1 W. M. After which Judgment for the Defendants 166 That the said Defendants shall go sine die and have their Costs 167 Averment that the said Judgment remains in full force That the Goods in the said Action of Trespass and this of Trover are the same That the Conversion in this Action and the Taking in the other is the same That the Cause of Action was the same in both And that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are the same Et hoc parati sunt verificare unde petunt Judicium si praedicti the Plaintiffs Actionem suam versus eos habere debeant c. Not guilty to the residue of the Goods The Plaintiffs demur The Defendants joyn 168 Vsury Pleaded Vid. Debt 7. Way Action for stopping it Vid. Action on the Case 5. WE all knowing the Great Learning and Judgment of the Author do for the Benefit of the Public approve of and allow the Printing and Publishing of this Book Intituled The Reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt. Late One of the Justices of the Court of Common-Pleas J. Som̄ers C.S. J. Holt Geo Treby Ed Nevill Joh. Powell W. Gregory N. Lechmere Tho. Rokeby G Eyre Jo Turton John Powell Sam. Eyre April the 20 th 1965. The Second Volume TERMINO SANCTI HILLARII Anno Vicesimo primo secundo Caroli Secundi IN COMMUNI BANCO Craw versus Ramsey IN an Ejectment of Lands and the Rectory of Kingston upon Thames in Surrey Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Jury found a Special Verdict to this effect viz. That Robert Ramsey Born in Scotland before the Accession thereof to the Crown of England had Issue four Sons Robert Nicholas John and George Antenati Robert died they do not find when leaving Issue three Daughters Margaret Isabel and Jane who were also Aliens and alive 1 Octob. 14 Car. 1. Nicholas had Issue Patrick born in England 1 May 1618. They also find that at the Parliament holden 10 Car. 1. in Ireland it was Enacted That all Persons of the Scottish Nation should be reputed the Kings Natural Subjects to all intents constructions and purposes of that his Realm of Ireland as if Born there And they find the Act of Parliament at large Nicholas Ramsey was alive at the making of that Act. John the third Son afterwards Earl of Holderness was Naturalized by Act of Parliament in England 1 Jacobi and purchased the Lands and Rectory in question and being seised 22 Jac by Indenture Tripartite between him of the First part Sir William Cocke and Martha his Daughter of the Second part and Charles Lord Effingham of the Third part In Consideration of a Marriage to be had between him and Martha did Covenant to levy a Fine to the use of himself for Life and afterwards to Martha for Life the Remainder to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to his own right Heirs And 29 Septemb. 22 Jac. the Marriage was had and the Michaelmas Term after a Fine was Levied accordingly The 24 of Jan. 1 Car. 1. the Earl died without Issue Martha Entred and was seised for her Life and died 17 Car. Et eodem anno it was found by Office that the Earl of Holderness died seised of the Rectory as before and without an Heir and that King Charles anno decimo granted this Rectory to one Murray George the fourth Son of Robert was Naturalized by the Parliament here 7 Jac. He had Issue John the Defendant Nicholas died Patrick his Heir in 1651. bargained and sold to the Earl of Elgin and one Sydenham virtute cujus vigore Statuti c. they were seised prout Lex postulat and in 1662. bargained and sold for years to Amabel Countess of Kent and Jane Hart and afterwards Released to them and their Heirs in 1665. They being seised bargained and sold by Lease and Release also to Pullen and Neale who Entred and bargained and sold to Sir Lionel Talmash and West the Lessors of the Plaintiff upon whom John the Defendant Entred Vpon which the Action is brought and the great Question in the Case was Whether Patrick the Son of Nicholas might claim these Lands as Heir to the Earl of Holderness by virtue of the Act of Parliament in Ireland 10 Car. or that they should descend to the Defendant the Son of George Naturalized the 7 of Jac. in England Wyld and Archer who Argued first were of Opinion That however the Point was adjudged the Plaintiff could not have Judgment upon this Verdict for they do not find that Patrick entred or was seised but that he in 1651. did bargain and sell c. Virtute cujus the Bargainees were seised prout Lex postulat and then bargained and sold in 1662 and do not so much as find their Bargainees seised prout Lex postulat But they find the Defendant Entred and so the primer Possession is in him which is a good Title against the Plaintiff for whom none is found it not being found that Patrick Entred Again If the Naturalization in Ireland will serve in England the Title appears for the Daughters the Heirs of Robert the eldest Son for 't is found that he died but not when so it might be after the Act of 10 Car. But Tyrrell and Vaughan Chief Justice differed in these two Points As to the First They said it would be intended Patrick entred for a Verdict that leaves all the Matter at large to the Iudgment of the Court will be taken sometimes by Intendment as well as where the Jury Conclude upon a Special Point 2 Cro. 64. find an Incumbent Resigned the Resignation shall be intended accepted So in 4 Co. Fullwood's Case it was found that one came before the Recorder of London and Mayor of the Staple recognovit se debere c. and did not say per scriptum suum Obligatorium nec per formam Statuti yet intended so Vid. Hob. 262. And where they find the Bargainees seised prout lex postulat that doth not leave it doubtful whether seised or no but whether by right or wrong for Seisin must be taken as found expresly Neither do they find any other in possession nor that the Defendant made any Claim in Twelve years after which enforces the Intendment as before And it is found expresly that Pullen and Neale Entred in 1665. so that the Defendant had not the primer Possession however or if he had he should not have Judgment if no other Title were found for him as is Resolved in 1 Cro. 42. Hern and Allen's Case As to the Second It shall be intended Robert died before 10 Car. For he is found an Alien and shall be presumed to have continued so during his Life unless found to the contrary then the Discent to the Daughters is obstructed by the Incapacity of their Father And tho' when the Title is found for the King the Court shall adjudge for him because the Kings Courts are intrusted with his Rights 't is not so of any other person but they shall take no
and it s a Devise That all his Personal Estate shall be laid out c. Curia There is nothing to be laid out until the Debts and Legacies paid the 80 l is not to the Daughter but for the Mother 'T is taken for granted that where a Sum of Money is devised to a Child at such an Age it shall have the Interest in the mean time rather than the Executor shall swallow it but clear when no Maintenance is otherwise provided for The Lord Chancellor Decreed it for the Daughter and that the Executor should account for what Interest he paid the Brother Note Tho' it be said that the Money to be laid out after all Legacies paid yet all besides what serves to pay the Legacies should be laid out presently Anonymus Trin. Anno 31 Car. II. A Devise of 100 l to J.S. at the Age of 21 years and if J.S. died under Age then J.N. and A.B. to have the 100 l or else the Survivor of them A.B. and J.N. dye both in the life of J. S. and before the Age of 21 years and then J.S. dies under the Age of 21 years The Administrator of J.N. who survived A.B. sued and obtained a Decree for the 100 l for tho' he died before the Contingency hapned yet his Administrator should have it Charles Blois al' Plaintiffs versus Dame Jane Blois and Jane Blois Infants Defendants Mich. Anno 31 Car. II. THe Case was thus Sir William Blois who had Issue the Plaintiff and two Daughters by a former Venter and Jane the Defendant by a second Venter upon his second Marriage setled Lands for the Ioynture of his Wife and after her decease in case he had Issue only a Daughter to raise 3000 l for that Daughter to be paid her at the Day of Marriage so that she married after Sixteen or otherwise at the Age of Eighteen years and if she died before either then his Heir to have the benefit Afterwards Sir William Blois by his Will devises the Reversion of his setled Lands and all his other Estate to Jane his Relict one of the Defendants and three others and says That after the Son by a convenient Match shall have raised 9000 l for his three Daughters that then they should let the Son the now Plaintiff have his Estate The Question now was That if the Daughter by the second Venter had 3000 l paid her whether she should have any further benefit by the Settlement and so take a double Portion one upon the Will and another upon the Settlement The Decree made by my Lord Fynch was That if the Heir paid 9000 l the Security by the Settlement should be discharged the Will being but Cumulative Security and so the Defendant Jane was to have but one 3000 l and be subject to the same Contingencies with the Settlement and gave the Heir two years time to pay the Money and in the mean time Jane to have a third part of the Profits of the Land devised My Lord Chancellor cited one Pyne's Case where a man had secured Portions for his Children and afterwards by his Will Devised to each of them a like Sum it was held that this would not double their Portions unless plainly proved that he intended to do so Nota If one sue in Chancery an Executor of one Obligor to discover Assets you must make all the Obligors parties that the Charge may lye equal Quaere Whether you may not sue the Principal and leave out them that are bound only as Sureties But 't is clear that if a Judgment be had at Law against one Obligor you may sue the Executor of him alone to discover Assets c. because the Bond is drowned in the Judgment Turner's Case A Mortgage was made in Fee which descended to the Heir at Law and the Money ten years since paid to him The Executor of the Mortgagee preferred his Bill and had a Decree for the Money but without Interest My Lord Chancellor went upon the Reason of the Case in Littleton That if a Feoffment be made upon Condition to re-enter upon the payment of a Sum of Money and not expressed to whom to be paid there after the Death of the Feoffee it must be paid to the Executor and not to the Heir So here tho' the Proviso was to pay to the Feoffee his Heirs or Executors yet when the Day is past 't is as much as if no person had been expressed and then Equity shall follow the Law and appoint it to the Executor Termino Paschae Anno 32 Car. II. In Cancellaria Anonymus AN Impropriator devised to one that served the Cure and to all that should serve the Cure after him all the Tythes and other Profits c. Tho' the Curate was incapable to take by this Devise in such manner for want of being Incorporate and having Succession yet my Lord Chancellor Finch Decreed That the Heir of the Devisee should be seised in Trust for the Curate for the time being Broadhurst versus Richardson al' A Man had Issue three Daughters and devised to his three Daughters 540 l equally to be divided between them that is to say 180 l apiece but if any of them died without Child her part to go to the Survivors One of the Daughters married Broadhurst and before the Portion paid she died without Issue Broadhurst Exihibits his Bill against the Executor and the two surviving Sisters and had a Decree for the 180 l For a Sum of Money cannot be Entailed Anonymus IF Lands be devised for the payment of Debts and Legacies and the residue of the Personal Estate be given to the Executors after the Debts and Legacies paid the Personal Estate shall notwithstanding as far as it will go be applied to the payment of the Debts c. and the Land charged no further than is necessary to make up the residue Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 32 33 Car. II. In Cancellaria Sayle Freeland al' Infants THe Bill was to Redeem a Mortgage made by the Father of the Defendants or to be foreclosed The Defendants by Guardian Answered setting forth That their Grandfather was seised in Fee and made a Settlement whereby he entailed the Estate but with a power of Revocation by any Writing published under his Hand and Seal in the presence of three Witnesses And the Case was That he made his Will under his Hand and Seal wherein he recited his Power and declared that he Revoked the Settlement but the Will had but two Witnesses which subscribed their Names tho' a third present and died The Lands descended to the Father who made the Mortgage and the Defendants claimed by virtue of the Entail The Decree was that the Mortgage Money should be paid First My Lord Chancellor said that here was an Execution of the Power in strictness tho' the third Witness did not Subscribe Secondly If there had not that Equity should help it in such a little Circumstance where the Owner of
his Bill to have the Land Conveyed according to the Agreement above But for the Defendants it was much insisted upon that this being to settle the Lands in case Thomas should dye without Issue it should not be regarded in this Court for the Execution of a Trust of a Remainder or Reversion in Fee upon an Estate Tail shall not be compelled because it is subject to be destroyed by the Tenant in Tail as here Thomas might have done in case he had made a Settlement according to the import of that Writing who therefore could not have been compelled himself to have executed this Agreement But the Lord Chancellor Fynch Decreed the Land for the Plaintiff because it was proved that the Marriage with the Plaintiffs Wife was in expectation of the performance of this Agreement and he was obliged to have left the Land to the Plaintiff if he had had no Issue Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 34 Car. II. In Cancellaria Collet versus Collet WIlliam Fox having three Daughters Mary Elizabeth and Martha the two latter being Married and the first a Widow by his Will devised in these Words Viz. I give unto Martha my Daughter the Sum of 400 l to be paid unto her by my Executors within one year next after my decease But I will and my desire is that Cornelius Collet the Husband of Martha upon the payment of the said 400 l shall give such Security as my Executors shall approve of that the said 400 l shall be laid out within 18 Months next after my decease and purchase an Estate of that value to be setled and assured upon her the said Martha and the Heirs of her Body lawfully begotten And in the Close of his Will were these words following Viz. I Will That after my Debts which I shall owe at the time of my Decease and my Funeral Expences and the Probat of this my Will be discharged then I do give all the rest of my Personal Estate Unbequeathed to purchase an Estate near of as good value as the same Personal Estate shall amount unto within one year next after my my decease Which said Estate so to be purchased I Will shall be setled and assured unto and upon my said three Daughters Mary Elizabeth and Martha and the Heirs of their respective Bodies lawfully begotten for ever or otherwise my said Daughter Mary and the Husbands of my said two other Daughters Elizabeth and Martha shall for such Moneys as they shall receive of my said Executors for the Overplus of my Personal Estate enter into one or more Bonds in the double Sum of Money as each part shall amount unto the same being to be divided into three parts unto my said Executors within 18 Months next after my decease to settle and assure such part or Sum of Money as each of them shall receive and have by this my Will for the Overplus of my Personal Estate unto and upon the Child and Children of my said Daughters Mary Elizabeth and Martha part and part alike Martha the Wife of Cornelius Collet died within six Months after the Testator leaving Issue only a Daughter who died within four Months after the Mother the other two Sisters surviving Cornelius Collet took out Letters of Administration both to Martha his Wife and likewise to his Daughter the Four hundred Pounds and likewise the Overplus of the Personal Estate being unpaid or disposed of Cornelius Collet preferred his Bill against the Executors and the surviving Sisters and thereby demanded the 400 l and likewise a third part of the Overplus which amounted unto 700 l And the Cause came to be heard before the Lord Chancellor upon Bill and Answer who Decreed the 400 l to the Plaintiff but as to the Surplus of the Estate the Bill was dismissed altho ' it was much insisted upon for the Plaintiff that he might have given Bond to secure the Surplus for his Child and so from the Child it would have come to him as Administrator But seeing that no Interest could vest in the Child till the Election were determined it not being material as to this Point whether the Executors or the Husband aâ— the Election the Father could not claim it as Administrator to the Child And then if the Money had been laid out in Land and the Settlement according to the direction of the Will the Husband would have had no benefit for there would have been a Ioynt Estate for Life in the Daughters with several Inheritances and no severance of the Ioynture by the Marriage and having Issue Co. Inst and so no Tenant by the Courtesie Therefore as to the Surplusage the Bill was Decreed to be dismissed Note As to the 400 l the Order of my Lord Chancellor was That Interest should be paid for it from the time of bringing the Bill Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 34 Car. II. In Cancellaria West versus The Lord Delaware WEST Heir apparent of the Lord Delaware Exhibited his Bill against the said Lord setting forth That upon a Marriage agreed to be had between him and the Daughter of one Mr. Huddleston with whom he was to have 10000 l Portion The Lord his Father Articled to settle Lands of such yearly value for the Wives Ioynture for their maintenance and the Heirs of their Bodies c. That the Wife being now dead and without Issue and no Settlement made the Bill prayed an Execution of the Articles and a discovery of what Incumbrances there were upon the Lands to be setled To this the Lord Delaware Answered That he never intended to settle Lands but for the Wives Ioynture only and that the Plaintiff her Husband was not named in the Articles and so was Advised He need make no Settlement and upon that Reason the Plaintiff could not require him to discover Incumbrances An Exception being taken to the Answer for that it did not discover any thing touching Incumbrances it was Argued before my Lord and for the Defendant it was alledged That by the Course of the Court the time of the Discovery should be when the other Point was determined for if that be for the Defendant then no Discovery can be required but if otherwise that then the Defendant shall be put to answer Interrogatories as is usual in Cases of like nature And it cannot be Objected That the Estate may be charged with Incumbrances since the Bill because they will be of no avail On the other side it was said That this would create great delay for upon the discovery of Incumbrances other parties must be made to the Bill and therefore this Case differed from the Case of Account which concerns the Defendant himself only but the Question now is only for the making proper Parties The Court Ordered That a further Answer should be made Nota If a man deviseth that such a Sum of Money shall be paid out of the Profits of his Lands and the Profits will not amount to the Sum in such case the Land
Covenant there was therein to exclude from Redemption such Covenant would not be regarded in this Court and that the Person to whom the Conveyance was made might have had a Bill in the life time of him that Conveyed to have a time set for the payment of the Mony or otherwise to be foreclosed But my Lord Keeper dismissed the Bill For he said in a common Mortgage such Covenant to restrain Redemption should not be regarded but this was made with an Intention of a Settlement of his Estate besides the Consideration of the Mony paid And he denied that he could have been by the Decree of this Court limited to any time for payment of the Mony for this Court cannot shorten the time that is given by express Covenant and Agreement of the parties but when that time is past then the Practice is to foreclose Nota This Dismission was afterwards in the Parliament held 1 2 W. M. affirmed Nota If a man makes a Voluntary Conveyance and there be a defect in it so as it cannot operate at Law this Court will not Decree an Execution thereof But sometimes it has been Decreed where it is intended a provision for younger Children The Lord Salisbury's Case MY Lord Salisbury married the Daughter of one Bennet who had two Daughters and bequeathed by his Will to each of them 20000l provided that if they or either of them married before the Age of Sixteen or if that the Marriage were without the Consent of such persons that they should lose 10000 l of the Portion and that the 10000 l should go to his other Children The Case was thus The Lord Salisbury married with one of the Daughters under the Age of 16. but with the Consent of all the parties It was urged That it being with Consent it might be at any Age. But my Lord Keeper was of Opinion that both parts must be observed Anonymus IN a Covenant to stand seised to the use of A. for life and after to two equally to be divided and to their Heirs and Assigns for ever My Lord Keeper declared his Opinion that the Inheritance was in Common as well as the Estate for life He said that it had been held that where the words were to two equally divided that should be in Common otherwise if the words were equally to be divided but since taken to be all one Nay a Devise to two equally will be in Common Here there shall not be such a Construction as to make one kind of Estate for life and another of the Inheritance and Survivorship is not favoured in prejudice of an Heir Note That if a Bill be Exhibited for the Examining of Witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam if the Plaintiff therein prays Relief the Bill shall be dismissed Termino Paschae Anno 1 Jac. II. In Cancellaria The Lord Pawlett's Case THe Lord Pawlett had made a Settlement of his Estate and had by the Deed charged his Lands with the payment of 4000 l apiece to be paid to his two Daughters at their respective Ages of 21 years or days of Marriage and reserved to himself a Power of otherwise ordering it by his Will And by his Will in Writing made at the same time or within a day after devised by these words viz. I give and bequeath to my two Daughters by name 4000 l apiece to be respectively paid unto them for their Portions in such manner as I have provided by the said Settlement and mentioned that he would be understood to mean only one 4000 l to each of his said Daughters and appointed to each of the Daughters 100 l per annum for Maintenance It hapned one of the Daughters died before Marriage or the Age of 21 years and my Lady Pawlett the Mother of the Daughters took out Letters of Administration to the Daughter that died and preferred a Bill against the Trustees for the 4000 l and the Heir to whom the benefit of the Lands after the Mony raised was appointed The Question solely was Whether this Mony should go to the Administratrix or the Land be discharged thereof and accrue to the benefit of the Heir It was agreed on all hands that if this had been a Legacy or a Sum of Mony bequeathed by the Will altho' the party had died before the Age of 21 or Marriage the Administrator should have had it and that is the Practice in the Ecclesiastical Court in case of Legacies The Legatee in such case is taken to have a present Interest tho' the time of payment be future My Lord Keeper mentioned the Reason to be because it Charges the Personal Estate which is in being at the time of the Testator's death and if the Legacy should by such an accident be discharged it would turn to the benefit of the Executors whereas the Testator did not probably so intend it And further it has been Ruled That altho' a Sum of Mony be devised out of Lands to be so paid at a future day the Death of the Legatee doth not lose it Tho' my Lord Keeper did not seem satisfied with the Reason of that Case but it having been so Decreed it was not good to vary to avoid Arbitrariness and Incertainties But here this Sum of Mony is appointed to be paid by the Deed and is a Trust charged upon Lands and Trusts are governed by the Intention of the party and that the Personal Estate is not Charged and this Sum of Mony doth not lye in demand by a Suit as where a Legacy is devised but only a Bill may be preferred to have the Trusts performed And tho' it was much insisted on for the Plaintiff that here the Will bequeaths this Mony yet that refers to the Deed and orders it to be paid in such manner as was thereby appointed And it was said to be the same with the Case of Bond and Richardson which was lately by my Lord Keeper thus Decreed being a Sum of Mony charged to be paid out of Land at such an Age. If a Settlement were made and Lands charged with such Sums of Mony as a Will should declare there the Will would be but Declarative and not Operative Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 1 2 Jac. II. In Cancellaria Frances Whitmore Vid ' Plaintiff versus Weld al' Defendants THe Case as it was drawn up upon Reference thereof by my Lord Keeper to the Judges of the Common Pleas for their Opinion was thus Viz. On the 18th of January 1675. William Whitmore the Elder taking notice that he had setled the major part of his Lands by Deed and being possessed of a very great Personal Estate in Mortgages Jewels Plate Bonds and other Goods and Chattels amounting in the whole to a very great Sum by Will in Writing devised several Legacies and after Wills in this manner Viz. The surplusage of my Personal Estate my Debts Legacies and Funeral Charges being paid and satisfied I give unto the Right Honourable William Earl of Craven for
Note directed to the Defendant whereby he required the Defendant to pay him who upon view of the Note in Consideration that the Plaintiff would accept of his Promise and forbear him a Fortnight promised to pay him the Money There after Verdict for the Plaintiff Judgment was Arrested because that was held no Consideration Sed non allocatur For Hale said When Assumpsits grew first into practice they used to set out the Matter at large viz. in such a Case as this Quod mutuo aggreatum fuit inter eos c. and they should be discharged one against the other but since it hath been the way to declare more concisely And upon the whole Matter here it appears that the Defendant agreed to this Transferring of the Debt of J. S. to the Plaintiff and that it was agreed that he should be discharged against J. S. And he said that the Case of Davison and Haslip hoc Termino ante was to the same effect And for Clipsham's Case that was said to be good Law for there it did not appear that the Defendant was at all Indebted to him that sent the Note Sir William Hicks's Case DEbt was brought against him by the Name of Sir William Hicks Knight and Baronet He pleaded in Abatement that he was never Knighted The Plaintiff moved that he might Amend an that he had put in Bail by the Name of Knight and Baronet so that he was concluded to alledge this Matter which the Court agreed if it were so But it was found to be Entred for William Hicks Baronet only So they said they could not permit any Amendment but the Plaintiff must of necessity Arrest him over again Fisher versus Batten A Bill was Exhibited in the Dutchy Court to be relieved against the Forfeiture of a Mortgage of Lands lying within the County of Lancaster The Defendant prayed a Prohibition Surmizing that the Lands in question were not the Kings Lands or holden of him and therefore he ought not to Answer in the Dutchy Court And the Court appointed to hear Counsel on both Sides whether or no this Prohibition were to be granted And it was Argued by Sir William Jones for the Prohibition That a Court of Equity must begin by Prescription or Act of Parliament That there can be no Prescription in this Case for both the Dutchy and County Palatine of Lancaster began within time of Memory Henry Father of John of Gaunt was the first Duke of Lancaster and he was made so in Edward the Third's time and then Lancaster was made a County Palatine The Act of Parliament upon which this Case must depend is that of 1 Ed. 4. which takes notice that the Dutchy and County Palatine of Lancaster were forfeited to the Crown by the Attainder of H. 6. and Enacts That they shall be separate and distinguished from other Inheritances of the Crown and appoints a Chancellor for the County Palatine and a Chancellor for the Dutchy and that each should have his Seal so that the Chancellor of the Dutchy is not to intermeddle in the County Palatine which hath a Chancellor of its own for Matters there Counties Palatine had their Original from a Politick Reason and Lancaster Durham and Chester were made so probably because they were adjacent to Enemies Countries viz. the two first to Scotland and Chester to Wales so that the Inhabitants having Administration of Justice at home and not being obliged to attend other Courts those parts should not be disfurnished of Inhabitants that might secure the Country from Incursions 'T is true of a long time the Chancellorship both of County and Dutchy have been in one Person but 't is the same thing as if there were two for the several Capacities remain distinct in him The first Patent that made it a County Palatine Ordained that it should have Jura regalia ad Comitatum Palatinum pertinen ' adeo libere integre sicut Comes Cestriae Com. 215. infra eundem Comitat ' Cestriae dignoscitur obtinere c. So that by that the Jurisdiction ought to be exercised within the County They have shewn indeed a multitude of Presidents but I can hear but of One for the first Fifty years after 1 Edw. 4. most of the other are of Personal things and of the rest divers began in the County Palatine and were transmitted to the Dutchy Court As they may send Causes out of the Courts there to be Argued in the Kings Bench but doubtful whether the Court here can give Judgment They have very few Presidents of Causes which commenced Originally in the Dutchy Court which is but a Court of Revenue 4 Inst The Court of Requests had a multitude of Presidents but could not thereby gain it self any Jurisdiction 4 Inst 97. Holt's Case Hob. 77. A Bill was Exhibited to be relieved against the Penalty of a Bond which concerned an Extent of Lands within the County Palantine and a Prohibition was granted for the Dutchy Court is said there to have nothing to do but with the Kings Land and his Revenue Vid. Rolls accordingly Weston contra We cannot pretend to a Court of Equity by Prescription but we have Presidents of above Two hundred years last past as well of Bills retained which commenced Originally here as of those transmitted and that of Transmission is agreed on the other side which proves the Jurisdiction For if a Certiorari or Corpus cum causa should go out of the Kings-Bench Conusans of Pleas might be demanded and so to stop the Removing of the Cause out of the Inferiour Court We maintain our Jurisdiction upon the Statute of 1 Ed. 4. before which the County Palatine and Dutchy of Lancaster were distinct as they were 1 H. 4. by which Act they were both severed from the Possessions of the Crown But now 1 Ed. 4. makes one Body of these distinct Bodies and gives a superiority to the Dutchy over the County Palatine for that is annexed unto and made parcel of the Dutchy as the supream Name of Corporation The Words of the Act are That our Liege and Sovereign Lord King Edward the Fourth and his Heirs have as parcel of the Dutchy the County of Lancaster and County Palatine and there is a Chancellor and Seal appointed for the County Palatine and a Seal also for the Dutchy and a Chancellor there for the keeping thereof and Officers and Counsellors for the Guidance and Governance of the same Dutchy and of the particular Officers Ministers Tenants and Inhabitants thereof So that the Act having Constituted a Chancellor indefinitely over the Dutchy and not circumscribing his Power it is not reason to exempt any part of the Dutchy and that the County is by force of this Act. In the 4 Inst 119. it is said that seeing there hath been time out of mind a Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be also in the Exchequer a Court of Equity So the Book of the 2d of H. 8. and Rolls Tit. Prohibition to the
Car. nunc cap. 3. in pursuance of which he distrained the said Nails for the Duty due by those Acts out of a Smiths Forge c. The Plaintiff demurred So the sole question was whether a Smiths Forge were within the Acts it being once argued the last Term the Court now gave their Opinion Moreton I think a Smiths Forge ought to pay 't is a great part of the Kings Revenue almost in every Village there is one we should explain the Act liberally for the King Rainsford of the same Opinion 't is within the words scilicet an Hearth whereon Fire is used and within the meaning for there is an exception of things not so properly Fire hearths as this viz. Private Ovens Where the Act excepts Blowing Houses I take it is meant Glass houses and the Houses at Ironworks by Stamps I think is meant Presses Calenders for Cloaths by the very words Houses that are not Dwelling Houses are charged The objection that it is his Trade is answered by the instance of Cooks Chandlers Common Ovens Hearths of Tripewomen who boil Neats Feet Twisden of the same Opinion the words are general yet I would not extend it to every Hearth that has a Fire upon it as Stils and Alembicks for so we might extend it to a Chaffing dish of Coals but we must take it for a Rule to extend it to those things which are most general A Smiths Forge is of such use that 't is found almost in every Village therefore 't was reckoned a great piece of hardship and slavery upon the Children of Israel that they were not permitted a thing so useful amongst them The exceptions enumerate particulars therefore it excludes whatever is not expressed Hale I would fain know how the fact is Do Silver Smiths c. pay It were too narrow to extend it only to Common Chimneys and too great a latitude to extend it to every place where Fire is where a Man can but warm his Hands I suppose Boylers in Cooks Chimneys and the Fireplaces of Worstead Combers do not pay Common Ovens should have paid tho' there were no exception of Private Ovens for they never are or can be without a Chimney This is matter of fact I have not enquired into and I would be loath to deliver an Opinion without much inquiry but 't is very probable that they are Firehearths and not excepted but it appears plainly upon the Record that 't is a Firehearth and by the general Demurrer 't is admitted Note There was a Special Rule that no advantage should be taken of the Pleading by either side But Hale said he did not know how they were bound by that Rule Termino Paschae Anno 24 Car. II. In Banco Regis Monk versus Morris and Clayton THe Plaintiff after he had obtained Iudgment in Debt became Bankrupt and the Defendants brought a Writ of Error The Judgment was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber and the Record sent back Then a Commission of Bankrupts is sued out and the Commissioners Assign this Judgment The Plaintiff Sues out Execution and the Money is levied by the Sheriff and brought into Court The Assignee moves that it may not be delivered to the Plaintiff surmising that the Judgment was assigned to him ut Ante. The Court said they might have brought a Special Sicre facias which they having delayed and that it would be hard to stay the Money in Court upon a bare surmise and for ought appeared it was the Plaintiff's due But however because it might be hazardous to deliver it to him they consented to detain it so that the Assignee forthwith took out a Scire facias against the Defendant in order to try the Bankrupcy or otherwise that it should be delivered to the Plaintiff Sir Ralph Bovyes Case IN an Ejectment upon a Tryal at Bar the Case appeared to be this Sir William Drake was seized in Fee of the Lands in question and 19 Car. 1. infeoffed Sir William Spring and five others to such uses as he should declare by his Will in Writing or by his Deed subscribed by three Witnesses In August 20 Car. 1. by his Deed ut supra he limits the use of the said Lands to his Brother Francis Drake for 90 years and declares That the Feoffees should be seized to their own use in Trust for the said Francis Drake and his Heirs with a power to Francis Drake to alter and limit the Trust as he should think fit In the same Month there is a Treaty of Marriage between F.D. and the Daughter of Sir William Spring and it was agreed by certain Articles between F.D. and Sir W. S. c. reciting that he should receive 2500 l with his intended Wife which Money was proved to be paid that F. D. should convey the Lands in question to himself and his Wife and the Heirs Males of their two Bodies c. for the Joynture of the Wife The Marriage afterwards in 20 Car. takes effect and soon after the same year F.D. by Indenture between him Sir W.S. and another reciting the Articles of Marriage Assigns his Term of 90 years to Sir W. S. and the other in Trust to himself for Life the remainder to his Wife for Life and after to the Heirs Males of their two Bodies and by the same Deed limits the Trust of the Inheritance of the Lands in the same manner Afterwards in 23 Car. 1. he in consideration of 6000 l proved to be paid Grants out of the said Lands a Rent of 400 l per annum to Sir Ralph Bovy and his Heirs with power to enter into the Land in case the Rent was not paid and to retain it until satisfaction Afterwards F. D. and his Wife dye the Rent was Arrear Sir R. Bovy enters Sir Will. Spring and the other Trustees Assign the term of 90 years to Sir Will. Drake Heir Male of F.D. and his Wife the Lessor of the Plaintiff In this case these Points were agreed by the Court. First That when Sir W. D. enfeoffed divers to such Uses as he should declare by his Will or Writing that if he had in pursuance of that Feoffment limited the Uses by his Will that the Will had been but Declaratory tho' if he had made a Feoffment to the Use of his Will it had been otherwise according to Sir Ed. Cleeres Case 6 Co. And Hale said my Lord Co. made a Feoffment provided that he might dispose by his Will to the use of the Feoffee and his Heirs and resolved in that case he might declare the Use by his Will which should arise out of the Feoffment Secondly That this Settlement being in pursuance of Articles made precedent to the Marriage had not the least colour of fraud whereby a Purchaser might avoid it and if there had been but a Verbal Agreement for such a Settlement it would have served the turn And the Court said if there had been no precedent Agreement so that it had been a voluntary Conveyance tho' every such
it will be agreed he might have released it or by cutting of the Wood might have taken away all the right of Action Again it does not appear by the Record that the Defendant was here and so no benefit by the forbearing to cut the Wood. Rookwoods Case cited on the other side 1 Cro. 163. 1 Leonard 192. is that the Promise was made to the younger Brothers and the Consideration that they would consent but here the Plaintiff who was to have the Money had no share in the Consideration or Meritorious Act as where the Father promises J. S. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will give him 1000 l the Son may bring the Action because the Consideration moves from him Hetlys Rep. 20. the Case was to this effect A Man promises a Woman whom he was to Marry upon a certain Consideration that if he had a Son by her he should have a Term whereof the Woman was then possessed and if it were a Daughter she should have the Moiety of the Goods c. they Intermarry and after the death of the Husband the Daughter born between them brings an Action against the Executor of the Husband and resolved that it would not lie tho' they did not think the Agreement made with the Wife to be discharged by the Intermarriage but only suspended which is a Quaere in my Lord Hobart Yet the Daughter being no Party to the Promise or to the Consideration could not bring an Action The Case of Norris and Pine before cited is stronger for there he that made the Promise had a benefit for it was in Consideration of Marriage On the other side it was said that tho' it doth not appear that the Defendant was Heir yet it may be intended after Verdict however 't is not nudum pactum for if the Defendant had no benefit yet there was a restraint upon the other and that is Consideration enough And for the objection of releasing that holds where J. S. promises J.N. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will pay him 1000 l J.N. may Release but 't is doubtful whether he can after Marriage because then 't is vested in the Son as Scroggs Chief Justice said 1 Roll. 31. The Uncle of an Infant delivered J.S. 12 l who promised to pay the Infant when he came of Age and the Action was well brought by him after his Age. So Goods sold to A. to pay 10 l to B. B. may Sue Vid. 1. Roll. 32 Starkey and Mills The Court said it might be another Case if the Money had béen to have been paid to a Stranger but there is such a nearness of Relation between the Father and Child and 't is a kind of Debt to the Child to be provided for that the Plaintiff is plainly concerned And so by the Opinion of them all viz. Scroggs Wild Jones and Dolben Judicium pro Querente Ante. Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Sheriffs Court of London for that an Action was there Commenced to which the Defendant pleaded That the cause of Action did not arise within the Jurisdiction and offered to swear his Plea but it was refused The Counsel for the Plaintiff objected against the Prohibition that the Plea came too late for it was after an Imparlance But it being proved by Affidavit that the Plea was tendred within two days after the Declaration was delivered and that immediately upon delivering the Declaration there is an Imparlance of course The Court granted the Prohibition and said that the other side might Demurr if they thought fit for the liberty of the Subject was infringed by bringing him within a private Jurisdiction when the Matter arises out of it and Attorney's in such places are sworn to advise no Plea to the Jurisdiction nor that none shall be put in by them And whereas 't was said that the Party had not prejudice for he might remove his Case by Habeas Corpus The that the Court answered coming by Habeas Corpus Bail must be put in above tho' the Cause otherwise did not require it Note It appeared here that there was no defence made in this to the Jurisdiction and Co. Inst was quoted that defence should be made tho' not full defence But the Court said it was not necessary and that Presidents were otherwise especially where the Court have no Jurisdiction of the matter otherwise where not of the person James versus Richardson IN Ejectment the Case upon a Special Verdict was thus A. devised the Lands to B. and his Heirs during the Life of J. S. and after to the Heirs of the Body of R. D. now living and to such other Heirs was should after be Born the Devisee for Life levied a Fine in the Life of him to whose Heirs the Remainder was limited but he had a Son at the time of the death of the Testator The question was Whether it was a Contingent Remainder the consequence whereof was to be destroyed by the Fine and that it was vested in the Son Scroggs Chief Justice Wild and Jones held it a Remainder vested by reason of the words now living which was a sufficient Designation of the person that was to take in a Will tho' improper to call him Heir But Dolben Contra for by this Construction the Heirs Born after are excluded and the Son would take but an Estate for Life tho' it were devised to the Heirs in the Plural Number Note Vpon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber this Iudgment was reversed Hillary 31 32. Car. 2. Termino Paschae Anno 31 Car. II. In Banco Regis A Mandamus was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court to grant the Probat of a Will under Seal c. The Case was the Executor named in the Will had taken the usual Oath but after a Caveat entred and then Refused and another endeavoured to obtain Letters of Administration the Executor came after to desire the Will under Probat and contested the granting of Administration Which was Adjudged against him supposing that he was bound by his Refusal And after an Appeal to the Delegates this Mandamus was prayed and granted by the Court for having taken the Oath he could not be admitted to Refuse and the Ecclesiastical Court had no further Authority and the Caveat did not alter the Case Note The Oath was taken before a Surrogate yet it was all one Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit for Tythes upon the Suggestion that the Lands out of which they were demanded say out of the Parish and the Bounds of Parishes are tryable at the Common Law But the Court denied the Prohibition because it did not appear that a Plea thereof had been offered in the Ecclesiastical Court Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit against J. S. Lessee of a Rectory out of which a Pension was demanded It was suggested that the Lord Biron had three parts in four of this Rectory upon which the Pension was chargeable and that
Indicted of Perjury in a voluntary and Extra judicial Oath and cited a late Case where one had stole away a mans Daughter and went before a Justice of the Peace and Swore that he had the Fathers Consent and this in order to get a Licence to marry her and he was Indicted and Convicted thereupon And all the Court said that it was not the course to quash Indictments of Perjury Nusance or the like but to put the party to plead to them Termino Paschae Anno 36 Car. II. In Banco Regis Duncomb versus Walter IN an Indebitat ' Assumpsit by an Assignee of Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupts upon Non assumpsit a Special Verdict was found upon which the Case appeared to be thus One Staly was Arrested by an Executor of his Creditor 6 Sept which was before Probat of the Will and within two or three days after he paid 1000 l to the Defendant to whom he stood Indebted in such Sum and after the 18th of September he yielded himself to Prison upon the said Arrest The Question was Whether the Defendant should be obliged to Refund this Money which was paid unto him as aforesaid First Whether the Arrest before the Probat was a good Arrest It was said If an Executor hath a Reversion in a Term upon which a Rent is reserved and Distrains c. he may avow for the Rent before the Probat Vid. 1 Roll. 917. tit Executors where an Executor brings an Action before Probat yet if he shews the Probat upon the Declaration 't is well enough Secondly Whether when he yields himself to Prison it shall not relate to the first Arrest to make him a Bankrupt from that time This depends upon the Statute of 21 Jac. cap. 19. where it is said that in the Cases of Arrest and lying in Prison he shall be adjudged a Bankrupt from the time of his first Arrest Object This Relation doth not prejudice Strangers Answ Dame Hales's Case Pl. Com. 293. If one giveth another a mortal Wound and then sells his Land and the person dies there shall be such Relation as to make the Land forfeit from the first Stroke Note This Case came by Writ of Error out of the Common Pleas where Judgment was given for Walter and the said Judgment was affirmed in this Court principally upon the point of Relation For the Court said that it would be a great mischief if it should relate to the first Arrest as to the payment of Money to Strangers Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 1 2 Jac. II. In Banco Regis Herring versus Brown Quod vid. ante Michaelmas 35 Car. 2. THe Case upon a Special Verdict was to this effect That J. S. being Seised in Fee had made a Conveyance of his Estate to the use of himself for Life with divers Remainders over to other persons with a power of Revocation by Writing under his Hand and Seal c. Afterwards the said J. S. having a purpose to Revoke the said Uses and make a new Settlement of his Estate he levied a Fine and after the Fine he made a Deed wherein he expressed that he Revoked the former Uses and so proceeded to a new Limitation by that Deed and declared that the Fine by him limited should be to the Vses of the said Deed. The sole Question was Whether the Fine had extinguished his Power and by consequence forfeited his Estate or Whether the Fine and Deed should be taken as one Conveyance and so be a good execution of his Power and new limitation of the Uses And after many solemn Arguments it was Resolved by the Chief Justice Herbert Holloway and Wright that the Fine was an extinguishment of his Power and that the Deed came too late contrary to the Opinion of Justice Withens Vido ante ADDENDA Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 26 Car. II. In Banco Regis Pibus versus Mitford Intratur Trin. 20 Car. 2. Rot. 703. IN an Ejectment the Jury find a Special Verdict to this effect viz. That Michael Mitford was seiz'd of the Lands in question and of divers other Lands in Fee and having Issue Robert by one Venter and Ralph by Jane his second Wife did 23 Jan. 21 Jac. by Indenture Covenant to stand seized of some of the Lands to the use of himself for Life Remainder to Trustees for years for several purposes Remainder to Jane his second Wife for Life Remainder to Ralph and the Heirs Male of his Body And as to the Lands in question he Covenants to stand seiz'd To the use of his Heirs Male begotten or to be begotten on the Body of his second Wife and died And then the Jury made this Special Conclusion If any Use did arise by the Deed to Ralph then they find for the Defendant and if not they find for the Plaintiff This Case was Argued several times at the Bar and now the Judges delivered their Opinions seriatim Wild Justice for the Defendant We are to give our Opinions upon a Deed of Uses made for the Provision of younger Children not otherwise provided for But if the Case were not so It is a safe way when the Words are ambiguous to follow the Intention of the party appearing in the Deed. I shall not maintain that Ralph is a Purchaser and so make this an Executory Use I agree a man cannot either by Conveyance at Common Law by Limitation of Uses or Devise make his right Heir a Purchaser I agree also Griswold's Case in Dyer 156. and if this Case had operated by Transmutation of Possession this Limitation to the Heirs of the Body of the Covenantor had been void and no Use should have risen But here in the Case of a Covenant to stand seiz'd nothing moves out of the Covenantor he retains the Land and directs the Use and keeps sufficient in him to maintain this Use There 's a great difference between a Conveyance at the Common Law and a Conveyance to Uses At the Common Law the Heir cannot take where the Ancestor could not but otherwise it is in case of Uses 2 Rolls 794. and so is Wood's Case 1 Co. 99. a. cited in Shelly's Case This I say to shew that the Intent of the Parties shall be the Guide and that there is a difference between Conveyances at the Common Law and Conveyances to Uses Horwood's Opinion in Hussey's Case 37 H. 8. comes to our Case There 's no great difference between a Covenant to stand seiz'd and a Feoffment to Uses I will not Argue to prove that this Deed shall enure as an Executory Use because 't is against a Rule in Law taken by my Lord Hobart and so Agreed before his time But here Ralph is Tenant in Tail Michael his Father being Tenant for Life Remainder to his Heirs Male begotten on the Body of Jane his second Wife For the Law to preserve this Limitation to the use of his Heirs Male c. will by Implication create an Estate for Life in Michael
because the Intent of the parties appears that it should be so There 's no great difference between the Construction of a Deed of Uses and a Will 13 H. 7. The Wife takes an Estate for Life by Implication where the Land is devised to the eldest Son after her decease Manning and Andrew's Case in 1 Leon. 259. The Reason of these Cases is the fulfilling of the Intention of the Parties and here this Limitation cannot be made good by way of a Future Use nor by any other way but only by creating of an Estate for Life in Michael the Father by Implication and this is according to the nature of a Covenant to stand seiz'd For the Use is not to pass out of the Covenantor till the proper time for the subsequent Estate to commence As to my Lord Paget's Case 't was his Intention to have the Use during his Life And my Lord Coke was certainly very well satisfied with the Resolution in Fenwick and Mitford's Case when he wrote his Institutes for he Argued before to the contrary as appears by the Report of that Case in Moor. Rainsford Justice to the same Intent If no Use rises immediately to Ralph yet if a Use rises by the Deed so that he has the Land any way be it by discent from his Father 't is within the Conclusion of the Verdict By the scope of the Conveyance it appears that it was intended that Robert should never have his Land till Twelve hundred Pound was paid for the provision of younger Children so that if Robert should have it it would be against the Intention of Michael There are two Reasons and Grounds in Law by which we may make this Deed agree with the Intention of the Parties First Because it is in the Case of an Estate Tail ubi voluntas donatoris observari debet Secondly It is in a Conveyance setled by way of Use and in Cases of Uses the Intention of the parties ought to be pursued And this is in Case of a Use that rises by Covenant to stand seiz'd which makes the Case the stronger And I conceive this is not a void Limitation but such an one as gives an Estate to Ralph In speaking to which I shall observe what my Lord Coke in the 1 Inst 23. says viz. That so much of the Use as the Owner of the Land does not dispose of remains in him c. and so in Cownden and Clark's Case in Hob. 30. And this is the Reason of Bingham's Case 1 Co. 91. Now here when Michael Covenanted to stand seiz'd to the Vse of his Heirs Male on the Body of his second Wife begotten I conceive he shall retain the Land as parcel of his ancient Vse during his Life for non est Haeres viventis according to Archer's Case 1 Co. And that Michael shall retain an Estate for Life is prov'd by my Lord Paget's Case 1 Co. 154. Dyer 310. N. 79. 1 Co. Chudleigh's Case 129. 2 Rolls 788. 21 H. 7. 18. From my Lord Paget's Case upon which I shall rely and the other Cases it appears that were there 's a Limitation to one after the death of another the Covenantor shall retain the Land during the Life of the other and here in our Case this Estate not taking effect till after the Death of Michael he shall retain the Estate and shall be Tenant for Life of the old Vse Now the Question is Whether Ralph shall take by Discent or Purchase And I conceive this Estate for Life with the Remainder in Tail makes but one Estate Tail in Michael and that he becomes Tenant in Tail and so Ralph shall take as Heir in Tail I shall not trouble my self whether Ralph may take here as a Purchaser because in Cownden and Clark's Case in Hob. it is Resolved that he cannot take as Heir Male of the Body by Purchase because all the words are not verified in him for he is not Heir I shall rely upon the First Point That here is an Estate Tail executed in Michael For when an Estate for Life is in the Auncestor by way of Retainer and an Estate is afterwards limited to his Heirs this is within the Rule put in Shelley's Case in 1 Co. where the Auncestor takes an Estate of Freehold and by the same Conveyance an Estate is limited to his Heirs Mediately or Immediately they are Words of Limitation and not of Purchase because the Heir is part of his Father Our Case is stronger that Fenwick and Mitfords Case It s true the same Reason for that Case is not given by Anderson and More which is given by my Lord Coke More 437. There the Reason is because the Limitation to the right Heirs is merely void here Michael hath an Estate in Tail of the ancient Use therefore 't is not necessary for the Law to create an Estate for Life Obj. That this cannot be an Estate Tail executed in Michael because the Estate for Life is not by the same Limitation but by Construction of Law But my Lord Coke says in Fenwick and Mitfords Case 1 Inst 22. b. that there is no difference where the Estate is created by Law and where by the Deed. 1 Anderson 259. and the Law retaining an Estate in Michael for Life our Case is the same as if the Estate had been limited to him with the Remainder to his Heirs Male begotten on his second Wife which would be an Estate Tail executed in Michael and would have discended to Ralph Twisden Justice for the Plaintiff I hold there 's no Use raised to Ralph by this Deed. We are here in the construction of a Deed and not of a Will It may be an Estate should be raised in such a case by a Will altho' my Lord Hobart is of a contrary Opinion I agree the Case of Hodgkinson and Wood Cro. Car. 23. but it cannot be argued from thence that it shall be so in a Deed for a Devise is not to take effect till after the Death of the Devisor and then 't is apparent that he is Heir Male of his Body It hath been agreed that Heirs Male of the Body are words of purchase It is plain that Ralph cannot take as Special Heir unless by Purchase and that he cannot do because he who shall take by virtue of such a Limitation ought to be Heir as well as Issue Male and Ralph here cannot take by vertue of the Statute de Donis Conditionalibis because none can take as Special Heir but where his Ancestor took before and therefore this Limitation is utterly void To make this Limitation good divers ways have been urged First That this Deed has an operation by way of returning of the Use and it has been compared to my Lord Pagets Case which differs from it here cannot be any part of the old Use in Michael for if he hath an Estate for Life it ought to be a new Use It cannot be a returning Use for the Limitation to the Heirs Male of the Body
of Jane the second Wife is void and it cannot be returning where the Use is not setled in any Person I agree my Lord Pagets Case because there the Estate was vested in William Paget and the other Use returned by operation of Law and the Estate setled could not be divested but here the Limitation to the Heirs Males being void the ancient Use remained yet in Michael for nothing was out of him he having limited a thing which cannot be And as to a returning Use tho' all be done in an instant yet there is a priority of time in the Eye of the Law for it ought to vest first in him in Remainder and then Return but here nothing vests in the Remainder Secondly It hath béen urged That it shall be made good by Implication of Law and so shall amount to a Covenant to stand seized to the Used of the Covenantor for Life c. and the rather as it has béen said by Wild because Uses are guided by Equity But I answer we are here in case of a Deed where an Estate shall not be raised by Implication as it shall by a Will Cro. Car. Seagood ad Hone 366. A Deed differs greatly from a Will for if a Man Surrenders Copyhold Land to two equally to be divided they are Joynt-tenants but such a Devise would have made them Tenants in Common Admit in some Case an Estate shall be raised by Implication in a Deed yet it shall not be so here for it would be to the disinheriting the Heir As to the case of 13 H. 7. I agree that a Devise to the Eldest Son after the Death of the Wife gives an Estate for Life to the Wife but otherwise it would be upon such a Devise to the Younger Son for there the Eldest Son and not the Wife should have the Estate in the mean time Cro. Jac. Horton and Horton 57. We are not herein Favorabili materiâ and therefore no construction shall be made which does not appear by the words It hath béen strongly urged that this being by way of Use which is a matter of Equity shall be favoured Admit it yet it shall be guided by the Common Law for aequitas sequitur legem There never shall be a Settlement by way of Use to make one capable who is not capable by the Common Law I do not see any difference between a Feoffment to Uses and a Covenant to stand seized for if a Feoffment be made to the use of one for Life the Use shall return which is not disposed of as well as upon a Covenant to stand seized Thirdly It has been urged if these severally cannot support this Limitation yet the intention operating with the Deed will both together make an Estate for Life in Michael But I do not see his intent here to have it for Life the intention even in a Will which is much stronger ought to be collected out of the words of the Will. Cro. Car. Spirt and Bence 368. agreed by the whole Court that words in a Will ought to have an apparent intent to disinherit an Heir and here there is not any apparent intent but rather to the contrary for of some Lands Michael Covenants to stand seised to the Use of himself for Life Remainder c. but of the Lands in question he makes a difference in the Limitation And the words of the Deed are to be considered He Covenants to stand seized to the Uses mentioned declared and limited in the Deed and if Michael shall have an Estate for Life he must have it by operation of Law There was a like case between Flavil and Ventroise in the Common Pleas in which the Court was divided but the same Point came afterwards in question in the Case of Mr. Tape of Norfolk and it was adjudged to be the ancient Use And no Case can be shewn that the Law will create an Estate in the Covenantor where the Use is not vested in any Person but the ancient Use remains in him As to the Cases cited on the other side I have answered my Lord Pagets's Case already And as to my Lord Cokes Case 1 Inst 22. b. I agree the Use returns and the Son is in by discent and so it was adjudged in Fenwick and Mitfords Case there cited But the Paraphrase he makes there I do not understand It is said there when the Limitation is made to his right Heirs and right Heirs he cannot have during his Life the Law doth create an Use in him during his Life Wherefore is this said to make the Heir in by discent No doubt without this he is in by discent and so was the Iudgment in that Case for what Reason then should there be an Estate for Life raised by the Law to be merg'd by the Fee as soon as raised And there 't is said Till the future use come in Esse I do not conceive then where it is so long as the Father lives and what he means by the Future Use I do not know for it always was in Esse and never was out of the Feoffor and this was so adjudg'd in that Case of Fenwick and Mitford and not the construction of my Lord Coke And t is strange that no other Reports should mention his construction Hale Chief Justice for the Defendant If Ralph takes either by Discent from Michael or by Purchase the one way or the other answers the Verdict and the Issue is for the Defendant I shall divide the Case into two Points 1. If he takes by Discent 2. Admitting he does not If he may take by Purchase as this Case is I shall Premise two or three things First It has been agreed if an Estate for Life be raised to Michael the Remainder being to his Heirs Male of the Body of Jane his second Wife the Estate Tail is executed in him be the Estate for Life raised by Implication or express Limitation Secondly It is plain quacunque via It be rais'd that the Estate was long'd in Michael till Ralph the Son be in a capacity to take it either by Discent or Purchase for be it part of the ancient Use or a new Use it ought to be in Michael during his Life for there is nothing to bring it out of him Thirdly In all Cases touching Uses there is a great difference between a Feoffment to Uses a Covenant to stand seized and a conveyance at the Common Law If a Man by Feoffment to uses conveys Land to the use of J.S. for Life he may remit the Use to himself and the Heirs Male of his Body by the same Deed and so alter that wich was before a Fee simple and turn it into another Estate but if A. gives Land to B. for Life Remainder to A. and the Heirs Male of his Body because a Man cannot give to himself the Remainder is void for a Man cannot convey to himself by a Conveyance at the Common Law These things being premised I conceive here is an
Estate Tail in Michael First Because in this Case the Use returns by operation of Law and executes an Estate in Michael for Life which being conjoined to the Estate limited to the Heirs Male of his Body makes an Estate Tail This Estate for Life rising by operation of Law is as strong as if it had been limitted to him for his Life and after his decease to the Heirs Male of his Body Secondly Because that a Limitation to the Heirs Male of his Body is in Construction of Law a Limitation to himself and the Heirs Male of his Body There is a great difference when he who has the Use limits it to A. for Life the Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of B. here no Estate can rise to B. because nothing moved from him but where he who has the Estate limits it to the Heirs Male of his own Body ut res valeat he shall have it for his Life Thirdly It is plainly according to the intent of the Parties the intent perfectly appears that the Issue by the second Wife should take and that Robert the eldest Son should not take till so much Money be paid therefore if we can by any means serve the intent of the parties we ought to do it as good Expositors For as my Lord Hobart says Judges in Construction of Deeds do no harm if they are astuti in serving the intent of the Parties without violating any Law Obj. Here the Use being never out of Michael he hath the ancient Use which is the Fee simple and consequently being the ancient Use and this being a new Limitation to the Heirs Male of his Body the ancient use and the new one cannot be piec'd to make an Estate Tail executed in Michael but it shall be a Contingent Use if any which ought to rise to the Heir Male of his Body and so remains the ancient Fee simple And it hath been compared to these Cases If a Man Covenants to stand seized to the Use of J.S. or of his Son after his Marriage or after the Death of J. D. these are Contingent Limitations and there is a Fee simple determinable in the Covenantor to serve the future Uses Resp 'T is true if a Man Covenants to stand seized to such Uses as that he leaves a discendible Estate in himself As if a Man Covenants to stand seized to the Use of his Son from and after his Marriage this is purely a Contingent Use because t is possible the Marriage may never take effect and nothing is fetch'd out of the Covenantor so if he Covenants to stand seized to the Use of J. S. after 40 years there is a Fee simple determinable in the Covenantor and therefore those Cases are not to be resembled to our Case where the Estate of Michael cannot continue longer than his Life And this without any wrong done to any Rule of Law may be turned to a Use for Life and therefore such construction shall be Object 2. Here is an Estate to rise by way of Use by a Deed and not by a Will which shall not be by Implication by a Deed. Resp It s a certain truth But we are not here upon raising an Estate by Implication but qualifying an Estate that is now in the Father which by this new Deed is to be qualified to be an Estate for Life to preserve the Estate Tail so that the Cases of Implication are not to the purpose Object 3. In this Case Michael shall be in of his ancient Estate in Fee simple which is in him and not of a new Estate created by Implication of Law and it hath been compared to the Devise of Land to a Mans Heir he shall not be in by the Devise but of his ancient Estate that would have descended to him Resp True But in this Case a Man may qualifie his Estate as in Gilpins Case Cro. Ca. 161. Devise to his Heir upon Condition that he shall pay his Debts in a year the Heir is a Purchasor so here is a qualification to turn the Estate of Michael into an Estate for Life ut res valeat Object 4. Michael had not an Intention to have an Estate for Life for in the Limitation of the other Lands he has limited them expressly to himself for Life and if he had intended to have had an Estate for Life in the Lands in question he would also have so expressed it Resp The intention will not controul the operation of Law his main intent was to settle the Lands upon his younger Children this the Law serves but not his secondary intentions If a Man Covenants to stand seized to the Use of himself for Life without impeachment of Wast and afterwards to the Use of the Heirs Male of his Body the Law supervenes his intention and makes him to be Tenant in Tail And in our Case there was a necessity to limit the other Lands to himself for Life because there was another Estate to intervene the Estate for Life and the Estate Tail The Reason given by my Lord Coke in Fenwick and Mitfords Case is plain enough and it appears that he was of that Opinion afterwards by the Report of Pannel and Lanes Case 13 Jac. in Rolls Rep. 1 part 238. The Case upon which I shall rely which has not been answered is my Lord Pagets Case adjudged by all the Judges of England Tho. Lord Paget Covenants in consideration of the discharge of his Funerals Payment of his Debts and Legacies out of the profits of his Land and for the advancement of his Son Brother and others of his Blood that he and his Heirs would stand seized of divers Mannors to the Use of T.F. one of the Covenantees for the Life of my Lord Paget and after his Death to the Use of C. Paget for the term of 24 years and then to the Use of W. Paget his Son in Tail with Remainders in over and afterwards the Lord Paget was aâ—â—â—nted of Treason And it was adjudged that the Lord Paget himself had an Estate for his Life for the Remainder being limited after his Death the Estate cannot pass out of him during his Life and there in Case of a Covenant to stand seized he himself hath an Estate for Life And this is not because the Estate returns as my Brother Twisden has said but because the Estate was never out of him and cannot return either from the Heir or the Covenantee otherwise where should it be during the Life of the Lord Paget who was attainted the Book is that it was never out of him but was turn'd into an Estate for Life So that now it is all one as if he had Covenanted to stand seized to the Use of his eldest Son after his Death And the question is What Estate he has during his Life It is adjudged that he has an Estate for Life for if there had been a Contingent Fee simple in the Lord Paget his Heir could never have had an Amoveas manus
for if a Man Covenants to stand seized to a Contingent Use and afterwards is attainted of Treason before the Contingency happen the Contingency shall never rise for the King has the Estate discharged and the Use is to rise out of the Estate of the Covenantor so is Moor Sir Tho Palmers Case 815 In Moors Rep. of my Lord Pagets Case 194. It s said that W. Paget had an Amoveas manus for the Estate of the Queen leased by the Death of my Lord Paget In Sir Francis Englefeilds Case Popham 18. n. 7. It s resolved that no Use rises because t is that it shall Discend Remain or Come which is uncertain but if he had Covenanted that after his Death he and his Heirs would have stood seized to the Use of John an Use would have resulted to Sir Francis Second Point I conceive if it be impossible for Ralph to take by Discent this would be a Contingent Use in him by Purchase The great Objection against this is that the Limitation is to an Heir and an Heir which ought to take by Purchase ought not to be only Heir of the Body c. but Heir general Of this I am not well satisfied I conceive the Remainder being limited to the Heirs of the Body of Jane begotten by Michael such a Limitation will make a special Heir to serve the turn and t is not to be resembled to Shelley's Case My Reasons are First Because at the Common Law before the Statute de Donis notice was taken that this was a special Heir and therefore 't is no wrong done to make him here a qualified Heir In the Statute de Donis 't is said When Lands are given to Man and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten Secondly Vpon the special penning of the Deed it is apparent that Michael took notice that he had an Heir at Common Law therefore it can't be intended that he meant here such an Heir that should be Heir general to him this would be Contradictio in Adjecto Litt. Sect. 352. puts this Case If a Feoffment be made upon Condition that the Feoffee shall give the Land to the Feoffor and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten In this Case if the Husband dye living his Wife before the Estate Tail is granted to them the Feoffee ought to make the Estate as near the Condition and as near the intent of the Condition as may be viz. To let the Land to the Wife for her Life without impeachment of Wast the Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of the Husband on her begotten If the Husband and Wife dye before the Gift made then the Feoffee ought to make it to the Issue and to the Heirs of the Body of his Father and Mother begotten Suppose that this had been to a second Wife and there had been Issue by a former the Book of 12 H. 4. 3. says that there it shall be in another manner but Litt. says it shall be as near vid. Litt. Sect. 22. Morevils Case Fitzh Tail 23. 2 Ed. 3. 1. 4. Ed. 3. 50. by all these Cases it appears that no regard is had whether the Son be Heir of the Husband if he be Heir of their two Bodies Therefore it seems that by this Limitation Ralph shall take by way of Contingent Remainder For Heirs of the Body of the second Wife is a good name of Purchase I have not read any Case against this Hill 16. or 26 Eliz. there was this Case A Man taking notice in his Will that his Brother who was dead had a Son and that he himself had three Daughters who were his right and immediate Heirs he gave them 2000 l and gave his Land to the Son of his Brother by the name of his Heir Male. Provided If his Daughters troubled his Heir then the Devise of the 2000 l to them should be void And it was resolved that the Devisor taking notice that others were his Heirs the Limitation to his Brothers Son by the name of Heir Male was a good name of Purchase and this agrees with Cownden and Clarks Case in Hob. Wild Justice said he was of the same Opinion with Hale in this last Point And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Three Learned ARGUMENTS One in the Court of Kings-Bench BY Sir FRANCIS NORTH Attorny General And Two in the Court of Exchequer BY Sir MATTHEW HALE Chief Baron there The Argument of Sir Francis North. In Banco Regis Potter and Sir Henry North. IN a Replevin for taking of an Horse in a certain place called the Fenn at Milden-Hall in the County of Suffolk the Defendant makes Cognizance as Bayliff to Sir Henry North and saith That the place Where c. containeth Ten thousand Acres of Pasture in Milden-Hall whereof a certain place called Delfe is parcel and that it is Sir Henry North's Freehold and the Horse was Damage feasant there c. The Plaintiff Replies Confessing the Soyl to be the Freehold of Sir Henry Norths but says That time whereof c. the place Where hath been parcel of the Fenn and parcel of the Mannor of Milden-Hall of which Sir Henry North is seised in Fee and that the Plaintiff was at the time c. seised of an Ancient Messuage one of the Freeholds holden of the Mannor by Rents and Services and parcel of the said Mannor and that Time out of Mind there were divers ancient Freehold Messuages holden of the said Mannor by Rents and Services and divers Copyhold Messuages parcel of the said Mannor by Custom of the said Mannor demised and demisable by Copy of Court Rolls of the said Mannor And the several Tenants of the said Freehold Tenements being seised in their Demesn as of Fee and they whose Estate they have in the same Time out of mind have had together with the Customary Tenants of the said Customary Tenements the sole and several Feeding of 100 Acres of Pasture for all Beasts except Hogs Sheep and Northern Steers levant and couchant upon their several Freeholds every year at all times of the year as to their several Freeholds belonging And that within the said Mannor there is and Temps d'ont c. hath been such a Custom that the several Tenants of the Customary Messuages together with the Freeholders aforesaid have used and accustomed to have the sole and several Feeding of the said 100 Acres of Pasture for all their Beasts except Sheep Hogs and Northern Steers levant and couchant upon their several Copy-holds every year at all times in the year tanquam ad seperal ' Tenementa customar ' spectant ' pertinent ' and the Plaintiff being seised put in his Horse c. and so Iustifies Vpon this the Defendant demurs generally This Prescription is naught in substance and Judgment ought to be given for the Defendant upon these Four Exceptions First That several Freeholders cannot joyn or be joyned in a Prescription to claim an entire Interest in another mans Soyl as
necesse non habet nec per legem terrae tenetur respondere Et hoc parat ' est verificare unde pro defectu sufficien ' placiti in hac parte idem Thomas Dowse pet ' judicum dampna sua occatione fraction ' convention ' praed ' in hac parte sibi adjudicari c. Et praed ' Johannes Cale dic ' qd ' placitum praed ' per ipsum Johannem modo forma praed ' placitat ' materiaque in eadem content ' A Joynder in Demurrer bon ' sufficien ' in lege existit ' ad Cur ' dict' Domini Dominae Regis Reginae nunc hic a cognitione placiti praedict ' habend ' praecludend ' quod quidem placitum materiaque in eadem content ' idem Johannes parat ' est verificare probare prout praed ' Cur ' c. Et quia praed ' Thomas Dowse ad placitum illud non respond ' nec ill ' hucusque aliqualit ' dedic ' idem Johannes Cale pet ' Judicium si Cur ' dictorum Dom ' Dominae Regis Reginae nunc hic placitum illud ulterius cognoscere velit Hen. Trinder Et quia Justic ' hic se advisare volunt de super praemissis unde partes praed ' superius posuer ' se in Judicium Cur ' priusquam Judicium inde reddant dies dat' est partibus praed ' hicusque in Octabis Sancti Hilarii de audiendo inde judicio suo eo qd ' iidem Justic ' hic inde nondum c. Et quoad triand ' separal ' exit ' praed ' inter partes praed ' per patriam triand superius junct Prec est Vic. qd venire fac hic ad praefat Terminum duodecim c. per quos c. Et qui nec c. ad recogn c. Quia tam c. Dowse versus Cale IN an Action of Covenant brought by Thomas Dowse as Assignee of Thomas Dowse his Father Assignee of Arthur Stanhope Edward Rosseter John Wolstenholm and Thomas Bristow Assgnees of John late Earl of Clare against John Cale Executor of Richard Cale The Plaintiff set forth a Lease by Indenture made by the said Earl of Clare the 9th of December 1647. to the said Richard Cale of three Messuages in the Parish of St. Clement Danes in Middlesex to hold from Christmas Day then next following for 41 years rendring 20 l yearly Rent and further sets forth that the said Richard Cale by the said Indenture Covenanted with the said Earl his Heirs and Assigns to pull-down the said three Houses and would in the same place build three as good and substantial Houses in all respects as the said Richard Cale had for some short time before built for himself in Fleetstreet Ac eciam That he would during the said term well and sufficiently repair all the Houses so agreed to be built ac eciam omnia singula Canal ' Angelicè Sewers Sentinas Anglicê Sinks Elicia Anglicè Drains paviamenta fact ' vel fiend ' in pro cum omnibus requisitis necessar ' reparationibus ac dicta dimissa praemissa ac domus edificia superinde fore erect ' edificat ' eorum quodlibet bene sufficienter reparat ' supportat ' manutent ' in fine vel citiori determinatione dicti termini pacifice quiete relinqueret sursum redderet dicto Com' Haered ' Assign ' suis prout per Indentur ' praed ' c. By virtue of which said Demise the said Richard Cale entred and was possessed and the said Earl being seised of the Reversion by Lease and Release dated the 6th and 7th of August 1662. conveyed the said Reversion to the said Arthur Stanhop Edward Rossiter John Wolstenholm and Thomas Bristow and their Heirs to the use of the said John Earl of Clare during his Life and after his Decease to the use of the said Stanhop Rossiter Wolstenholm and Bristow for one thousand years next after the date of the said Indenture and that after the said Earl of Clare died and the said Stanhop Rossiter Wolstenholm and Bristow became possessed of the Reversion of the Premisses for the said term of 1000 years and upon the 7th of June 1668. by an Indenture between Gilbert Earl of Clare and the said Stanhop Rossiter Wolstenholm and Bristow of the one part and Thomas Dowse Father of the Defendant of the other part they granted to the said Thomas Dowse the Reversion of the said Premisses for and during the residue of the term of 1000 years to which the said Richard Cale being then possessed of the term demised to him as aforesaid of the Premisses did attorn and the said Richard Cale being so possessed in the year 1672. died having made his last Will and the Defendant Executor thereof who after the decease of the said Richard entered into the said demised Premisses and became possessed and the said Thomas Dowse Father to the Plaintiff died possessed of the Reversion aforesaid in the year of our Lord 1686. having made his Will and thereby devised the said Reversion to the Plaintiff for his life and after his decease to Thomas Dowse Son of the Plaintiff and to the Heirs of his Body and made the Plaintiff Executor of his said Will who caused the same to be proved and did claim the Reversion of the said Premisses ratione legationis praed ' and thereupon became possessed thereof for the residue of the said term of 1000. years then to come and unexpired And the said Richard Cale being possessed by vertue of the Demise aforesaid altho' he the said Thomas Dowse performed all the Covenants to be performed as aforesaid on the part of the said John late Earl of Clare his Heirs and Assigns the said Defendant did not perform the Covenants which were to be performed on the part of the said Richard Cale his Executors and Administrators and in facto dicit the said John Cale being possessed of the Premisses after the decease of the said Thomas Dowse Father of the Plaintiff before the end of the said term of one and forty years viz. the 13th of September 1684. did permit one House of the value of 200 l erected upon the Premisses by the said Richard Cale in his life time to fall down and to be wholly ruinated and the said John Cale at the end of the said term which ended at Christmas Anno Dom. 1688. left the said House so prostrated and ruined contra formam conventionis praed ' And assigns another Breach for that he permitted the Pavement of the Yard to be broken and in decay and at the end of the term left it so in decay for want of repair and that he suffered the Tiles and one hundred yards of Walling of four Houses upon the Premisses erected by the said Richard Cale in his life-time during the term to be broken and in decay for want of Repairs and so the said John Cale left them
allocatur After Verdict 2 Cro. 307. Styl 174 182. 2. the Plaintiff declares that he was possessed de quadam equa ut de catallis suis propriis and that catalla praedict ' casualiter perdidit and that coming to the Defendants hands he converted catalla praedict ' to his own use so that there is no express Conversion of the Mare The Court said That the Declaration was Inartificial but good after a Verdict for catalla praedict ' must refer to the Mare for nothing else is mentioned before Tunstall versus Brend IN an Ejectment upon Not guilty a Special Verdict was found upon which there arose several Points of Law but it was moved for the Defendant that the Declartion was of Michaelmass Term 2 Jac. 2. and the Demise is laid to be 30 Octob. 2. Jac. and so after that Term began Note The Declaration recited an Original and an Original was produced Teste 2 Novembris which was after the Demise And the Prothonotary informed the Court that this was frequently allowed and that no Memorandum of the Originals bearing Teste within the Term was used to be made upon the Record Highway versus Derby IN an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit solum fundum viz. duas acras terr' fod ' subvert ' asportavit Vpon Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was insufficient as to the digging and carrying away of the Soyl for duas acras terr' doth not express the quantity of Earth but the measure and extent of the Ground where the digging was And for this Cause the Judgment was stayed by the Opinion of the whole Court Note If the Sheriff Return a Rescous it is not traversable but an Attachment goes against the Rescousers and a Fine usually set Tho' it appears by Dyer such Return was allowed to be traversed in C.B. but not practised of late Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 2 W. M. In Communi Banco Sherborn versus Colebach IN an Indebitat ' assumpsit for 20 l lost by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at a certain Play called Hazard Vpon Non assumpsit after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that to Play at Dice is an unlawful Game and so the Consideration is insufficient But to that the Court said that they could not intend that this was Play at Dice tho' there is a Play called Hazard at Dice known amongst Gamesters neither is Play at Dice in it self unlawful tho' prohibited by several Statutes to certain persons and to be used in certain places Then it was moved that the Declaration was too General for tho' there have been divers Actions maintained for Money won at Play yet they use to declare that in Consideration the Plaintiff promised That if the Game went on the Defendants side he would pay so much to the Defendant the Defendant promised That if it went on the Plaintiffs side to pay so much to him But the Court said that of late it had been the usage to declare Generally and it might be as well as an Indebitatus pro opere labore And Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Note Justice Powell cited in the Case supra the Lord North's Case 2 Leon. 179. where Queen Elizabeth had granted the Fines to him and his Heirs pro licentia concordandi within a certain place and he brought an Indebitat ' assumpsit for such Fine and it was held that it would lye And also a Case adjudged in the Kings Bench the last Term that an Indebitat ' assumpsit would lye for a Dropping Fine in one Shuttleworth's Case Pyne versus Woolland Civit ' Exon ' Debt for Rent against an Executor upon a Lease parol THomasina Woolland nuper de Civitat ' Exon ' in Com' Civ8788 itat ' Exon ' Vid ' Executrix testament ' Isaaci Woolland sum ' fuit ad respondend ' Mariae Pyne Vid ' de placito quod reddat ei octoginta sex libras duos solid ' un ' denar ' un ' obulum quos ei injuste detinet c. Et unde eadem Maria ê‘ Nathanielem Salter Attorn ' Demise to the Testator suum dic ' quod cum praedicta Maria decimo die Maij Anno Domini Millesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo tertio apud Civitat ' Exon ' praedict ' in Com' ejusdem Civitat ' dimisisset praefat ' Quarta pars molendini c. Isaaco in vita sua quartam partem duorum molendinorum granaticorum unius molendini brasiatorij sub uno tecto Anglicê Roof vocat ' sive cognit ' per nomen de Cuckingstool-Mists scituat ' jacen ' existen ' in Exland in Paroch ' sancti Edmundi in Com' Civit ' Exon ' praedict ' ac quartam partem domus molendin ' sive tenementi cum pertin ' adinde prox ' jacen ' ex boreali latere eorundem necnon quartam partem medietatis pasturae unius parcell ' terrae pone dicta molendina not ' sive cognit ' per nomen de Bonhay eisdem molendinis pertin ' Habend sive pertinen ' habend ' occupand ' eidem Isaaco à primo die ejusdem mensis Maij usque finem terminum unius anni integri extunc prox ' sequen ' plenar ' complend ' finiend ' Pro uno anno Et sic de anno in annum sic de anno in annum quamdiu ambabus partibus placeret reddend ' solvend ' proinde eidem Mariae ad finem cujuslibet mensis secundum computacon ' viginti octo dierum pro quolibet mense quo idem Isaacus eadem dimissa praemissa teneret reddit ' The Rent payable Monthly sexaginta solidor ' quatuor denar ' unius obuli legalis monet ' Angl ' Virtute cujus dimissionis idem Isaacus in quartas partes praedictas intravit fuit inde possessionat ' ac easdem quartas partes usque nonum diem Septembr ' Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo nono habuit occupavit ac quinquaginta septem libr ' septem solid ' un denar ' un ' obul de praedictis octoginta sex libris duobus solid ' un ' denar ' un ' obul ' parcell ' super eodem nono die Septembris Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo nono supradicto ê“ reddit ' dimissorum praemissorum pro novem decim mensibus secuncum computacon ' praedict ' adtunc finit ' eidem Mariae aretro fuer ' non solut ' Rent unpaid Actio accrevit per quod accoÌ„ accrevit eidem Mariae ad exigend ' habend ' de praefat ' Isaaco in vita sua de praedict ' Thomasina post ipsius Isaaci mortem praedictos quinquaginta septem libras septem solid ' un ' denar ' un ' obul ' de praedictis octoginta sex libris duobus solidis un ' Another
may be sold Noell versus Robinson THe Plaintiffs Father being seised in Fee of a Foreign Plantation devised it to the Plaintiff and made the Defendant Executor The Executor let it for years reserving Rent in Trust for the Plaintiff who now Exhibited his Bill to have his Rent The Defendant Confessed the Devise of the Testator and the Lease made by himself but said That great Losses had fallen upon the Testator's Estate and that he paid and secured which is payment in Law for the Debts of the Testator to â— great value and that he hoped he should be permitted to reimburse himself by the receipt of this Rent notwithstanding the mentioning of the Trust as aforesaid The Cause came to Hearing and the Court Decreed for the Plaintiff For altho' a Legatee shall refund against Creditors if there be not Assets and against Legatees all which are to have these proportion where the Assets fall short yet the Executor himself after his Assent shall never bring the Legacy back But if he had been sued and paid it by the Decree of this Court the Legatee must have refunded as if a Debtor to a Bankrupt pays him voluntarily he must pay him over again Otherwise of payment by Compulsion of Law Note My Lord Chancellor said That if they give Sentence for a Legacy in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition lies unless they take Security to Refund Note also in this Case that tho' it be an Inheritance yet being in a Foreign Country 't is looked upon as a Chattel to pay Debts and a Testamentary thing It was Objected That this could not be taken for an Assent for if so how could the Executor let it But the Court said that it did tantamount to an Assent and being a lawful Act a little matter will be taken for an Assent Anonymus A Bill was Exhibited by the Assignees of Commissioners of Bankrupts to have an Account against the Defendant of the Bankrupts Estate The Defendant pleaded that he was but Servant to the Bankrupt and had given an account of all to his Master and likewise had been Examined before the Commissioners upon the whole Matter Vpon Hearing his Plea my Lord Chancellor Over-ruled it and Ordered that he should Answer Anonymus IF a man makes a Lease or devise an Estate for Years he being seised of an Estate of an Inheritance for payment of Debts if the Profits of the Lands surmount the Debt all that remains shall go to the Heir tho' not so exprest and albeit it be in the case of an Executor Barney versus Tyson THe Case was thus The Plaintiff in the Life of his Father being about 26 years of Age and having occasion for Money prevails with the Defendant to let him have in Wares to the value of 400 l and gives him Bond for 800 l to be paid if he survived his Father at which time an Estate would befall him of 5000 l per Annum and he having survived his Father he preferred his Bill against the Defendant to compel him to take his Principal Money and Interest And it was proved in the Case that the Defendant was Informed at the time of this bargain that the Father was ill and not like to live and he did live but a year and half after and that one Stisted a man very Infamous was employed in the transaction of this Bargain And the Plaintiff obtained a Decree in the time of the Lord Chancellor Fynch And now upon a Petition to the Lord Keeper North the Defendant obtained a Re-hearing And in maintenance of the Decree it was alledged that the hazard which was run was very little and such Bargains with Heirs were much to be discountenanced The Lord Keeper affirmed the Decree but said that he would not have it used as a President for this Court to set aside mens Bargains But this Case having received a Determination and the Defendant having accepted his Principal Money and Interest thereupon and there being only a slight Omission in the Enrolment of the Decree which if it had been done had prevented a Re-hearing and the Defendant having delayed his Application to him by Petition he would not now set the Decree aside Termino Paschae Anno 35 Car. II. In Cancellaria Hodges versus Waddington THe Case was thus An Executor wasted the Testator's Estate and made his Will wherein he devised divers of his own Goods and made his Son Executor Afterwards a Suit was commenced against the Son to bring him to an Account for the Estate of the first Testator which was wasted and pending that Suit the Son after the Bill brought against him by the Legatee of his own Goods delivered them to the Legatee and assented to the Legacy After which upon the Account against the Son it appeared that the first Executor had wasted the Goods of the first Testator to such a value And then the party at whose Suit the said Account was and who was to have the benefit thereof together with the Son and Executor of the first Executor preferred a Bill against the Legatee of the Goods to make him Refund and obtained no Relief especially for that he had made the Executor Plaintiff who should not be admitted to undo his own Assent But liberty being given to bring a New Bill against the Legatee and the said Executor the Cause came to Hearing and it was Decreed That the Legatee should Refund So that one Legatee that is paid shall not only Refund against another but a Legatee shall Refund against a Creditor of the Testator that can charge an Executor only in Equity viz. Upon a wasting by the first Executor But if an Executor pays a Debt upon a Simple Contract there shall be no Refunding to a Creditor of an higher Nature Note also The Principal Case went upon the Insolvency of the Executor Anonymus A Bill was brought setting forth a Deed of Settlement of Lands in Trust and to compel the Defendant who was a Trustee therein nominated to Execute an Estate The Defendant by Answer says That he believed that there was such a Deed as in the said Bill is set forth c. And upon the Hearing they would have read a Deed for the Plaintiff tho' not proved but upon a Commission taken out only against another Defendant to the Bill supposing it to be Confessed by the Answer But the Court would not permit the Reading of it for the Confessing goes no further than what is set forth in the Bill and will not warrant the Reading of a Deed produced altho' it hath such Clauses in it Anonymus A Bill was preferred against one to discover his Title that A.B. might be let in to have Execution of a Judgment The Defendant pleaded That he was a purchaser for a valuable Consideration but did not set forth That he had no Notice of the Judgment And it was Over-ruled for 't is a fatal Fault in the Plea Bird versus Blosse THe Case was thus One wrote a Letter signifying
his Assent to the Marriage of his Daughter with J.S. and that he would give her 1500 l And afterwards by another Letter upon a further Treaty concerning the Marriage he went back from the Proposals of his Letter And at some time after declared That he would agrèe to what was propounded in his first Letter This Letter was held a sufficient Promise in Writing within the Statute of 29 Car. 2. called the Statute against Frauds and Perjuries and that the last Declaration had set the Terms in the first Letter up again Anonymus WHere a man buys Land in anothers name and pays Mony it will be in Trust for him that pays the Mony tho' no Deed declaring the Trust for the Statute of 29 Car. 2. called the Statute of Frauds doth not extend to Trusts raised by Operation of the Law Anonymus AN Administrator de bonis non of the Conusee of a Statute had agreed with the Conusor to assign it in Consideration of a Sum of Mony which upon the said Agreement the Conusors had Covenanted to pay to him his Executors or Administrators and then the Administrator died The Court Decreed the Mony to be paid to the Executor of the Administrator and not to the New Administrator de bonis non altho' before the Extent it could not be assigned at Law Sed nota That there were not Debts of the first Intestate appearing Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 35 36 Car. II. In Cancellaria NOte Suits in Chancery admitted for Distribution of Intestates Estates upon the Act of 22 Car. 2. Sir Thomas Draper Mil ' versus Dr. Crowther THe Bill sets forth a Contract under Seal with the Defendant for making of a Lease of certain Lands in Middlesex and to have an Execution of the Agreement The Defendant pleaded That he has Head of a Colledge in Oxford and sets forth the Charters of 14 R. 2. and 14 H. 8. Impowering the University to enquire and proceed in all Pleas and Quarrels in Law and Equity except concerning Freehold where a Scholar their Servants and Ministers sunt una partium c. ita quod Justiciarij de Banco Regis sive de Communi Banco vel Justiciarij ad Assisas non se intromittant c. And the Confirmation by an Act of Parliament of the 13th of Elizabeth and Concluded his Plea to the Iurisdiction of the Court. And it came to be Argued before the Lord Keeper Guildford 22 Febr. 1683. and the Plea was Over-ruled because the Charter ought properly to be extended to Matters at Common Law only or to Proceedings in Equity that might arise in such Cases and not to meer Matters of Equity which are Originally such as to Execute Agreements in specie Again Conuzance of Pleas is never to be allowed unless the Inferior Jurisdiction can give Remedy Here they can only Excommunicate or Imprison but cannot proceed to Sequestration of Lands in Middlesex If the Matter lay only in Damages it might be allowed to them because the Jurisdiction is given over all England but this is not to be intended where the Suit is for the thing it self and when 't is out of their reach A President was cited in the year 1663. before my Lord Clarendon Chancellor assisted with Hale then Chief Baron and Justice Wyndam where the Plea was Over-ruled Vide in the 3 Cro. 63. Wilcocks and Bradell's Case and Hallie's Case 87. Sir Robert Reeve's Case SIr George Reeve upon his Marriage with his Second Wife setled a Ioynture of divers of his Lands in Suffolk which he had before charged with his Daughters Portion viz. 3000 l which Daughter he had by a former Wife and by his last Will he mentioned that the said Joynture Lands were so incumbred and therefore he Devised certain Lands he had in Bickerton in Yorkshire to his Wife in lieu of such part of the Suffolk Lands as were charged with the Portion in case she would accept thereof But after his Decease it appeared that the Lands in Bickerton were not equivalent in Value to the Suffolk Lands and therefore she held to the latter and was not prejudiced by the Charge of the Portion because it appeared to be a Voluntary Settlement Nota In this Case the Lord Keeper Decreed that the Portion should be charged upon the Bickerton Lands for so much as it was defeated by the Settlement in Ioynture of the Suffolk Lands Anonymus ONe Devised his Lands to J.S. in Fee in Trust for Katharine and the Heirs of her Body and if Katharine died without Issue to Jane for life And in another Clause in the Will he devised That if Katharine died without Issue and Jane be then deceased then and not otherwise he gave the Land to J. N. and his Heirs Katharine died without Issue and Jane survived her and died A Bill was brought by J. N. against J. S. and the Heir at Law of the Testator to have this Trust executed My Lord Keeper Decreed it for J. N. altho' Jane survived Katharine because the words if Jane be then deceased seemed to be put in to express his meaning that Jane should be sure to have it for her life and that J. N. should not have it till she were dead and also to shew when J.N. should have it in possession Termino Paschae Anno 36 Car. II. In Cancellaria Wiliam Ragget and his Wife versus William Clarke THe Case was thus Nicholas Wheeler was seised of a parcel of Land for his own life and the lives of two others and prevailed with the Defendant to be bound with him for a Sum of Mony And that the Defendant might raise Mony for the discharge of the said Debt he permitted the Defendant to enter into the said Lands and to take the Profits for two years the said Lands being about 12 l yearly value and the said Land being so in the possession of the Defendant the said Wheeler died and made Isabel Wife of the now Plaintiff his Executrix And this Bill was brought by the said Husband and Wife to have an account of the Profits and that the possession of the Land should be delivered up to them The Defendant by Plea sets forth his Title as Occupant and it was allowed And the Bill was dismissed Bonham versus Newcomb ONe being seised in Fee in Consideration of 1000 l paid to him by a Person that married his Kinswoman Conveys to him and his Heirs and takes a Re-demise for 99 years if he should live so long And a Covenant therein That if he should pay 1000 l with the Interest that should be due for the same at any time during his life that the Grantee should Re-convey to him and his Heirs and that if he did not pay the Mony then that his Heirs c. should have no power to Redeem He died the Mony not being paid and his Heir preferred a Bill to Redeem it And it was urged for him That in a Conveyance which was a Security for Mony whatever