed that his Feoffees should make an Estate to B. and his Heirs it was holden by Baldwin Shelley and Mountague Iustices that it was a good Devise See 26 H. 6. Feoff 12. A Carve of Lands may pass by the name of a Manor Ergo à multo fortiori Rent for Rents and Services have more nearness and do more resemble a Manor than a Carve of Lands and it cannot be intended that the meaning of the Testator was to grant the Manor it self in which she had nothing especially by her Will for covin collusion or indirect dealing shall not be presumed in a Will Also the Marchioness for four years together before her death had the Rent and Services of the said Manor and she well knew that she had not any other thing in the said Manor but the said Rent and Services and therefore it shall be intended that that was her Manor of Fremmington A. seised of a Capital Messuage and great Demesnes lying to it leaseth the same for years rendring Rent and afterward deviseth to another all his Farm lying in such a place It was rated in that case that by that Devise the Rent and the Reversion should pass See the Case betwixt Worselie and Adams Plowd 1 Eliz. 195. by Anthony Brown and Dyer Periam Iustice was of opinion that this Rent might be divided well enough But by Anderson It is but Rent-seck but Periam said it was a Rent distrainable of common Right but all of them agreed that the Rent might be divided but there should not be two Tenures And the Lord Montjoy being advised that this Rent did not pass by the Grant but descended to the Heir being the full part of the whole entred into all the residue of the Lands and made a Lease of the Manor of Camfield unto the Plaintiff upon which entry the Ejectione firmae was brought and afterwards the Plaintiff seeing the opinion of the Court to be against him and for the Devisee of the Rent by the name aforesaid did afterward discontinue his suit c. LVIII Costard and Wingfield 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Intrat T. 28 Eliz. Rot. 507. In the Common-Pleas 6 Co. 60. IN a Replevin the Defendant did avow for damage-feasant by the commandment of his Master the L. Cromwel The Plaintiff by way of Replication did justifie the putting in of his cattel into the Land where c. by reason that the Town of N. is an ancient Town and that it had been used time out of mind c. That every Inhabitant of the said Town had had common for all manner of cattel levant and couchant within the said Town and so justified The Defendant said that the house in which the Plaintiff did inhabit in the said Town and by reason of residency in which House he claimed common was a new house erected within 30 years and that before that time there had not been any house there upon which the Plaintiff did demurr Shuttleworth Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff That he should have common there by reason of resiancy in the said new house and he said that the Resiancy is the cause and not the Land nor the person thereof and thereupon he put the Case of
Law doth admit the oath of the party in his own cause as in Debt the Defendant shall wage his Law Periam That 's an ancient Law but we will not make new Presidents for if such oath be accepted in this Case by the same reason in all cases where is secrecy and no external proof upon which would follow great inconveniencies and although such an Oath hath been before accepted of and allowed here yet the same doth not move us and we see no reason to multiply such Presidents The Declaration is that the Plaintiff was robbed of 10 l. de denariis ipsius querentis and upon the Evidence it appeareth That the Plaintiff was the Receiver of the Lady Rich and had received the said money for the use of the said Lady and exception was taken to it by Shuttleworth but it was not allowed for the Plaintiff is accomptable to the Lady Rich the said money And it was agreed that if he who was robbed after he hath made Hue and Cry doth not farther follow the thieves yet his Action doth remain CX Large 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Len. 182. THE Case was A. seised of Lands in Fee devised the Lands to his wife until William his son should come to the age of 22 years and then the Remainder of part of the Lands to his two sons A. and John The Remainder of other part of his Lands to two others of his said sons upon condition That if any of his said sons before William should come to the age of 22 years shall go about to make any sale of any part c. he shall for ever lose the Lands and the same shall remain over c. And before his said son William came to the age of 22 years one of the other sons Leased that which to him belonged for 60 years and so from 60 years to 60 years until 240 years ended c. Bois A. and J. are joynt-tenants of the Remainder and he said That the opinion of Audley Lord Chancellor of England is not Law scil where a man deviseth Lands to two and to their heirs they are not joynt-tenants as to the survivor but if one of them dieth the survivor shall not have the whole but the heir of his that dieth shall have the moyety See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 29. And he said That this Lease although it be for so many years is not a sale intended within the Will and so is not a Ioynture 46 E. 3. One was bounden that he should not alien certain Lands and the Obligor did thereof enfeoff his son and heir apparent the same was held to be no alienation within the Condition of the Obligation Of the other side it was argued The remainder doth not vest presently for it is incertain if it shall vest at all for if William dieth before he cometh to the age of 22 years it was conceived by him that the Remainder shall never vest for the words of the Will are Then the Lands shall remain c. 34 E. 3. Formedon 36. Land is devised to A. for life and if he be disturbed by the heir of the Devisor that then the Land shall remain to D. Here D. hath not any remainder before that A. be disturbed It was farther argued that here is a good Condition and that the Devisee is not utterly restrained from sale but onely untill a certain time scil to the age of William of 22 years And it was said that this Lease is a Covenous Lease being made for 240 years without any Rent reserved As such a Lease made for 100 years or 200 years is Mortmain as well as if it had been an express Feoffment or Alienation But it was said by some Antea 36 37. that here is not any sale at all nor any lease for the Lessor himself hath not any thing in the Land demised As if a man disseiseth a Feme sole and seaseth the Lands and afterwards marrieth the disseisee he shall avoid his own Lease 5 E 3. One was bound that he should not alien such a Manor the Obligor alieneth one Acre parcell of it the Obligation is forfeit See 29 H. 8. Br. Mortgage 36. A. leaseth to a religious house for 100 years and so from 100 years to 100 years untill 800 years be encurred the same is Mortmain Vide Stat. 7 E. 1. Colore termini emere vel vendere And in the principal Case if the Devisee had entred into a Statute to the value of the Land leased by the intent of the Will the same had been a sale and such was the opinion of the whole Court and by the Court the word in perpetuum shall not be referred to the words precedent but unto the words following scil in perpetuum perdat the Lands And if a custome be in the case that the Infant of the age of 15 years may sell his Lands if he make a Lease the same is not warranted by the custome And afterwards it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Lease made as before was a sale within the intent of the Will of the Devisor CXI Brooke 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench APpeal of Burglary was brought against Brooke who was found guilty and before Iudgment given the Plaintiff died And now Egerton moved that Iudgment should be given for the Queen upon that verdict or at least that the Declaration in the Appeal should be in lieu of an Indictment and that the Appealee be thereupon arraigned and put to answer the same For if the Appellant had been Nonsuit or released the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen Coke God hath now by the death of the party delivered the Defendant and it is not like where the Plaintiff releaseth for there it is the default of the Act of the party but here it is the Act of God and he held it for a rule That where auterfoits acquit is a good Plea there also auterfoits convict shall be a good Plea And it was holden in Sir Tho. Holcroft's Case Sir Thomas Holcroft's Case That where the party is convicted at the suit of the Queen there the Appeal doth not afterwards lie Wray If the Appellant dieth before Verdict the Defendant shall be arraigned at the suit of the King But if his life hath been once in jeopardy by Verdict he conceived that it shall not again be drawn into danger and some were of opinion that the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen upon the whole Record and plead auterfoits acquit and that they said was the surest way CXII Ognel and Paston 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer .. 1 Cro. 64. CLement Paston was Defendant in an Action of Debt brought against him by George Ognel upon an Escape and the Case was this Francis Woodhouse was bound in a Recognizance to the said Ognel Whereupon Ognel sued forth a Scire facias and upon two Nihils retorned had
Writ of Account against Robston Hil. 29 Eliz. Rot. 1. and now Robston brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That whereas the said Writ of Account was brought against the said Defendant as Receiver of Monies for to render Account quando ad hoc requisitus fuerit the said Writ ought to have been more special But the opinion of the Court was That the Writ in his generalty was holden good And so it was adjudged in the Case of one Gomersal scil quod reddat ei rationabilem computum suum de tempore quo fuit Receptor Denariorum ipsius A. Another Error was assigned That the Iury had assessed damages which ought not to be given in an Action upon Account which see 2 R. 2. Acco 45. and 2 H. 7. 13. But see the Book of Entries fo 22. In a Writ of Account against one as Receivor to Account render damages were given For if my Bailiff 1 Leon. 302. by imploying of my Moneys whereof he was the Receivor might have procured to me profit and gain but he neglects it he shall be chargeable to me in right and shall answer for it And here in our case damages shall be given and afterwards notwithstanding all objections made to the contrary the Iudgment given before was affirmed CLXI Yates 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the King ' s-Bench 3 Len. 231. A Writ of Error was brought by Yates and others upon a Iudgment given in a Writ of Partition and it was assigned for Error that the Writ of Partition was not sufficient for it is there set forth That the Plaintiffs insimul pro indiviso tenent cum defendente c. and do not shew of what Estate or whose inheritance See F. N. B. 61. 5. and 62. a. insimul pro indiviso tenent de haereditate quae fuit A. matris of the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1 Cro. 759 760. And yet see F. N. B. 62. A. A Writ of Partition betwixt strange persons without naming haereditate in the Writ And see also that a Partition of Lands in London without shewing of what Estate Courtney and Polewheel's Case Finch and Firrel's Case L. Cheney and Bell's Case See Register 76. 6 Eliz. in a Partition by Courtney against Polewheel no Estate shewed in the Writ so betwixt Finch and Firrel and betwixt Fry and Drake 14 Eliz. Devon. 26 Eliz. betwixt the Lord Cheney and Bell and Mich. 4 and 5 Ph. and Ma. Rot. 208. It was holden That it is not necessary in such a Writ to shew the Estate and such also was the opinion of the Court in the principal Case but Tenants in common ought to shew it in the Count And the Iudgment given was affirmed CLXII Phillips and Stone 's Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 32 H. 6. upon which this special matter was found That one J. S. had heretofore recovered against him 100 l. in an Action of Debt and upon the Capias ad satisfaciend he was taken and committed to the Plaintiff who was Gaoler c. to the Sheriff and so being in Execution he escaped and afterwards he was re-taken by the Plaintiff and kept in prison and so being in prison made the Bond upon which the Action is brought It was said by the Court That if a Prisoner being in Execution escapes with the permission of the Gaoler the Execution is utterly gone and extinguished and the Plaintiff at whose Suit he was taken in Execution shall never resort to him who escapes but shall hold himself to the Goaler for his remedy but if such a Prisoner escapeth of his own wrong without the privity or consent of the Gaoler the Gaoler may well take him again for his indemnity untill the Plaintiff hath determined his Election whether he will have his remedy against the Gaoler or that he will maintain his Execution 13 H. 7. 1 and 2. But as unto the Statute of 23 H. 6. the Court was of Opinion That posito that the party who escapes cannot be taken again yet being taken the Bond which is taken colore Officii is within the said Statute because the party was retaken colore Executionis and so the Bond was void CLXIII Gering 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation against one as Executor 1 Len. 87. the Case was That the Testator of A. by his Will appointed certain lands and named which should be sold by his Executor and the monies thereof coming to be distributed betwixt his daughters when they have accomplished the age of one and twenty years The lands are sold and if the monies thereof being in the hand of the Executor untill the full age of the daughters shall be Assets to pay the debts of the Testator was the question and it was the opinion of the whole Court that the said monies should not be Assets for they said that that money is limited to a special use Quaere of this Case For I have heard that it was afterwards resolved in another Case that the monies in the like Case remaining in their hands should be Assets CLXIV Davies and Percie 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEtween Margaret Davies and one Perce the Case was 2 Roll 284. Goldb 58. That one Anth. Perce upon speech of a marriage to be had betwixt the said Anthony and the mother of Margaret covenanted by Indenture with certain friends of the mother to pay to all the daughters of the mother 20 l. a piece at their several ages of four and twenty years and to perform the Covenant was bound to the said friends in an Obligation Anthony Perce made his Will and willed that his Executors should pay to each of the daughters 20 l. at their several ages of four and twenty years in discharge of the said Covenant and died Now the said Margaret sued the Executors in the Spiritual Court for the 20 l. bequeathed to her and upon this matter the Executors prayed a Prohibition And by the Lord Anderson a Prohibition will lie for here is no Legacy but the Will refers to the Covenant and is in discharge of the Covenant As if A. be indebted to B. in 20 l. And if A. by his Will willeth that his Executors shall pay to the said B. 20 l. in discharge of the said debt the same is not any Legacy but a Declaration that the intent of A. is that the debt shall be paid Periam Iustice was of the same opinion as the Lord Anderson and Anderson said If a Legacy be bequeathed to me and the Executor covenants to pay me the said Legacy and afterwards J. sueth the Executor in the Spiritual Court he shall have a Prohibition Quod caeteri Justiciarii negaverunt See F. N. B. 44 Br. If the Testator by his Will charge his Executors to pay his debts and his creditors they do
not pay them and the creditors sue them in the Spiritual Court they shall not have a Prohibition Vide 6. H. 3. Prohib 17. which Anderson Vehementer negavit and afterwards the Iustices looked and advised upon the Indenture and found that the indenture and Obligation were made to the friends of the mother of the daughters and not to the daughters themselves to whom the Legacies were give and bequeathed and therefore were of opinion that a Prohibition did not lie CLXV Thorp and Tomson 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 336. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That one Thimblethorp was seised of the lands where c. and by Contract sold the same to Thorp but no assurance was yet made and afterwards Thorp before any assurance made sold likewise the said lands to Tomson and afterwards Thimblethorp made assurance thereof to Tomson and afterwards Tomson being seised devised the Lands to his younger son Dyer 376. by these words I bequeath to R. my son all the lands which I purchased of Thorp whereas in speaking the truth according to Law he purchased them by immediate assurance of Thimblethorp although he did contract with Thorp for the same And the opinion of the whole Court was without argument either at Bar or at the Bench That the Devise was good for in the repute of the people they preseised of Thorp for Tomson paid the monies for the same to Thorp and the Court commanded Iudgment to be entred accordingly And afterwards Exception was taken to the Verdict because it is not found by what service the land devised was holden Socage or Knight-service nor that the Devisor is dead and these were holden to be material Exceptions and for that cause the Iudgment was stayed and afterwards the Verdict was rejected and a Venire facias de novo awarded CLXVI Grove and Sparre 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Trespass was brought by Grove against Sparre Process continued untill Sparre was outlawed and now it was moved unto the Court to avoid the Outlawry That the original Writ and all the Iudicial Process thereupon are directed Vice-Com Wigorn. and in the Filazar's Roll in the Margent is written Hereford and in the body of the said Roll is written Et praedictus Grove obtulit se quarto die post Et Vicecomes modo mandat quod praedictus Spar non est inventus c. Ideo praeceptum est Vicecom c. and at the Capias retorned it is entred in the Roll as before Hereford whereas the Capias is directed Vicecom Wigorn. as of right it ought to be and the Roll was perused by the Court and it was ut supra and that without any suspicion of Rasure for which the Court gave day to the Queens Serjeants to advise themselves to maintain the Outlawry and the Defendants Council prayed That a Recordatur be made in what Estate the Roll now is for doubt of amendment by way of Rasure or otherwise which was granted by the Court. CLXVII Rushton 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer RUshton was indebted to the Queen in 200 marks See this Case vouched in C. 4 part in Palmer's Case 3 Len. 204. upon which issued an Extent against him out of the Exchequer to levy the said sum to the Sheriff of Suffolk and it was found by Inquisition That Rushton 22 Junii 22 Eliz. was possessed of a Lease for the term quorundam annorum adhuc venturorum and the debt of the Queen did begin 12 Febr. 17 Eliz. Exception was taken to this Office because that the term is not certainly found but generally quorundam annorum and it was said by Coke That the Office was good notwithstanding that Exception for the Queen is a stranger to the Lease and therefore ought not to be forced to find the precise certainty which see in Partridge's Case in Plowd The Defendant had made a Lease Pro termino quorundam annorum contra formam statuti Also Rushton came not to the Lease by Contract but by compulsary means as by Execution c. And here we are not in the Case of pleading but of an Office where such precise form is not requisite As if it be found by Office that J. S. was seised in tail without shewing of whose gift the same was it is good so an Indictment De morte cujusdam hominis ignoti the same is good but such Endictment taken before the Coronor is not good And that a Lease for years may be extended see 21 Ass 6. If a man be indebted to the Queen being a Lessee for years and afterwards before any Extent comes sells his term the same cannot be extended after And here it appears That this Lease was to begin at a day to come and that the Lessee did enter before the day by which he was a Disseisor and so he said he had lost his term Tenant for the life of another is disseised and dieth he remains a Disseisor and the occupancy doth not qualifie such disseisin And afterwards the Inquisition for the incertainty aforesaid was holden void and a new Commission was awarded CLXVIII Holland and Boin 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Thomas Holland against William Boin's 3 Len. 175. 1 Len. 183. Ow. 138. who made Conusans as Bailey to Thomas Lord Howard and shewed that the Prioress of the late dissolved Priory of Hollywell was seised of the Manor of Priors in the County of Hertford and granted the same by words of Dedi Concessi pro certa pecuniae summa to Thomas Audley Chancellor of England and his Heirs who entred and died seised and that the said Manor inter alia descended to Mary daughter and Heir of the said Thomas Audley who entred and also died seised by force whereof the said Manor descended to the said Thomas Lord Howard c. and shewed that the said conveyance by the prioress to Audley bore date 4 Novemb. 29 H. 8. and then enrolled in the Chancery The Plaintiff in Bar of the Avowry shewed that after the making and enrolling of the said Conveyance the said Prioress Leased the said land to Sir H. Parker for 99 years and conveyed the said land to him and shewed farther That the said Conveyance specified in the Conusans was primo deliberatum 4 Nov. 31. H. 8. Absque hoc that the said Prioress the said 4 Novembris 29 H. 8. dedit concessit the said Manor to the said Audley upon which it was demurred in Law and the Court was clear of opinion That the averment of primo deliberatum against a Deed enrolled ought not to be reversed for by the same reason it may be averred never delivered and so upon the matter Non est factum And it was farther objected That bargain and sale by a Corporation is not good for a Corporation cannot be seised to another use and the nature of such Conveyance is to
of the breach of the Condition the Lessor was not King. Forbisher and Bunny's Case The Case betwixt Sir Martin Forbisher and one Bunny was that the Queen made a Lease of Dutchy Land upon Condition which was broken It was holden that here there needs not any Office for the Queen had those Lands severed from the Crown by Parliament and they passed by the Dutchy Seal by Livery and attornment of the Tenants The Queen leaseth for years Proviso that the Lessee shall not alien such alienation against such a Condition ought to be found by Office and therefore at this day where a Forfeiture is given to the King c. by Statute the words are That the King shall be seised without Office And as to the Relation of an Office he said That an Office may have a Relation as to mean profits but not as to vest the interest from the time of the Title accrued And although that in the Grant of the Queen to Sir Thomas Henage there be these words Non obstante the not finding any Office yet in this case an Office is necessary for the Queen cannot dispense with the Law so to alter or change the Law as to make Lands in Borough-English descendable at the common Law So if the King make a Lease for years with clause of re-entry and afterwards grants the Reversion over to a Subject and farther grants that if the Rent be behind that the Lessor may re-enter without demand yet the Grantee ought to demand the Rent And as our case is here there needs not any Office to entitle the Queen to the Mean profits for although that the Rent was not paid at the day yet it was paid after and all Rent due afterwards and Acquittances given for the same which matter we have specially pleaded to the intent aforesaid upon which the other side have demurred and thereby have confessed it c. But this Office doth not give any interest to the Queen in the thing leased for she hath granted them over before by which she hath disabled her self to take advantage of the Condition aforesaid for she hath surceased her time 8 H. 5. Traverse 47. Tenant for life forfeits his Estate and before the King seiseth The Tenant for life dieth he in the Reversion may enter and the King shall not seise for the King hath surceased his time And if the Queen should have advantage of this Condition she should avoid her own Grant which should be a great inconvenience The Queen leaseth for years Proviso that the Lessee shall not do Waste the Queen grants over the Reversion after Waste done Office is found the Queen gains nothing by it It was agreed in the Case betwixt Knight and Beech 28 Eliz. That the Grant of the Queen Mesn between the award of the Commission and the Retorn of it was good for the Title of the Queen appeareth of Record although that the Commission was not retorned before the Grant made And if an Office should relate unto the time of the Condition broken it should be in vain to argue that point for in the said case it was holden a Record when the Iurors had put their Seals to it before that it be enrolled The acceptance of the Rent and the Acquittances thereof are pleaded 1. To prove that there is no cause to find an Office in this case for the Queen is answered the Mean profits 2. To prove that the Queen hath waved and refused to take the benefit of the Condition but not to conclude the Queen and then you cannot force her to take the benefit of the Condition As the King Lord and Tenant the Tenant dieth his Heir within age the King accepteth of the Services of the Heir and afterwards grants over the Seignory after Office is found the King shall not have the Wardship c. At another day it was argued by Popham Attorny General for the Plaintiff and he said That upon not payment of the Rent the Lease is ipso facto void without any Office found thereof and that by reason of these words shall not be void for he said it is not a Condition but rather a limitation As if the King make a Lease to three for eighty years si tam diu vixerint one of them dieth the Lease is determined without Office So a Lease made vy the Queen for years so long as the Lessee shall pay the Rent reserved or so long as the Lessee shall there inhabit In these cases upon a Lease made by a common person the Lessor before Entry might grant over and the Grantee shall have advantage of it for it is a limitation and by the limitation the Lease is determined before the Grant contrary if it had been by words of re-entry A Lease for sixty years Proviso that if the Lessee shall die within the term that the Lease shall cease the Lessor grants the Reversion over the Grantee shall take advantage thereof by the common Law See the Case 11 H. 7. 17. it is a limitation and not a Condition And he said in this case an Office is necessary not to avoid the Lease for that was void before nor to punish the Lessee as a Trespassor or to fine him for the continuance of his wrongfull possession but to make him responsable as an Accountant In the Lease of a common person where the clause is That the Lease shall cease If after the Rent behind the Lessee continueth his possession yet the Lessor shall not punish the Lessee as a Trespassor before his Entry for the Lessee by his continuance is but Tenant at sufferance for his first Entry was lawfull And he agreed the Books 14 H. 8. and 2 H. 7. That such advantages that a common person cannot have without Entry the Queen cannot have without Office But a common person before Entry cannot punish another by way of Trespass therefore neither the Queen without Office shall punish one as an Intruder And as to the Case now lately adjudged betwixt Knight and Beech the same doth not extend to our Case Knight and Beech's case for there an Office was requisite before the Grant of the Queen because the per-close of the Condition was That the Prior should re-enter and it is very clear That Chattels vest in the Queen without Office. And in this Case an Office is necessary for two purposes 1. To make the Grant good 2. To make the Occupier accountable for the Mean profits and to give recompence which the Queen is not enabled unto without Office. And here the Patentee shall have advantage of the cesser of this Lease For 1. He hath the Inheritance lawfully and 2. The Lease is determined If there were no Non obstante in the Letters Patents the said Lease ought to have been recited if it had not been determined and if it be determined as this case is it ought to be recited if there were not a Non obstante for non constat to the Queen if it
be determined or not And he said That Leases which are of Record are to be recited in Patents of the King but not those which are not of Record for Leases on Record may be easily found but contrary of Leases in Fait but in our case all is helped by the Non obstante for the words of the Letters Patents are Non obstante That no office be thereof found misrecital or non-recital of the former Leases c. It hath been objected That because that the Law of the Land is That in Grants of the King all former Estates ought to be recited the Non obstante of the Queen shall not help it To that he said That where the Law makes for the Queen there the Queen for a particular respect may dispense with the Law. If the Queen be deceived by the not recital that makes the Letters Patents naught but if the Queen be not deceived by the not recital the same shall not hurt And it is clear That the Queen may dispense with a Statute Law although perhaps not with the common Law The Queen grants upon suggestion if the suggestion be false the Patent is void because the Queen is deceived in her Grant and if the suggestion rest in Articles and some of the Articles be false the Patent for that is void but if in the Patent such clause be That be the suggestion true or false the Patent shall be good If the King seised of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant grant the Manor cum pertinentiiâ— the Advowson shall not pass But if the Grant be in tam amplis modo forma c. prout ipse Rex tenuit the Advowson shall pass And he said That the Office here is not necessary to determine the Lease but to enable the Queen to punish the Lessee for the continuance of his possession And if the conclusion of the Condition had been by way of re-entry for non-payment of the Rent and after the Rent is behind and afterwards the Queen accepts the Rent due after the Queen is not bounden by that but upon an Office found she shall avoid the Lease Drew Serjeant contrary and he said That here is a condition but not a limitation for here is the natural word of a Condition scil Proviso Some Cases put by Popham are Conditions and not limitations As a Lease for years Proviso that if the Lessee die within the term that then the Lease shall be void the same is a Condition And in many Cases many words less apt than these in our Case shall make a Condition As a Feoffment dummodo solvat c. And he said That without an Office the Lease is not void See 35 H. 6. 57. The King giveth to Religious use certain Lands ad effectum to find a certain number of Monks to hold in Frankalmoign the King in that case cannot have Cessavit for the Services are not certain but if it be found by Office that they have not their number or do not make their Prayers the King shall cease by Br. Tit. Offic. 4. And he said that this was often done in the time of Hing Henry the eighth Lands given Habend pro erectione Collegii Cardinalis Eborum c. Where the King is to have Lands but as a pledge as for an Alienation without licence Office ought to be found of such Alienation So of a Feoffment made to an Alien otherwise it is in case of necessity because the Freehold cannot be in abeyance Tenant of the King is attainted of Treason before 33 H. 8. the King shall haâ—â—â—â—e Land in point of common Escheat untill Office be found and afterwards by force of the Attainder So if the Tenant of a Subject be attainted of Treason before Office found the Land shall be in the Lord but after Office it shall be in the King 7 H. 4. If the King's Tenant dieth his Heir within age the King may seise the Body and grant it over without Office but not the Lands See for the same 5 E. 6. Br. Office 55. in the Case of Charles Brandon 35 E. 3. Villainage 22. The Villein of the King purchaseth Goods and Chattels the property of them is in the King before Office or seisure but in the case of lands he ought to seise If this had been the case of a common person the Lease should not be avoided without demand therefore neither in the Case of the King without Office For as the Lease it self was made by matter of Record so it ought to be avoided by matter of Record otherwise it shall not be taken void in Law notwithstanding that the words are That the lease shall be void By the Statute of 11 H. 7. Alienations and Discontinuances by Women are made void the same ought not to be holden altogether void as betwixt such Women and the Alienee but onely betwixt the Woman and the Heir the Statute of 1 Eliz. enacts That all Leases made by a Bishop above the term of twenty one years shall be void the same shall not be construed to be void but onely as to the Successor for it shall bind the Lessor himself as it was adjudged 5 Eliz. in the Case of the Bishop of Bath As unto the Office here in our case the same shall not enure to avoid the Lease but onely to enable the Queen to punish the party for the Mean profits after the breaking of the Condition But in our case nothing is due to the Queen for the Mean profits for we have shewed the payment of all the Rents and the Arrearages thereof after the breach of the Condition and before the Grant of the King and therefore this Office being for no use shall be void unless it had been found that the Land was of more yearly value than the Rent c. As in the case of common experience of Chantries the Lands shall not be intended to be of greater value than the Rent to be paid out of it if not that it be found by Office When the Queen hath after received the Rent and granted over the Reversion now the Forfeiture is purged not by way of conclusion but it amounts to as much as if the Queen had said That she would not take benefit of it 4 H. 6. Champernoun's Case The King by taking in Ward of the Heir of the Donee hath waved the Heir of the Donor See Plow in the Lord Barkley's Case 3 Eliz. 237. and F. N. B. 143. And here in our Case when the Queen grants over the Reversion here the whole use of an Office is gone for no Office shall be found for the benefit of a Subject and as to the Queen no benefit shall accrue unto her by such Office for if she by such Office shall be entituled to the possession she should avoid her own Grant of the Reversion for she ought to have as great an Estate by the breach of the Condition as she had at the time of the Condition And in this Case
in fact so as he might have an Assise or an Action of Trespass Antea 210 1 Cro. 920. Ow. 96. So the Law is now taken A. deviseth his Lands to B. and dieth and a stranger entreth and dieth seised before any Entry by the Devisee now is the Devisee without remedy And here in our Case the Intruder hath not gained any possession in the Lands by his intrusion no more than if the King gives Lands to one in Fee and before the Patentee enters a stranger enters now cannot the Patentee grant it over if he doth not reduce the Estate by Entry See Dyer 9 and 10 Eliz. 266. P. 20 Eliz. in Curia Ward Garbery's Case acc The Queen seised of the Manor of Beverley a stranger erected a Shop in a vacant plat of the Manor and afterwards took the profits of it without paying any Rent for the same to the Queen and afterwards the Queen granted the Manor to the Earl of Leicester and he never entred into the said Shop nor took any Rent for the same and afterwards the Occupier of the Shop died in possession and his Son and Heir entred and the better opinion was that the same was not a descent against the Patentee because at the first it was not a disseisin against the Queen Another Question was moved as to a path-way then in question And the Iury found that one side of the path-way was the Land of the Parson of the Church and the other side the Church-yard and prayed the opinion of the Court therein to whom the interest of the path-way did belong to which it was said by the Court That that ought to be found by the Verdict For although that both be the Freehold of the Parson yet the soil of the path-way might be conveyed by an express Grant unto another But the Court seemed to incline that the soil of the path-way did belong to him who had the Lands on both sides and that is the Case as well of a high-way as of a path-way And it is also good Evidence to prove such matter Who hath used to cut down the Trees or to cleanse the way CLXXXIII Wiseman 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Court of Wards 6 Co. Weeden Baldwin's Case IN the Court of Wards before the Lord Treasurer Master of the Wards Wray chief Iustice Anderson and Periam Assistants to him the Case was That Wiseman was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service in Capite had issue by a former Wife who died and made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of her who should be his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of himself and of his issue of the body of such Wife to be begotten the remainder over Wiseman took a Wife and had issue and died If now living the Wife the issue shall be in Ward was the question It was argued by Coke That he shall not be in Ward And first it was agreed of both sides and also by the Iustices That it was a remainder and not a reversion and that at the Common Law the descent of a remainder during the Estate for life doth not entitle the King unto Wardship and there we are to see if upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. the last branch of it where two or more persons hold any Lands of the King by Knights-service jointly to them and the heirs of one of them and he that hath the Inheritance thereof dieth his heir being within age in every such Case the King shall have the Ward and marriage of the body of such heir so being within age the life of the Freeholder or Freeholders of such Lands notwithstanding See 33 H. 6. 14. That the father to prevent Wardship may alien and take to him and his son and the heirs of the father which mischief was intended to be remedied by the said Statute But these words shall not in construction thereof extend farther than the words especially because they cross the Common Law and go to charge the Inheritance of others and therefore they shall be taken strictly and not by equity as the Statute of West 2. cap. 40. Cum quis alienat jus uxoris suae concordat est Quod de cetero secta mulieris aut ejus haeredis non differatur propter minorem aetatem haeredis qui warrantizare debuit that Statute is taken strictly for if the Vouchee voucheth over the second Vouchee shall have his age Quod vide 18 E. 4. 16. Also the Stat. of West 1. enacts That where the Disseisor dieth seised the Disseisee shall have his Writ upon the Disseisin against the heir of the Disseisor of what age soever he be So the heirs of the Disseisee yet it is holden 9 E. 3. If the Disseisor leaseth for life and dieth and the Lessee be impleaded and makes default after default upon which the heir of the Disseisor prayeth to be received being within age he shall have his age notwithstanding the said Statute which shall be taken strictly because it controlls the Common Law and chargeth the Inheritance of the Subject So upon the Statute of West 1. cap. 39. That none shall vouch out of the line upon that Statute although the Tenant to the Action against whom the Praecipe is brought is bound by the Statute yet Tenant by receit is at large and he may vouch at the Common Law 2 H. 7. 2. 16 H. 7. 1. for these Statutes go in abridgment of the Common Law and therefore shall be taken strictly Now according to this Statute it is of the same nature as the other before remembred and therefore shall not be extended in construction beyond the Letter As Sir Rowland Hill's Case Grandfather father and son the grandfather seised of Land ut supra makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the son in Fee The grandfather dieth the father dieth the son shall not be in Ward Causa qua supra For this Statute shall not be construed by equity and by it the words thereof Preferment of children shall not extend unto the childrens children but to the children onely of the King's Tenant who makes the Conveyance And the words in this Statute or otherwise shall not be intended to other persons than are remembred in the Statute There was a Case late where the Statute was construed in such a manner Quod vide 18 Eliz. 345. Thornton's Case A Lady seised of Lands in chief made Conveyance of her Lands for the advancement of her bastard-bastard-daughter the same Conveyance is not within the Statute See also the Lord Powes's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. So in the Case of Sir Hugh Calverley the Law was taken That where the Husband dieth seised in the right of his Wife and they levy a Fine unto the use of the Husband and Wife for the advancement of the Husband such Conveyance and disposition is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Popham contrary And as to
the Defendant Non parit actionem for there is not any consideration upon which it is conceived but is onely Nudum pactum upon which the Defendant could not have an Action against the Plaintiff And then here is not any sufficient consideration for the promise of the Defendant Mounson Iustice conceived that here the consideration is sufficient for here this counter promise is a reciprocal promise and so a good consideration for all the communication ought to be taken together Manwood Such a reciprocal promise betwixt the parties themselves at the match is sufficient for there is consideration good enough to each as the preparing of the Bows and Arrows the riding or coming to the place appointed to shoot the labour in shooting the travel in going up and down between the marks But for the Bettors by there is not any consideration if the Bettor doth not give aim Mounson A cast at Dice alters the property if the Dice be not false wherefore then is there not here a reciprocal Action Manwood At Dice the parties set down their monies and speak words which do amount to a conditional gift scil If that the other party cast such a cast he shall have the money CLXXXVIII Dunne 's Case 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DUnne possessed of divers goods in divers Dioceses died intestate at Bristow The Bishop of Bristow committed administration to Jones and his Wife who administred and afterwards the Bishop of Canterbury by reason of his Prerogative committed administration to Austen and Dunne and they brought an Action of Trespass against Jones and his Wife for taking of the goods of the intestate It was holden by Wray and Southcote 5 Co. 2 30. 1 Cro. 283. 457. that the Letters of administration granted by the Bishop of Bristow were void Gawdy and Jeofreys contrary for the granting of Letters of Administration de mero jure doth belong to the Ordinary and it might be that neither the Ordinary nor the parties to whom he granted the Letters of Administration had notice that the Intestate had bona notabilia in another Diocese and therefore it should be hard to make the Defendants Trespassors Exception was taken to the Declaration because it is shewed that the Archbishop of Canterbury by reason of his Prerogative committed Administration c. without shewing that the Intestate had bona notabilia c. but the Exception was not allowed for so are all the precedents as the Declaration is here which all the Clerks in Court did affirm and afterwards Exception was taken to the Bar because it is there pleaded that the Defendant had paid a certain sum of Money to one A. to whom the Intestate was indebted by Bond and did not shew how the Bond was discharged as by Release Acquittance cancelling of the Bond c. And that was holden to be a material Exception For the Defendants in such case ought to shew such discharge which is sufficient and by which the Plaintiffs may be discharged and for that cause the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXIX Kingwell and Chapman 's Case 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond by Kingwell against Chapman 1 Cro. 10. The Defendant pleaded that it was endorsed upon condition That where divers debates were betwixt the Plaintiff and one J. Brother of the Defendant the said Plaintiff and J. put themselves to the award of one Copston and the Defendant was bound by Bond to the Plaintiff that his brother should perform the award of the said Copston And the award was That the said J. should pay to the Plaintiff 30 l. viz. at the Feast of the Annunciation 20 l. and at Michaelmas after 10 l. and shewed that the said J. had paid the said 20 l. at the Annunciation and as to the 10 l. he pleaded That the said J. died before the said Feast of Michaelmas upon which there was a demurrer And by Wray Southcote and Gawdy Iustices the Bond is forfeit First because the sum awarded by the Arbitrament is now become a duty as if the condition of the Bond had been for the payment of it Secondly day is appointed for the payment of it 10 H. 7. 18. Thirdly the Executors cannot perform the condition But if I be bound by Bond to enfeoff the Obligee at such a day and before the said day I die my Executors shall not be charged with it for the Condition is become impossible by the Act of God for the Land is descended to the heir CXC Lodge 's Case 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Syderf Rep. 362. LOdge an Attorney of the Common-Pleas was indebted unto Booth in 34 l. payable at a day to come and Booth was indebted to Diggs in 40 l. Diggs according to the custome of London attached in the hands of Lodge 34 l. to be paid to him at the day as part of his debt of 40 l. Lodge brought a Bill of Privilege directed to the Mayor and Sheriff of London and that every person who had cause of Action against Lodge Sequatur ad Com. Legem c. Si sibi videbitur expedire c. At the retorn of which Writ Bendloes prayed a Procedendo And by Harper Iustice the privilege shall not be allowed because that this Attachment is by custome and not allowable here and if Lodge should have the privilege then is the other party without remedy And if an Attorney of this place be impleaded in London upon a Concessit solvere debit alterius he shall not have the privilege Manwood contrary For according to the Common Law Lodge owed nothing to Diggs but is his Debtor by a custome And as to the Case of Concessit solvere there the promise was to the party himself who brought the Action and he hath no other remedy but in the Case at Bar Diggs who is a stranger vexes Lodge who ows him nothing having remedy against his proper Debtor which Dyer granted and farther said That the privilege of this Court ought not to be impeached by any custome And the Prothonotaries cited a Case adjudged in the point That such a privilege was allowed in the Case of one Underhil and afterwards in the principal Case the privilege was allowed CXCI. Segar and Bainton 's Case 21 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 3 Len. 74. IN an Action of Trespass the Case was That King Hen. 8. an 27. of his reign gave the Manor of D. to Sir Edw. Bainton Knight and to the heirs males of his body Sir Edw. Bainton had issue Andrew his eldest son and the now Defendant his younger son and died Andrew Bainton covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore That the said Andrew Bainton would assure the said Manor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the use of the said Lord and his heirs and the said Lord in recompense thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Bainton in tail
Case 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dom. Capital Feod c. Reddend 10 s. Rent here because that the Tenure was reserved Capital Dom. feodi illius this Rent reserved is not parcell of the Tenure but a Rent in gross King Edward the sixth gave certain Lands to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's Fee Reddend inde 6 l. per ann Cranmer made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail the remainder to the right heirs of Cranmer who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder in Fee escheated to the King by which the Seignory is gone But it was adjudged that notwithstanding that escheat the Rent did remain for the Rent was not parcel of the Seignory Now this Rent being a thing newly created and not parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy in 1 H. 4. nor ever descended from any Ancestor of the King being Duke of Lancaster shall be accounted to be in the King in the right of his Crown and so cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal See the said Statute of 1 H. 4. and the King cannot enlarge the said Dutchy nor the possessions thereof beyond the possessions which were of the Dutchy at the time of the making of the said Acts As if J. S. seised in Fee is impleaded and he saith that he holds the Lands in demand for life the remainder to the King in the right of his said Dutchy now the said remainder is vested in the King not in the right of the said Dutchy but in the right of his Crown The Villain of the King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster purchaseth Lands the King seizeth he shall be seised thereof in the right of his Crown and not of the Dutchy The King grants Common out of certain Lands parcel of his said Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the said Lands to another the Grantee of the Common dieth without heir so as the Common escheats to him now he shall have the Common in the right of the Crown and not of the Dutchy so although it is said That the Rent shall follow the nature of the Land out of which c. yet the same is but to some intents and not to every intent See the Statute of 2 and 3 Phil. Ma. cap. 20. by which it is enacted That all the Lands which have been granted or severed from the Dutchy to any person or persons and after such grant have come or reverted to the King in possession reversion or remainder or otherwise by attainder escheat forfeiture c. shall for ever be united to the said Dutchy and shall be adjudged and esteemed as part and member of the same which proves that such Lands were not holden of the King as Duke of Lancaster but as King for if they had been holden of the Dutchy upon the escheat they should be parcel of the Dutchy again without help of that Statute See the special Reservation Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet c. Now when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it was in the Election of the Ter-tenant to whom he would pay the Rent if it had been in the Case of a common person but it is otherwise in the Case of the King As if A. holdeth of two several Lords by owel Feoffment and dieth his heir within age the Lord which first gets the Ward shall have him but in the Case of the King it is otherwise Plowden The King is not bound by the Statute of West 3. But in this Case in the making of this Feoffment with this Tenend Reddend the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy for all grants of the King savour of the person of the King and then his Prerogative wrapt in the person shall guide the same and see the Statute of West 3. extends to all who make Feoffments Tenend de Feoffatoribus but the King is not Tenant to any one And if the King be seised of an Advowson in the right of his Dutchy and the same becomes void and the King presents to the same he may repeal his presentation and he vouched divers precedents of Patents made to many great Lords to hold of the Dutchy and also to hold of others And the King by his Dutchy-seal may give Lands in Mortmain And he argued That this Rent although newly created yet in so much as it came and accrued in respect of the Land which was parcell of the Dutchy it should be accounted also parcel of the Dutchy as if before the Statute of West 3. A. seised of Lands in Fee of the part of his father makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services c. the same Seignory shall go to the heirs of the part of the father in lieu of which the Seignory is come Tenant in tail after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the said Act rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be intended heirs in tail It was adjourned CXCVIII. Forster and Walker 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione firmae by Foster against Walker the Case was 3 Cro. 106. Shepherd's Touch-stonâ— of Conveâ—…ances 416. That Richard Meager was seised of a house in London and 6 E. 6. he devised the same to his Wife for life the remainder to John his son in tail the remainder to the Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors in London and died the Wife entred and died John died The Master Wardens and Commonalty of the Cordwaynors entred and leased the Plaintiff upon whom the heir general of the Devisor did enter The onely question was inasmuch as the Cordwaynors of London are incorporated by the name of Master and Wardens and Commonalty of Cordwaynors If this devise made to them by the name of Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors of London be good or not It was argued by Daniel that the Devise by the manner was good enough and he insisted much upon the favour which the Law gives to Wills and to Legatees in the Devises and construction of them even in Devises and Grants to Corporations and as to Grants to Corporations he cited the Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Decanus Capitulum sanctae individuae Trinit and they make a Lease leaving out these words sanctae individuae and yet held the Lease was good notwithstanding that for the words left out are not words of substance of the name but for the beauty and ornament of it But in the Case of Devise if the name be mistaken in matter of substance yet if upon the Devise the intent of the Devisor sufficiently appeareth it is good enough for the intent of the Devisor shall guide the Devise and
60 years and afterwards enfeoffed Oxenbridge to the use of the said Cheney and his wife for their lives with divers remainders over and it was adjudged in the Court of Wards that by the Feoffment the term was not extinct And he put the case of the Lord Paget in the King's Bench adjudged A Feoffment was made unto the use of the Feoffor for life the remainder to him whom the Feoffor should name at his death in Fee the Feoffor and the Feoffees for good consideration levied a Fine unto a stranger and afterwards the Feoffor named one and died the party named by the Feoffor shall have the land notwithstanding the Fine Beamount The contingent use here is utterly destroyed by the Feoffment aforesaid and it appeareth by the preamble of the Act of 27 H. 8. That the makers of the Act did not favour Vses but their intent was utterly to extirpate Vses And if contingent Vses which are not nor cannot be excused by the Statute should stand in force The mischief would be That no purchasor should be secured and safe in his purchase but should always be in danger of a new born Vse not known before and he grounded his farther argument upon the reason of Manwood and Dyer Where a man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife which shall be and afterwards he and the Feoffees and those in remainder make a Feoffment to divers new Feoffees and to new Vses and afterwards he takes another Wife and dieth It was the opinion of the said two Iudges That by that Feoffment ut supra the contingent Vses are destroyed For when the Estate which the Feoffees accept is taken away which was the root and foundation of the Vses which are the branches and fruit of the body of the said Tree it necessarily followeth That they be also taken away and because the Feoffees by their Livery are barred to enter to recontinue the Estate which should yield such Vses they also are gone and extinguished Yelverton was of opinion that notwithstanding the said Feoffment that the Vse should rise in his due time according to the limitation of it It was adjourned CCXIX. The Lord North 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Queen granted unto the Lord North and his heirs the Fines pro licentia concordandi and one would not pay him the Fine for which cause the Lord North brought an Action upon the Case against him and declared upon Indebitatus assumpsit c. Godfrey moved this matter to the Court to know their opinion if such Action would lie for the matter or not Fenner For a Fine in a Court-Baron or Court-Leet debt lieth but as he conceived 1 Leon. 249 250. 3 Len. 56. 234. here this Action doth not lie for it is a real Fine and there is no contract betwixt the parties but the same is given by the Law and some were of opinion that debt lieth for a relief for there is a contract by Fealty Gawdy conceived That the Action doth well lie for it is not any casual profit and therefore debt lieth for it although it be an inheritance And see Dyer 28 H. 8. 24. The heir shall have an Action of Debt upon a Nomine poenae reserved by his Ancestour Wray I do not see that he hath any other remedy and therefore I am of opinion that this Action will lie CCXX Mrs. Paschall 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer MIstress Paschall was bound with sureties for her appearance before the high Commissioners that she should not depart without licence under the hands of three of them and she pleaded the general Pardon at the last Parliament in which there is an Exception of all Bonds and Recognizances except onely such Bonds and Recognizances as are for appearance And Atkinson argued That she ought to be discharged by the Exception for although the departure without licence be not specially named yet it is within the sense for the not departure without licence is no other thing than to continue her appearance Popham contrary For The Non departure without licence was set down in the Condition to this purpose That she should not go into the Countrey to be corrupted there or to corrupt other and receive Seminaries c. therefore it is another thing than appearance Between Hore and Hare the Case was One was bound to make his appearance at such a day and in the mean time thrice every Month to repair unto such a Preacher to be better informed in Religion although the Non appearance was pardoned yet the other point i. the resorting to the Preacher is to be answered Atkinson There the resorting to the Preacher is collateral and a several point from the appearance But in the Case at Bar the not departure is pursuant to the appearance And the opinion of all the Barons was That the pardon did not extend to the same CCXXI Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Len. 205. AN Action was brought against an Executor who pleaded That he refused the Executorship upon which the parties were at issue The Bishop certified Quod non recusavit whereas in truth he had refused before the Commissary of the Bishop Fenner Serjeant moved to have the advice of the Court upon this matter and argued That the Court ought to write to the Commissary which was denied by the Court for he is not the Officer to this Court as to that purpose but the Bishop himself is our Officer and the party cannot have an Averment against the Certificate of the Bishop no more than against the Retorn of the Sheriff And the Court also held That the onely remedy for the Defendant was by an Action upon the Case against the Bishop for his false Certificate But it was moved That the issue joined upon the refusal ought to be tried by the Countrey and not by the Certificate of the Bishop and such was the opinion of Windham and Walmsley Periam Where the issue is that the Executor refused before such a day or after there the issue shall be tried by the Countrey contrary Where the issue is upon the refusal generally for the refusal is before him as Iudge as also resignation is CCXXII Giles 's Case Mich. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A Writ of Error was brought in the King's-Bench to reverse a Iudgment given in an Action upon the Case in the Court of Common-Pleas where the Writ brought against the Defendant there in that Case was Quare exaltavit stagnum per quod pratum of the Plaintiff was inundatum The Defendant in the Action there pleaded Not guilty and the Iury found That the Defendant Erexit stagnum and they said That if the Court shall judge That Erectio and Exaltatio be all one then they find that the Defendant is guilty and afterwards Iudgment was given in the said Court of Common-Pleas for the Plaintiff Whereupon this Writ of Error is brought And Glanvile Serjeant who
petentis And upon that Replication the Defendant did demur in Law and the opinion of the whole Court was That Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff for if he should oust the Defendant of his prescription by the Law of the Forrest he ought to have pleaded the Law of the Forrest in such case viz. Lex Forrestae est c. for the Law of the Forrest is not the common Law of the Land and we are not bound to take notice of it but it ought to be pleaded or otherwise the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the prescription of the Defendant for here are two prescriptions one pleaded by the Defendant by way of Bar the other set forth by the Plaintiff in his Replication without any traverse of that with is alledged in the Bar which cannot be good but if the Plaintiff had shewed in his Replication Lex Forrestae talis est c. then the prescription of the Defendant had been answered without any more for none can prescribe against a Statute Exception was taken to the Bar because the Defendant had justified the cutting down of Oaks without alledging that there was not any underwood but the Exception was not allowed for he hath choice ad libitum suum Another Exception was taken because he hath not shewed that at the time of the cutting it was not fawning time Poph. 158. 2 Cro. 637 679. for at the fawning time his prescription did not extend to it and that was holden a good material exception but because the Plaintiff had replied and upon this Replication the Defendant demurred the Court would not resort to the Bar but gave Iudgment upon the Replication against the Plaintiff CCLIX Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A Black-Smith of South-Mims in the County of Middlesex took a Bond of another Black-Smith of the same Town that he should not exercise his Trade or Art of a Black-Smith within the same Town nor within a certain precinct of it and upon that Obligation the Obligee brought an Action of Debt in the Common-Pleas depending which the Obligor complained to the Iustices of Peace of the said County upon the matter against the Obligee upon which the matter being found by examination the Iustices committed the Obligee to prison and now upon the whole matter Puckering Serjeant prayed a Habeas Corpus for the said Obligee to the Sheriff of Middlesex and it was granted and Fleetwood Recorder of London being at the Bar the Court told him openly of this matter That by the Laws Iustices of Peace have not Conusance of such offences nor could meddle with them for their power is limited by their commission and the Statutes and the Recorder did much relye upon the opinion of Hull 2 H. 5. 5. But by the clear opinion of the whole Court although this Court being a high Court Owen 143. 2 Cro. 596. might punish such offences appearing before them on Record yet it did not follow That the Iustices of Peace might so do But as to the Bond the Court was clear of opinion that it was void because it was against Law. Ante 34. CCLX Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Justicies issued forth to the Sheriff of H. for the Debt of 40 l. and the Plea was determined before the Vnder-Sheriff in the absence of the Sheriff and it was now moved by Puckering Serjeant If a Writ of Error or a Writ of false Iudgment did lie in that Case And first the opinion of the Iustices was That the Sheriff himself in his person ought to hold Plea of a Justicies and if he maketh a Precept or Deputation to another the same is meerly void 34 H. 6. 48. And see the said Case abridged Fitz. Bar. 161. and it was said That a Justicies is not an Original Writ but a Commission to the Sheriff to hold Plea ultra 40 s. and upon a Iudgment given upon a Justicies a Writ of false Iudgment lieth and not a Writ of Error See for that 7 E. 4. 23. And it was the opinion of Anderson chief Iustice That such Iudgment is utterly void and Coram non Judice CCLXI Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE by Anderson chief Iustice That if Cestuy que use 3 Len. 196. 4 Inst 85. Kel 41. after the Statute of 1 R. 3. leaseth for years and afterwards the Feoffees release unto the Lessee and his heirs having notice of the Vse that this release is unto the first Vse But where the Feffees are disseised and they release unto the Disseisor although they have notice of the Vse the same is to the use of the Disseisor and that was the Case of the Lord Compton and that no Subpoena lieth against such a Disseisor See 11 E. 4. 8. CCLXII Hamper 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench HAmper was indicted upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury 1 Cr. 147. 3 Len. 230. and in the body of the Indictment The Record was That he Falsa deceptive deposuit whereas the Statute is Wilfully and although in the perclose of the Indictment the conclusion is Et sic commisit voluntarium perjurium Yet the opinion of the Court was that the same doth not help the matter and for that cause the party was discharged For contra formam Statuti will not help the matter nor supply it and yet it was moved and urged That contra formam Statuti would help it and it was holden in this Case That if a witness doth depose falsly but the Iury doth not give credit to it nor give their Verdict against his oath although the party grieved cannot sue him yet he may be punished at the King's suit CCLXIII Moulton 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King ' s-Bench IT was moved by Coke That one Robert Moulton Tenant in tail 1 Cro. 151. having issue two sons Robert and John died seised and that Robert his son and heir levied a Fine thereof and afterwards levied another Fine and died without issue and John brought two several Writs of Error to reverse both the Fines and the Tenant to the Writ of Error brought upon the first Fine pleaded the second Fine in Bar of it and in Bar upon a Writ of Error brought upon the second Fine he pleaded the first Fine and the Court advised him to plead That the Fine pleaded in Bar was erroneous 7 H. 4. 107. where a man is to annul an Outlawry his person shall not be disabled by any other Outlawry CCLXIV Broccus 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas BRoccus Lord of a Manor covenanted with his Copiholder 1 Roll. 15. Pordage versus Cole 20 Car. 2. B. R. to assure to him and his heirs the Freehold and Inheritance of the Copihold and the Copiholder in consideration of the same performed did covenant to pay such a sum And it was the opinion of the whole Court That the Copiholder is not tied to pay the money before the Assurance made and the