sold Lands to B. and C. by Deed enrolled they suffered a Recovery to the use of A. and his Wife who was the Daughter of B. for her Joynture the Remainder over in Tail to their Issues A. dyed his Heirs within age Resolved in this Case it was an Assurance by A. himself for the advancement of his Wife and her Issues within the Statute of 34 H. 8. and the Heir of A. should be in Ward for the third part of the Land The Earl of Bedfords Case 954. The Case was this Francis Earl of Bedford made a Feoffment in Fee of the Mannor of D. to the L. St. John and others to the use of himself for 40. years and after to the use of John his second Son and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Afterward Edward Lord Russell Heir apparent of the Earl dyed without Issue male of his body having issue Eliz. and Anne Daughters Afterward Francis by Indenture between him and I. S. and others for the advancement of the Heirs males of the body of the said Earl and the establishing of his Mannors in his blood Covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannor to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of Francis Lord Russell his youngest Son and the Heirs males of his his body with divers Remainders over Afterwards Francis Lord Russell dyed having Issue Edward Lord Russell and after dyed and if the Daughters of the said John Lord Russell or the Earl of Bedford should have the Mannor of D. was the Question in the Court of Wards It was Resolved the Daughters should not have the said Mannor but the Earl because there was no right Heir to take as purchasor when the estate Tail was determined by the death of John Lord Russell without Issue male for the Remainder to the right Heirs cannot be preserved by the mean estate for years for it ought to be a Freehold at least which ought to preserve such a Remainder till there be one to take it by the name of a purchasor as right Heir Andrews and Sheffields Case 955. A. hath Issue three Sons B. C. and D. and seised of Lands in P. by Will deviseth them in this manner viz. I will that all my Lands in P. shall Remain after the death of my Wife to C. my Son and his Heirs and if it fortune that D. liveth untill the said Lands come to C. then I will that C pay to D. 10 l. every year as long as D. liveth A. dyeth C. commeth to the Lands and payeth the Rent hath Issue and dieth It was Resolved that in this Case the devise did enure as a Rent-seck for the life of D. and the Lands in the hands of the Heir or Assignes of C. should be chargeable with the same Wrotesleys Case 956. A. seised in Fee of the Mannors of N. and W. of the Mannor of D. in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife and to his own right Heirs Afterward he dyed seised of these Mannors and also sole seised of other Lands in Fee The Mannor of D. was holden in Capite It was found that A. dyed his Heirs within age the body and Lands of the Mannor of D. was committed to I. S. and I. D. the committee ousted the Wife of D. It was Resolved that the Wife of A. should have recompence to the value of the said Mannor of D. out of the other Lands of the Heir of which his Ancestors dyed seised Boydell and Walthalls Case 957. The Case was A. seised of Land in Fee an Indenture was made purporting a Feoffment to B. and C. with Waranty There was another Indenture bearing date the same day with the first between the Feoffees and the Feoffor whereby the Feoffer reciting the former Feoffment to them granted that immedâ—atly after the said Feoffees and their Heirs and Assignes have taken and received the profits of the Lands during the Terme of 100 years then it should be Lawfull for A. his Heirs and Assignes to reenter and have the said Lands in their first right and Title It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that the Intent upon the Livery was that the Feoffor should have the Lands after the 100. years quit possession of the Feoffees and that the use did immediately arise to the Heirs of the Feoffor as soon as the Lands had been enjoyed for 100. years and that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the Heir of the Feoffor might enter The Earl of Rutlands Case 958. Ed. Earl of R. seised in Fee of and in the Reversion or Remainder of the Mannor of E. expectant upon the death of B. Countesse of B. who held the same for life for the augmentation of the Joynture of I. his Wife Covenanted 21 Eliz. with I. S. and I. D. before the last day of Trinity Term next following by Fine or other assurance to assure the Reversion or Remainder of the said Mannors to them and their Heirs and the parties thereof seised should stand seised of and in the Reversion and Remainder of the said Mannor to the use of the said Earl and the said I. his Wife and the Heirs of the said Earl for ever Afterwards in the same year by another Indenture made between the said Earl the Lord Treasurer and the said I. S. and others of the other part for the advancement of him who should succeed him in the Earldom and the advancement of the Heirs male of T. late Earl of R. his Grandfather to convey the Castle and Honor of B. and the said Mannor of E. amongst other Lands to the said Lord Treasurer and others to the use of the said Earl and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the Heirs males of Tho. his Grandfather with divers Remainders over and by the last Indenture further Covenanted that if the said Earl before the Feast of our Lady next should not sufficiently convey all the said Honors Mannors c. in the last Indenture in manner and forme as therein is mentioned that then he and all other persons seised should from thenceforth stand and be seised to the uses in the last Indenture No Fine was levyed of the Mannor of E. before the end of Trinity Term but in Mick Term a Fine was levyed of the said Mannor within the time limited in the last Indenture and another Fine was levyed of other Land but not of the Mannor of E. and after the Earl died The Quest on in this case only was whether I. the wife of the said Earl might during the Life of B. Countess of B trayerse the Office found after the death of the Earl viz. That the Fine levyed of the Mannor of E. was not to the uses limited in the latter Indenture Resolved that the Office was insufficient for the Incertainty where it found the Earl was seised of the Reversion
levyed another Fine to all the said uses but only the Estate for 20. years to his Executors and made his wife his Executrix the wife married Sir Robert Remington It was adjudged in this case that by the second Fine the Lease for 20 years to his Executors was extinct Littletons Case 971. A seised of Lands holden in copite in consideration of a Marriage of M. his Daughter with W. L. Son of Sir John and of 1300 l paid by Sir John the Father of W. levyed a Fine of part of the Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to W. and M. and the Heirs of the Body of W. upon the Body of M. the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. and the residue to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his first Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. with power to make a Joynture â—o his second Wife and to make Leases for Twenty one years or three Lives The marriage took effect A. took a wife and had Issue by her I. and died I. his Son and Heir within age W. died without Issue G. L. being his Brother and Heir the second wife of A. living and also M living It was upon â— Melius Inquirend found that M. was the Daughter of A. It was Resolved in this case that the Queen should have the Wardship of the third part of the whole Land during the minority of I. the Son of A. Also it was Resolved by them that although money was paid and so the consideration of the Marriage was a mixt consideration yet â—hat should not alter the Law for the duty to the Crown 1. and one Ciffias case was cited to have been so adjudged The Lord Ross and the Earl of Rutlands Case 972. H. Earl of Rutland 2 Elâ—z levyed a Fine with Proclamation to the use of himself and B. his Wife and the Heirs of his own Body and died B. married the Earl of Bedford they covenanted with Edward Earl of Rutland Son of H. Earl of Rutland to levy a Fine which Fine was levyed with Proclamation sur concâ—ssit of the said Mannors and Lands by the said Edward Earl to the said B. for Life Afterward Edward Earl of Rutland 29 Eliz. covenanted with the Lord Burâ—eigh and others to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of Thomas Earl of Rutland his Grandfather Edward Earl 29 Eliz. died without Issue Male having a Daughter which was the Lady Roâ—s the Mother of the Lord Ross the plaintiff B. died the entail made by the Earl of Rutland and the discent to the Lord Ross the Plaintiff was found by Office It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That the Mannors did belong to the Plaintiff the Lord Ross as Issue in tail of Henry Earl of Rutland notwithstanding the Fine levyed by Edward Earl of Rutland because the Fine being sur concessit the same remained a Bar no longer then during the Life of B. Also they held the taking of the Fine by B. to be a surrender of her Estate but to be no discontinuance because not seised of the Tail at the time 3. Resolved the Lands should be in the King during the Minority of the Lord Ross Anno 1. Jacobi 973. It was Resolved by the Justices that Informations for the Queen alone in any Latin Court should not abate by the Demise of the Queen and so like of Informations tam pro the party quam for the Queen and so also it was of Informations in English Courts they were not discontinued by the Demise of the Queen Handall and his Wife and Browns Case in Chancery 974. The case was A. possessed of a Term for years had Issue a Son and two Daughters and by Will he devised his Term to John his Son and if he died to his two Daughters and if they died to his Wife he made his Son his whole Executor who entred claiming by the Will and after Probate he died Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and for mony sold the Term to Brown the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices that the Assignee of the Administrator should have the Term and not the two Daughters and Decreed in Chancery accordingly 975. Upon the cases of claims at the Coronation of the King these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. That where a Barony or a Mannor or Land holden by grand Serjeanty to do special Service at the Coronation is come to many hands by purchase there each Tenant is chargable with the whole Service but the King may appoint which of them shall do the Service and he which doth the Service shall alone have the Fee but if the Division be by Copartners there the eldest is only to do the Service and the other shall contribute to the charge and the eldâ—st shall have the Fees but if each Sister sell her part the Feoffee of the eldest shall not have the preheminence 2. Resolved where Grand Serjeanty is to be done at the Coronation by Tenure and the Lands come to an ignoble person who is unmeet to do the Service the Lord Steward may appoint a Noble or meet person to do the Service as Deputy to the Tenant of the Land 3. Resolved where Land is given to hold as to be Hostiarius Câ—merae Regis or the like In such Case the Tenants are to make their claims yet they are not to be admitted to the said Services by the Commissioners for claims or the Lord Steward but they are to be referred to the King himself their Tenure being perpetual and continuing Leigh and Helyers Case 976. A man supposing he had Title to certain Lands which were in the possession of I. S. contracted to sell them to I. D. and sealed a Lease for years to a third person to the use of I. D. with whom the contract made and the year and day long before expired Resolved it was maintenance by the Common Law but not within the Statute of 32. H. 8. Foster and Kings Case 977. A man made his Will and gave diverse Legacies and devised that the rest and residue of his Goods after his Debts and Legacies paid to his wife and after in the same Will he devised that his Overseers should enter into the Lands and cut down so much of the Woods as would suffice to pay his Debts Quere in this case if the Debts and Legacies shall be paid of the Woods if the Goods be not sufficient to pay them Skipwiths Case 978. Tenant in tail and he in the Reversion bargaineth and sells the Lands to the King and before enrollment Tenant in tail suffers a common Recovery Quere if the Issue in tail be barred by the Recovery not Resolved Lucas Case 979 Resolved in this case that before the Statute of 13 R. 2â— Murder was pardonable by the name of Felony but since that Statute the
817 Wells and Fentons case 822 Web and Hargraves case 835 Williams and Greens case 836 Worleys case 842 Walter and Pigotts case 845 Whetstone and Mintons case 852 Webster and Allens case 873 Ward and Lakings case 876 Wilmot and Knowles case 884 Ward and Sudmans case 894 Westby Skinner and Catchers case 902 Wiseman and Jennings case 904 Wilcoks and Hewsons case 920 Wilcocks and Greens case 934 Wood and Bucklâ—ys case 936 Waâ—ley and Mosleys case 947 VVortesleys case 956 Worleys case 959 Williams Vaughans case 1014 Whitlock and Hartwells case 1015 Waltham Mulgars case 1017 Sir Will. Walter and Hangers case 1055 VVheeler and Heydons case 1056 VVrights case 1064 VVorral and Harpers case 1065 Eliz VViimots case 1093 VVhite and Halls case 1097 VVeaver and VVards case 1126 VVindham Kemps case 1134 The VVeavers of Newberries case 1140 VVood and Shirleys case 1149 VVhitlock and Hardings case 1152 VValter and the Dean and Chapter of Norwiches case 1157 VVilkings and Perrotts case 1161 VVatbrooke and Griffiths case 1163 VVinscomb and Pulisons case 1164 VVolley and Davenants case 1182 VVray and Clenches case 1203 Y. YArdley and Prestwoods case 435 Yelverton and Yelvertons case 442 Yelding and Fays case 458 Yotes and Goths case 882 Yelland and Fiches case 1026 Yardley and Ellices case 1107 Z. ZOuch and Bampfields case 382 ☞ THere is newly extant an ABRIDGEMENT of the Three Volumes of the REPORTS of Sir George Croke Kt. of all such Select Cases as were adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench and Common Bench during the Raigns of Q. Elizabeth King James and King Charles Collected by the Author of this Abridgement AN ABRIDGEMENT OF THE REPORTS OF Sir FRANCIS MOORE Knight Serjeant at Law Mich. 1. Hen. 7. Capell and Churches Case A Writ of Right Patent in the Court of the Castle of Rising of the King was directed Balivis suis de Rising whereas the proceedings were senatoribus Curiae held good because the Paylifs are to make the Sommons and the suitors Justice Capell and Aprices Case 2. Replevin The Defendant avowed That A. and B. held the Mannor of H. and divers Lands of the Bishop of London parcel of the Bishops Castle of S. by Homage Fealty Escuage and by the Rent for Castleguard pro reddit auxil Vic. The Defendant pleaded That the Castle was utterly decayed and as to the auxil Vic. demurred in Law The Plantiff was Nonsuit but the Rents are still paid to the Bishop though the Castle be decayed Cleydon and Spensers Case 3. Resolved That if an Executor with his own proper monies pay a debt due by the Testator he may retain so much of the value of the goods of the Testator in his hands Case of the Sheriffs of London 4. The Custome of London is That if a Villein remaineth in the City by the space of a year and a day without any Claime made of him he may all time during his life live in the City Free 5. Resolved by the Justices That that which is written after the words In cujus rei Testimonium is parcel of the deed aswell as that which is written before it 6. Resolved It is no principal Challenge That a Juror is endebted either to the Plaintiff or Defendant 7. Resolved In a Replevin That one of the Jurors was Steward of the Mannor to the avowant is a principal Challenge 8. Two are bound each to other to stand to the award of Arbitrators They award that the one shall make a Lease for years to the other rendering Rent to the Lessor the Lease is made the Rent is not paid adjudged the Bond is not forfeit because Distresse or Debt are proper remedies for the Rent contr if it be awarded the Lessee should pay the Rent 9. Debt for not performance of an Arbitrament Adjudged It is no plea generally That he hath performed it but he must show how he hath performed it 10. Resolved It is a good Challenge to one of the 4. Knights who come to impannel the Grand Assise that one of them is maried to the Plantiffs daughter and the other 3. shall try it 11. If a submission be de jure titulo possessione of certain Lands The Arbitrators cannot award that one of the parties shall procure the Lord of the Mannor to grant a Copy holdor that a stranger shall release because out of the submission Frances Case 12. Resolved That the King by his Letters Patents cannot grant the Lands of a Lunatique to another to take the profits to his own use because the King himself is not entitled to them for his own use but for the use of the Lunatique his Issues Wife c. Otherwise it is of an Ideot for then the King hath the profits to his own use making allowance to the Idiot for his keeping Levet and Lewknors Case 13. An Executor recovered in Debt and then dies Intestate and the Ordinary commits Administration de bonis non c. Resolved the Administrator shall not have a scire fac upon the Judgement but a new Action of Debt as Administrator to the first Intestate Sir Godfrey Foliambs Case 14. Quare Imp. The Case was A. seased of the Mannor of D. to which Mannor an Advouson was Appendent granted the next Avoydance to B. and D. eorum cuilibet conjunctim divifim haered executor assignis suis The Church voyd B. presents D. to the Church adjudged That the presentment of him was good though he was one of the Granters 15. The Husband is entitled to Land in the Right of his Wife Resolved The Husband alone without joyning the Wife in the Writ shall have an Action upon the Statute of 8. H. 6. because the words of the Statute are Expulit disscisivit 16. A man was indicted for a Robbery done in the Foot way leading from London to Islington Resolved That he should have his Clergy because the Indictment is not of a Robbery in alta via regia nor in the High way but in a Foot way Vaughan and Lord Burghs Case 17. In a Writ of Prohibition there wanted the word Ostensurus Resolved though after Issue joyned that the Writ was amendable by the Statute Baker and Brooks Case 18. A Parson granted an Annuity of 5 l. issuing out of his Rectory pro Consilio impenso to I. S. Habend recipiend to the said I. S. and his Assignes The said I. S. granted it over to I. D. Resolved That the grant of the Annuity was good and the Assigne may have Debt for it 19. Wast was brought against Lessee for years He pleaded in Barre an Accord which was executed Adjudged to be a good plea. 20. Resolved by the Justices That the Master cannot Sollicite Counsel nor give Mony to Counsel in an Action brought against his Servant for his Servant but yet he may give what is due to his Servant for his Wages to Counsel for their Fees and it is not maintenance 21. Resolved That the Lord in Ancient Demesne shall
he was not a person Qualified to take two benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities It was agreed that a Countesse a Widdow had power to retain two Chaplains who might purchase Dispensation for plurality But when she had once retained two she could not retain a third Chaplin who might purchase Dispensation within the Statute and therefore in the principal Case the Retainer of Priory being the third Chaplain was not good nor his dispensation good and so the Queen for want of Presentation of the Patron and Ordinary had good title to present Oldbery and Grogonds Case 729. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of certain money at a day certain The Defendant pleaded that the same was agreed to be paid for the Resignation of a Parson of his Benefices to the intent another might be presented unto it and so upon a Symoniacal agreement The Court held it no plea for that an averment shall not be that it was to be paid for other cause then the Obligation expresseth Agor and Candishes Case 730. An information was brought in the Exchequer by an Informer tam pro Domina Regina quam prose ipso upon the Statute of 8 E. 4. cap. 2. of Retainers and Judgment was there given the Informer to have one Moyety of the forfeiture and the Queen the other Moyety Error was brought upon the Judgment and assigned for Error that the Statute limits the party to sue in the Kings Kings Bench and divers other Courts but speaks not of the Exchequer It was the opinnion of the Justices that for that cause the Judgment was erroneous as to the Informer only Then it was moved that the Judgment might be and stand good for the whole forfeiture to the Queen for it was said that a Judgment might be reversed in part and stand for the other part and divers Presidents vouched to that purpose But the Court was of opinion because the first Judgment gave but a Moyery to the Queen this Court had not power to give more nor encrease it but only had power to affirme the Judgement Boddy and Hargraves Case 731. Debt upon a Lease for years was brought against the Administrator in the Debet detinet It was adjudged well brought because the Rent was encreased in the time of the Administrator himself But it was said That in all Cases where the Executor or Administrator brings an Action for a duty Testamentary it ought to be only in the Detinâ—t because the duty demanded ought to be Assets Layton and Garnonces Case 732. A man recovered Debt in Co. B. and had Judgment and he took forth Processe and the party was taken upon a Capias utlagatum within the year after the Judgment upon Processe continued without any discontinuance against him It was adjudged in this Case that he should be in Execution at the suit of the party without prayer because the processe was continued Parker and Sir Ed. cleeves Case 733. The Case was A. seised of three acres of equall value conveyed by act executed two of them for the Joynture of his Wife and the third he conveyed by act executed to the use of such persons and of such estates as he should declare by his last Will afterwards he devised the Land to one under whom the Plaintiff claimed In this Case it was amongst other poynts Resolved that he could not devise the Land because he had Conveyed two parts before by act executed in his life time Sydnam and Courtneys Case 734. Sir George Sydnam possessed of divers Leases for years gave them to his Daughter who was the Wife of C and to the Heirs of her body and if she dyed withot Issue that they should remain to such person of Combe Sydnam which Combe Sydnam he devised to his Cosen and his Heirs males in default of the Issue of the body of his daughter There was a Clause in the Will that his daughter should not alter the Leases but that they should remain according to the Will and made his Daughter his Executrix and dyed C. caused the Daughter to enter upon the Leases as Executrix and so waive the Legacy and afterwards the Daughter dyed without Issue Then C. caused an Administration to be taken of the goods of Sir George Sydenham which was at the Costs of C. and then to convey over the Leases to C. The Heir of Sir Geoâ—ge complained in Chancery and the Leases decreed unto him for the two fraudes which were used by C. in the Obliging of the Leases because the Daughter had them upon special trust and although it was said in this Case that the entail of the Leases was not good yet because there was a trust in the Daughter and expressed in the Will It was said the parties were compellable to execute the Trust and the Lord Chancellour resembled it to the Case where an Assignment was made of a Lease upon an expresse Trust to one and the Heirs of his body and afterwards to another and the Heirs of his body and the Assignes were Compelled to execute the Trust and to suffer the Issues in Tail to take the profits of the Lands The Countesse of Waâ—wicks Case 735. The Case was A. seised in Fee enfeoffed I. S. who dyed without Issue having Issue M. his Sister and Heir of the whole blood and T. of the half blood their Father being long before attainted of Felony dyed seised M. entred and enfeoffed the Countesse The point was if the Corruption of the blood of the Father had disabled the Course of discent and Inheritance between the Brother and Sister Quaere not Resolved Sprakes Case 736. A Copyholder makes a Lease for years Resolved that the Lessee may maintain Ejectione firme though the Lease be not warranted by the Custom Fisher and Smiths Case 737. Note It was Resolved in this Case That if a man plead a Bargain and Sale in which no consideration of mony is expressed there it must be averred that it was for mony and the words for divers considerations will not imply mony but if the deed be for a Competent sum of mony though the certainty of the sum be not expressed it is good enough Worsloy and Charnocks Case 738. A Statute Merchant was by Mâ—ttimus removed out of the Chancery in C. B. an execution awarded there super tenorem Recordi Resolved 1. That Error lyes in B. R. although the Original be in the Chancery and the Execution in C. B. 2. Resolved that in that Case the Conusor cannot alledge for Error that the Statute wants one of the Seales that ought to be to it because he hath admitted the same in C. B. 739. Debt in B. R. upon Mutuatas for 50 l. the Defendant pleaded an Attachment in London and had found pledges and because the pledges were not put in at the day of the last default but at another day it was holden No plea and Judgment was for the Plaintiff Washington and Burgons Case 740. It was holden by the
the Use passeth to the Bargainee and then the Fine being levyed upon it the Bargain is irrevocable if not by Error 70. Lord and Tenant by Knights service the Tenant dyes his Heir being a Daughter within age of 14. years the Lord seizeth the VVard and after at 13. years she marryeth without the assent of the Lord It was the opinion of Wray Justice That the Lord should not have the forfeiture of the Marriage without tender but otherwise of the value of the Marriage because that de mero jure pertinet ad Dominum 71. Lessee for years hath Execution by Elegit of the Moyety of the Rent and Reversion against his Lessor the Lease being upon Condition Resolved That it is a suspension of the whole Condition during the Extent and although but the moyety of the Rent was extended yet the entire Condition was suspended and cannot be proportioned being entire 72. A man was bound in a Bond to make a sufficient Lease to the Obliger before such a day the same to be made at the Costs of the Obliger In Debt upon the Bond it was a holden a good Plea That the Plaintiff did not tender the Costs to him and if then that he was ready c. The Lord Windsors Case 73. A Precipe was brought against him It was Edwardo Domino Windsor de London Militi and because the word Militi was after the name of Dignity the VVrit abated 74. Entry sur Disseisin was brought the Writ was of an Entry in duas partes in tribus partibus dividend unius Messuagii and not in duas partes unius Messagii in tribus partibus dividend and yet adjudged good Pasch 3. Eliz. 75. Debt upon Obligation conditioned if the Obligator pay all such sums which he was Obliged to pay by his several writings Obligatory that then c. The Defendent said That there were not any writings Obligatory by which he was to pay any sum Adjudged to be no plea because it is repugnant to the Condition and he is estopped to say against the Condition 76. Wast The Case was Lease for life Covenanted to repair the houses at his proper Costs during the Terme The groundsels of the houses were rotten and the Lessee cut down trees upon the Land to repair them Resolved he might do it and it was not Wast and his justification of it good notwithstanding the Covenant which shall not exclude him from that benefit which the Law gives him 77. Debt against an Executour of an Executor the Defendant pleaded That the Executor his Testator had fully Administred and so nothing in his hands It was found that he had Assetts upon which a Fieri fac issued to the Sheriff who returned he had nor any thing adjudged a void Return and the Sheriff was amerced for if he had not goods of the Testator he should be payed of his own goods because when he pleads the first Executor had fully administred he doth not deny but Assetts remained after the death of his Testator 78. A grant was made per nomen Messuagii sive tenement It was holden by Dyer that neither a Garden nor Land do passe by the Grant but nothing but the House and Carthage Weston said the Garden should passe with the Messuage with an Averment that they have been occupied together Quere The Earl of Worcesters Case 79. Debt was recovered against the Earl and the Plantiff had an Elegit in the County of M. The Sheriff returned he had no goods nor Cattels Land nor Tenements within his County It was holden that after the year he might have a scire facias and upon that that an Elegit And it was holden that the party might divide his Execution and have several Elegits into Several Counties and to that purpose diverse Presidents were shewed by Lenard one of the Prothonotories Lady Audleys Case 80. Detinue A Woman delivered Goods to rebayl and after took Husband who after his Intermarriage released all Actions to the Baylee Adjudged the Release was good for that by the Intermarriage the Property of the Goods was in the Husband 81. In Dower The Tenant vouched the Heir of the Husband within the same County and he appeared and entred into Warranty as he who had nothing by Discent Judgement shall be given presently and the Sheriff by a special Writ shall put the Woman in Possession of all the Lands of the Tenant and that to avoid Circuit of Action betwixt the Tenant and the Vouchee Then the Question was If the Heir had nothing by Discent but Lands in tayle if they should be assigned to the Woman for her Dower It was the greater opinion she should not have Dower of the Lands intailed because the Execution for the Wife against the Vouchee is given only for Avoidance of Circuit of Action betwixt the Tenant and the Vouchee and therefore it follows That she shall not have Execution of other Lands whereof the Tenant could not have Execution against the Vouchee and the Lands intayled cannot be rendred in value 82. A Lease was made to 3. Habendum to them and the Survivor of them modo forma sequente viz. to one for Life the Remainder to another for Life the Remainder to the 3d. for Life It was holden they are not joynt Lessees by this Lease but they take by way of Remainder but if the viz had been before the Habendum or no Habendum had been then they had taken a joynt Estate notwithstanding the Limitation by the viz. because the viz. is but a declaration of the precedent Text and shall not confound the same mala est expositio quae corrumpit textum Skernes Case 83. A. by Indenture let an House to I. S. for 40. years The Lessee by the same Deed covenanted with the Lessor that he would repair the House during the Term and that it should be lawfull for the Lessor his Heirs and Assigns after the 40. years past every year during the Term to come into the House to see if the Reparations were sufficient by the Lessee his Executors or Assigns and if it should be repaired upon the view of the Lessor that then the Lessee should hold the Lease during 40. years after the first years ended I. S. granted over his Term by these words Totum interesse terminum terminos quae tunc habuit intenementis illis It was resolved in this Case That the words in the Assignment did not extend but to the first Term and therefore the possibility of the future Term did not pass but that by the Assignment there was a separation between the first Term and the possibility and by consequence the possibility determined 2ly That the want of the word Assignes did not hinder the possibility for it was a thing inherent which passed without such word But yet they held That if there had been the word Assignes yet the Assigns could not have taken the possibility 84. Debt upon Obligation The Defendant said he was to pay 20 l. at a
of the Justices that for want of Certainty no use is created by the said Covenant and Consideration but the same amounts to a Covenant and no more and the words Discend come and remain cannot create an Use but to the Heir apparant only 254. In Trespas the Case was The Custom of a Mannor was Quod quilibet tenens per Copiam poterit dimittere terras suas for life in Fee or alâ—ter and that a Woman Cooperta viro poterit devise her Copyhold Lands to any other or to her Husband by the assent of the Husband The Court held that the custome was not unreasonable but because it was poterit devisorre where it should be usi sunt devisorre and also because it appeared that the Plaintiff was Tenant in Common with the Defendant It was adjudged against the Plaintiff 255. A seised in Fee of a Messuage and of divers Lands time out of minde occupied with it let parcel of the Lands to a stranger for years and afterwards made his Will in this manner viz. I will and bequeath to my Wife my Messuage with all the Lands thereunto belonging in the occupation of the Lessee and after the decease of my Wife I Will that it with all the rest of my Lands shall remain to my Younger Son It was the opinion of the Justices that the Wife should not have the whole but only that which was Leased before and therefore that the remainder thereof could not be in the Younger Son till after the death of the Wife and that till the death of the Wife the Eldest Son Heir at Law should enjoy it 256. A man bound himself in an Obligation that he and his Wife would levy a Fine upon reasonable request of the Obligee he made the Request the Wife being very sick so as she could not travail Resolved that her sicknesse did save the Obligation from being forfeited 257. A Copyholder in Fee by License of the Lord made a Lease for years Rendring Rent and having Issue a Son and a Daughter by one Woman and a Daughter by another dyed his Son within age who before any Rent incurred or any admittance dyed Adjudged The Eldest Daugter should have the Land and that the discent of the Reversion is possessio fratris quae facit sororem esse haeredem Kenrick and Burges Case 258. A Lease in Reversion for years was granted to I. S. who dyed Intestate his Wife assigned it to B. and afterwards took Letters of Adminâ—stâ—ation and made an Assignment of it to the Plaintiff Resolved that the last Assignee should have it Trinit 25. Eliz. in Exchequer The Queen Her Almoner and Coxeheads Case 259. The Case was I. S. Anno 9. of the Queen took the Office of Bayliff of the Hundred of A. and 11. Eliz. became indebted to the Queen by Obligation and 13. Elz. he being seised of Land Covenanted with C. in Consideration of Mariage with his daughter to stand seised to the use of himself for life and after to the use of C. and the Daughter in Tail and afterwards he took the Office of Woodwardship of the Mannor of S. and became indebted for that also and then granted a Rent Chaâ—ge for years out of the Land and then C. and I. S. joyned in a Fine to the use of the said I. S. for life the remainder to C. and afterwards I. S. having purchased the Rent and possâ—ssâ—d of goods and Chattells because Felo de so for which his Lands and goods were seized It was the opinion of the Justices the Almonor had no title to his goods because the Patent did not extend to the goods of a Felo de se against the Queen for her debt because it wanted the Words Licet tanget nos and that the Lands and goods of the said I. S. were chargeable as well for the debts which were due by the Obligation as also upon the accompt aswell before the Conveyance as after Wherefore C. paid the Queen her debts and had the Lands cleered Newtons and Barnardines Case 260. A. had Issue 3. Sons F. R. and G. F. dyed his Wife with Child The Father A. devised in this manner viz. To the Child my Son F. his Wife now goeth with 28 l. yearly to be paid to the use of the Child for 20 years And if my Son R. dyeth before he hath Issue of his body so as my Lands discend to G. before he come of the age of 21. years then my Executors shall occupy it till G. be of the age of 21. years the Father dyeth R. enters a Daughter is born who enters and lets the Land to the Defendant rendering Rent It was adjudged That R. in this Case had an estate Tail by Implication of the words of the Will and that the entry of R. was a Lawfull eviction of the Terme and destroyed the Rent Hâ—dons Case 261. It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case An Abbot made a Lease for 8. years of Lands of the possession of the Abby a Copyhold estate being in esse at the time that it was an estate in being as did make the Lease for years void by the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries The Case of the Skinners of London 262. In Intrusion the Case was A. a Cittizen and Freeman of London seised of divers Messuages and Tenements of the yearly value and profit of 30 l. 6 s. 8 d. by his Will before the Statute of 1 E. 6. devised the same to the Corporation of Skinners and that 42 s. 8 d. thereof should be imployed upon an Obit and 12. Marks yearly thereof upon the Priest and the Residue to be imployed upon poor men of the Corporation decayed by misfortune who inhabited the said Messuages and Tenements and appointed the said poor men to pray for his soul and further with the profits to repair the Messuages and Tenements and after the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries was made It was the opinion of the Court 1. That Lay Corporations are Excepted out of the Statute for their Lands which they have to increase their Treasure for the good of the Corporation but not for Lands which they have to imploy to superstitious uses 2. Resolved that all the money which was given for the Obit and the finding of the Priest was a superstitious use and given to the King by the Statute but that which was given for the maintenance of the poor men and although it was appointed them to pray for his soul which was a precept suteable for that time and which was given for the Reparations of the Messuages c. was not given to the Crown by the said Statute and Turnors Case was vouched to be adjudged Where Land was given to the intent that his Feoffees should keep an Obit with so much of the profits of it as they should think fit in their discretions that the Land thereby was not given to the Crown but so much of the yearly Rent as the Feoffees imployed to that purpose
was attainted of Treason The first Question was If the Uses limited to I. S. and others were good or not Resolved they were void because they wanted a good consideration but if he had made them Executors and chargeable to the payment of his debts then the same had been good Second point If the use limited to William Pagett should begin presently after the death of the Lord Pagett or should expect untill the 24. years were incurred after the death of the Lord Pagett or not at all Resolved That the use should be in William Pagett presently before the 24. years were expired Wiseman and Barnards Case 328. The case was Tenant in tail for the advancement of his Blood Name and Issue covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself in tail the remainder to the Plaintiff in tail the remainder to the Queen in see and died his issue entred and suffered a common Recovery and died without issue he in the remainder entred Resolved That the consideration that the Land should continue in his Name and Blood was no consideration to raise the use to the Queen 2. Resolved that he in the Remainder was barred by the common Recoverie and the Remainder not preserved by the Statute of 34. H. 8. because it was not of the Provision of the Queen but of a common person Chenyes Case 329. A seized of Lands made a Lease for years thereof to B. and C. upon confidence for the preferment of the wife of A. and afterwards he made a Feoffment to B. and others to certaine uses of the same Lands the point was If the Lease for years were extinguished by the Feoffment Resolved That the Terme was not extinct but was saved by the Proviso in the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses which preserved all Interest which the Feoffees had in the Lands to their own uses and here B. had the Term to his own use and therefore not extinguished Pimbs Case 330. A committed Treason 18. Eliz. and was attainted 26. Eliz. In the interim he was Conusee of a Fine levied by I. S. which fine was to the use of the said I. S. and his wife Afterwards I. S. and his wife bargained and sold the Land for money to Pimb It was conceived that the Land was in the Queen upon the discovery of the Treason and Attainder which intitles the Queen to all the Lands which Traitors had at the time of the Treason or after so as the estate of I. S. and his wife was thereby destroyed by the Relation of the Attainder Wherefore Pimb sued to the Queen and she granted him the Land by her Letters Patent Beckwiths Case 331. Husband and Wife seized of Lands in the right of the Wife levied a Fine The husband detained the uses solie one way and the Wife detained the uses upon the Fine another way It was resolved that both the Declaration of the uses were void and so by consequence the uses upon the Fine should be to the use of the Wâ—te and her Heirs The Lord Mountjoys Case 332. The Case was this A Mannor which did consist of Free Rents of 7. l. copyhold Rents of 3. l. and of domaines which had used to be devised for several Rents and Farmes to which Mannor an Acre of waste parcel of the Mannor of the yearly value of 12. d. Heriotts Court Baron Leet and perquisits of Court which never were devised for Life years or otherwise did appertain and were incident was by a private Act of Parliament given to A. and B. in tail with diverse remainders over and the Donees were restrained Quod non facerent aliquid ad Nocumentum or disinheritance of the Tenant in tail or them in remainder and that they should have power to make a Lease for Life Years or at Will rendring the true and ancient Rent of the said Tenements to be demised and that all other acts should be void Tenant in tail accepted of a fine from a stranger of the Mannor by which they granted and rendred the Mannor for 300. years rendring rent yearly amounting to the free Rents Copy rents and Farme Rents and 18. d. more and 12. d. for the waste to be paid at two Feasts whereas the ancient Rent was paid at four Feasts Tenant in tail died and if the Lease for 300. years was to be avoided by the clause of Restraint was the Question It was Resolved 1. That although by the purview of the Act That all Estates restrained by the Act should be void yet the same should not avoid the Lease as to the Tenant in tail himself but it should be avoided by the Issues in tail 2. Resolved That in respect the Acre of waste was never devised before that the Rent which is entire reserved out of the whole cannot be said the true and antient Rent 3. Resolved That the reservation of the Rent at two Feasts where the antient Rent was payable at four Feasts made the Grant and Render void for that was to the hurt of the Issues in tail for it was more beneficial to have the Rent at four Feasts then at two Feasts and all beneficial Qualities of the Rent ought to be observed and for these causes and others the Lease for years was to be avoided by the Issue in tail Knights Case 333. The Case was a Prior seised of divers houses with the consent of his Covent made a lease of them for years rendring rent of 5. l. 10. s. 11. d. at four usual Feasts upon condition that if the Rent was behind in part or in all at any of the said Feasts he and his Successors to reenter The Priory came to the King by surrender the King by his Letters Pattents under the Great Seal granted one of the houses to the Lessee and another in Fee and afterwards it was found by Commission under the Exchequer Seal that parcel of the said Rent was behind at one of the said Feasts the King before the Commission returned granted the residue of the houses to I. S. in Fee It was resolved in this case amongst other things That although without Office found the Lease was not void and although the Office was not returned before the date of the Letters Pattents made to I. S. yet forasmuch as the Office was found before the Grant and afterwards it was returned of Record that the grant was good and that in this case of Reentry without seisure the Lease was void Owens Case 334. Upon a Fine levyed the Lands were rendred to A. and to his wife and to the Heirs of the body of A. A. suffered a Recovery with Voucher in the life of his wife and afterwards died the wife died It was resolved in this case that the Recovery suffered by the Husband only did not bind him who was in the Remainder for betwixt husband and wife there are no moyeties and the joynt estate was not severed by the Recovery against the Husband only and the husband was not the only Tenant to the
c. de Decimis eidem pertinent spectant Habendum dectum scnum cum pertinenciis The question was what estate the Lessee had in the Tythes at Will or for years It was the opinion of Manwood Chief Baron that he had an Estate in them for years and not at Will for where several things are in a Grant and after the Habendum comes to limit the Estate it is superfluous to recite the particular things in the Habendum and the Tythes being particularly recited shall therefore pass by the Habsndum which limits the Estate for years Crops Case 357 A man made a Lease for years reserving Rent at Mich. and the Annunciation and if it be behind by the space of a month to reenter The next day after Mich. the Lessor sent the Rent by his Servant to the house of the Lessor who tendered it to his person and he refused it and afterwards upon the last instant of the day it was demanded upon the Land It was adjudged a good tender and the Lessor could not enter Beverley and the Bishop of Canturburyes Case 348. A seised of an Advowson in gross presented K. who was Inducted the Advowson afterwards desdended to B. and C. Coparceners B married I. S. C. married T. B. and had Issue C. died T. B. the Plantiff being Tenant by the Curtesies the Church became void by the deprivation of K. and because they could not agree in the presentment the Clerk of B. the eldest Sister was received by the Bishop which was since dead so the Plantiff Tenant by the Curtesie presented and being disturbed brought the Writ The Incumbent being presented by the Queen pleaded thae K. being inducted accepted a second Benefice of the value of 8. l. and so the Church was void by the Statute of 21. H. 8. of Pluralities It was adjudged for the Plantiff for that the deprivation of K. and the Plurality of the Clerk of the eldest Sister since dead were not denied after the acceptance of the second Benefice Saunders Case 349. Information upon the Statute of 1. E. 6. for landing of goods at Ratcliff Custom not paid nor agreed for It was pleaded in a Bar A. was seized of the Mannor of S. in Sussex and had wreck of the Sea appertaining to his Mannor by Prescription and that the Mannor Contigue adjâ—câ—t mare altum and said the goods were wreck and cast upon the land of the Lord and that he seized them and so justified Qu. If a good Justification Morris and Wâ—â—bors Case 350. The Case in effect was this A man was divorced Causa â—rigiditatis and afterwards took another wife and had issue It was argued by the Civilians and also by the Justices if the Issue was Bastard or not It was adjudged that the Issue by the second wife was not a Bastard For that by the Divorce the Marriage was dissolved â— vinculo Matrimonii and each of them might marry again But admitt that the second marriage was voidable yet it stands good till it be dissolved and so by consequence the Issue born during the Coverture is a lawful Issue Term. Hill 29. Eliz. Fanshaws Case 351. In Ejâ—ctione firme the Case was shortly thus King Henry the Seventh erected and Founded an Hospital by the name of Mâ—ster and Chaplains of the Hospital of King Henry the Seventh de le Savoy And afterwards in the time of Queen Mary a lease was made of Lands parcel of the Hospital by the name of Master of the Hospital Henrici nuper Regis Angliae septimâ— vocat le Savoy and if it was a good Lease or not was the Question The Case was first argued in the Exchequer and there adjudged that the Lease was void by the Judgment of two Barons Afterwards a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber there the Case 3. Eliz. was argued again but it was not adjudged but afterwards the Case was compounded but the better opinion of the Justices there seemed to be that it was a good Lease and that the words De le Savoy vocat le Savoy were idem sensu Crosman and Reads Case 352. Debt against the Defendant Executrix of T. R. her former husband upon an Obligation of 200. l. The Defendant pleaded fully administred It was found she had Asserts to the value of 80. l. parcel of the 200. l. and that the said T. B. borrowed of F. R. her late Husband 60. l. and that the Defendant being Executrix to T. B. took the said F. R. to Husband who died the Court gave Judgment that the Plantiff should recover the 80. l. and for the residue in misericordia pro falso clamore so as the Court conceive the 60. l. was not Assetts in her hands Rous and Artois Case 353. A man was Tenant for another mans life of a Mannor Cestuy queuse died The Tenant continued possession of the Mannor and held Courts and made voluntary Grants by Copy It was adjudged he should not bind the Lord for he was but Tenant at Sufferance who had not any Interest and so he was a Disseisor of the Mannor Broke and Smiths Case 354. The Case was Lord and Tenant the Tenant levied a Fine to the King who afterwards gave the Land Tenendum of the King by Knights Service The Lord distreined the Patentee for the Rent and Services If the Seignory was revived was the Question It was conceived it was and that it was suspended only for the time in the King Qu. It was not resolved Knowles and Powels Case 355. The Queen seized in Fee made a Lease for years to one who was Out-lawed at the time of the Lease made and afterwards the person was Out-lawed again and before seizure came a generall Pardon of all goods and chattels forfeited In this Case Resolved First that a man Out-lawed was capable of a Lease from the Queen as a Farmer to the Queen and that the Pardon with restitution was sufficient to revive the Term forfeited Secondly That a man Outlawed and Pardoned had property in his goods Bonds Case 356. Bond erected a Pigeon-House upon certain Lands which he held in Lease for years the reversion in the Queen being parcel of her Mannor of F. in the County of S. It was the opinion of Manwood Chief Baron and Gent. That none could erect a Dove-house but the Lord of the Mannor or the Parson and said that in ancient time it was accounted a Common Nusance presentable in the Leet 357. Note by Manwood Chief Baron where it is ordained by the Statute that for doing misdoing or not doing of a thing the Offendor shall forfeit such a Sum not expressing to whom there the forfeiture shall be intended to be to the Queen unless the penalty be assessed for taking Goods Chattels or other things in which the Subject hath a Property and then he which hath the loss shall have the forfeiture Warrams Case 358. A Protection was granted to him by the Queen and it was Quod Praerogativa
one saith he hath Title or Interest to anothers Land an action doth not lye although he hath no Title but when he saith that another hath Title he cannot salve the same by applying the same to himself for his Justification Shaw and Thompsons Case 536. A Woman recovered Dower of a Copyhold within the Mannor and 40 l. damages because her Husband dyed seised and she brought Debt for the damages in B. R. adjudged it did not lye because the Court Baron could not hold plea not award Execution of 40 l. damages although the damages were there well assessed Huntbage and Shepheards Case 537. The Issue in an Ejectione firme was if Jemet the Wife of the Defendant was alive at the time The Jury found Julian the Wife of the Defendant was alive It was the opinnion of the Justices they cannot be intended one person without finding that by the Custome of the Country Weomen baptized by the name of Julian had been called Jemet Stile and Buts Case 538. Trespas for carrying away Clay the Defendant Justified by a Prescription as a Tenant of the Mannor but because the Clay was digged by another and not by the Tenant the Justification was ruled not to be good Doggerell and Pokâ—s Case 539. Covenant upon an Apprentiship the Defendant pleaded a By-law in London where he was Apprentice by the Common Councell That if any Freeman takes to Apprentice the Son of an Alien the Bonds and Covenants should be void It was adjudged no plea for that the Common Councel cannot make the Bonds and Covenants void but may Impose a Fine upon the Master for taking such an Apprentice Bab and Clerks Case 540. False Imprisonment the Defendat Justified That the Borough of St. Albans had authority by Charter to make By-lawes and they made a By-law That if any Burgesses give opprobrious words to the Major he should be Imprisoned of the Major at his pleasure and that he being Major sent an Officer to the Defendant being a Burgesse to come to the Common Hall for the affairs of the Town and he sent him this Answer Let the Major come to me if he will for I will not come to him Adjudged the Justification was not good that the By-law was not Lawfull and that the words were not opprobrious words Reynold and Purchowes Case 541. Assumpsit where the Plaintiff had recovered 4 l. against the Defendant in Consideration the Plaintiff had given him 3 l. he promised to acknowledge satisfaction and had not done it It was said it was no Consideration to pay that to him which is due The Court held the Consideration good because speedy payment will excuse and prevent travail and expense of Suit Gregory and Blasfields Case 542. Error of a Judgment in Ludlow upon the Statute of 4 and 5 Mar. for weaving of wollen Cloathes It was assigned that the Statute of 5 Eliz. had abrogated that Statute The Court said the Statute of 5 Eliz. had not abrogated it but encreased the penalty But because the Suit was there by Bill or plaint but ought not to be but by Writ or Information the Judgment there was Erroneous 543. The Custome of a Mannor was layed to be That if a Copyholder hath 2. Sons and a Wife and dyes and the eldest Son hath Issue and dyeth in the life of the Wife the younger Son shall have the Land The Issue being upon the Custome The Jury found the Custome That the younger Son shall have the Land unlesse the eldest was admitted in his life and paid the Lords Fine The Court held the verdict to be insufficient to prove the Issue Walter and Dawes Case 544. Assumpsit upon a promise to pay 20 l. yearly for 10. years to the Testator of the Plaintiff in consideration the Testator had granted him the Office of the Clerk of the Fines in the Counties of B. C. and Glamorgan The Defendant pleaded he did not exercise the said Office and the Venire was awarded in the County of Worcester It was adjudged against the Plaintiff because there they cannot take Notice of the Issue Necton and the Wardens of Wexchandlers Case 545. The Plaintiff sued a Prohibition against the Defendant upon Libell exhibited by them for a Legacy given to them by the Testator of the Plaintiff The Plaintiff surmised that there were divers Obligations for monies depending and Suits But in Conclusion the Defendants had a Consultation upon security to repay the Legacies to be there recovered by them if any things were Recovered by the Excecutors upon the Obligations Vide this case more largely Reported in Cr. 3. part 467. Wright and Major and Commonalty of Wickhams Case 546. Error was brought to reverse a Fine viz. that the Ancestor dyed mean between the Teste and the Return of the Writ of Covenant The Defendant pleaded that after the death of the Father the Plaintiff entred into parcell of the Land and made a Feoffment It was the opinion of the Court that he was barred by his entry and Feoffment of part upon the difference If a man hath an Action to Land if he suspend or extinguish it in part it is extinct in the whole but if he hath right to Land he may Release or suspend it in part and remain good for the Residue and upon this point the Judgment was reversed Welshes Case 547. Note It is the same case with the case of Attonwood Reported at Large in Cook 1. p. of his Reports upon the points there more largely debated and adjudged and therefore I have forborn here to abridge it I shall mention this case put by Pirriam Justice viz. If Tenant in tail be the remainder in tail the remainder to the Queen and Tenant in tail commits Treason and the Queen makes a Lease and the Tenant in tail dyeth without Issue and afterwards he in the Remainder dyeth without Issue that this Lease shall continue good upon the Reversion Lord Darcies Case 548. Quo Warranto for using a liberty to be exempt of Purveyance The Defendant pleaded that King Edward 4 granted to the Dean and Cannons of St. Pauls and their successors the said liberty within all their Lands and averres that they were seised of the Land in which at the time of the Grant and that afterwards the said Lands came to Edw. 6. who granted the same to his Grandfather and his Heirs with a Clause de tanta talia consimilia libertates c. quae quot qualia quanta the Dean and Canons or their predecessors ever had by reason of any Charter Grant of any of the Progenitors of the said King with a general non obstante aliquo Statuto c. It was Replyed that 27 H. 8. it was enacted by Parliament that the Kings Purveyors should execute their Commission in all places aswell within Liberties as without any Charter c. notwithstanding The Court was of opinion for the Queen because at the time of the Grant of tot tanta talia libertates the
l. of the râ—nt to 3. persons divisim viz. to each of them a full 3. part which was 9 l. 6 s. 8 d. One of the devisees brought debt for his part against the Lessee It was the opinion of the Justices that the Rent was apportionable and that the Tenant is chargeable without attornment by the devise to each of the devisees for the 3. part of the Rent Winters Case 705. It was said by Popham Chief Justice that Clergy is allowable upon the standing Mute for such a Felony for which Clergy is allowable if the party be found guilty and therefore he allowed Clergy to Winter who stood Mute upon an Indictment of Felonious taking of goods 706. The Case was a man robs one in the high way in one County and is apprehended with the goods in another County and indicted for the goods and found guilty to the value of 10 d. The question was if by the Statute of 25 H. 8. he shall have Judgment of death or be whipt It was the opinion of the Justices the Case being put to them at Serjants Inn that he shall be but whipt and that the Statute of 25 H. 8. doth not extend but to those who demand Clergy which they shall be denyed if it be found by examination to be done with Robbery Lever and Heyes Case 707. The Father of the daughter promiseth to the Father of the Son that if he will give his consent to the Marriage and assure 40 l. Land to his Son that the Father of the Daughter will pay 200 l. to the Son in Mariage It was Resolved in this case that if the Father of the daughter do not pay the 200 l. that the Son shall have the Action upon the promise and not the Father Egertons Case 708. Egorton the Queens Sollicitor was commanded by Writ to attend upon the Lords in the upper House of Parliament After he attended there 3. dayes he was chosen Burgesse for the Borough of Reading and Returned The Commons came to the upper House and demanded that he might be dismissed from his attendance there and be sent them into the Lower House but upon Consultation he was retained there still because he being neither Inhabitant not Free of the said Town might choose if he would serve at their Election or not which he expresly refused to do 2. Because he was first attendant in the upper House 3. Because the Queen had power to prefer him to the upper House aswell as she had power to command him The Bishop of Norwiches Case 709. The Bishop pleaded a private Act of Parliament and mistook the day of the Commencement of the Parliament It was adjudged against the Bishop for although the Judges are not to take notice of the private act yet of the beginning of the Parliament they are to take notice of Helgor and Whiteacres Case 710. Replevin The Defendant avowed that a Parsonage was parcell of the Prebendary the Prebend before the Statute of 13 Eliz. was Leased for 50. years in Reversion to I. who assigned it to B. who assigned it to C. who assigned it to H. the Lease in possession ended H. enâ—red and made the Lease to the Plaintiff The Plaintiff confessed the Lease to I. and the Assignments but said that I. so possessed took to Husband T. who before the assignment to B. assigned the Terme to I. S. who dyed possessed absque hoc that the said I. assigned her estate and Interest to B. It was adjudged for the Avowant because when the Plaintiff confessed and avoided he ought not to have traversed but might have prayed Judgment without Travers and so by reason of the Travers it was adjudged against the Plaintiff Vavisoâ—s Case 711. Resolved That if the Sheriff makes his Warrant to a Corporation who have return of Writs to arrest I. S. they may make a Bailiff to arrest by perol only Robes Bent and Cocks Case 612. A a villain purchased the Inheritence of a Copyhold in the name of B. and another in Trust B. surrendred his moyety to the use of his own Son the other dyed seised The Son of B. and the Heir of the other for mony sold the Copyhold to C. for 50 l. being of the value of 80 l. A sued the Son of B. and the Heir of the otherand C. in Chancery for the 80 l. It was Decreed the A. should recover the 50 l. only from B. and the Heir of the other and C should be discharged of it The Lord Hunsdons Case 713. In a Monstrance de droit for certain Lands in ward to the Queen for the Nonage of B. upon Jury returned the Array was challenged by the Queens Attorney because it was Returned by the Sheriff of Kent who was also Tenant to the Plaintiff A Counterplea was thereunto that he was Tenant to the Queen It was the opinion of the Justices that the Counterplea was little material for although he was Tenant to both yet he who takes the Challenge shall have advantage thereof Afterwards the array was Quashed and a venire de novo awarded Lady Russell and Gulwells Case 714. The Lady demised Lands to the Defendant by Indenture Defendant entred bonds to performe the Agreements in the Indenture Debt brought by the Lady for breach of Covenants and assignes the breach in disturbance of her in the occupation of certain Lands excepted in the Indenture out of the demyse and adjudged against the Lady for that it was breach neither of Covenant nor agreement 715. Nore by Egerton Lord Keeper if there be Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in Fee and the Tenant for life committeth Wast so as he is dispunishable by the Common Law yet upon Complaint he in the remainder in Fee may have an Injunction against him not to do Wast Penner and Cromptons Case 716. In a Prohibition It was holden that none shall be chargeable for contribution to Church Reckonings if he do not Inhabite there or to consent to them Powle and Veeres Case 717. A. made a Lease to B. of the Mannor of S. for life which was executed by Livery with these words that if it fortune B. to marry any Woman during his life who shall happen to overlive him then the Land to remain to such Woman for her life Proviso If B. do not declare by writing sealed â—or his last Will that he Wills she shall have it then it shall not remain to her B. before any marriage makes a Feoffment to I. S. to whom a Fine is levyed and a Recovery suffered Afterwards B. takes a Wife and declares she shall have the Remainder and after D. and his Wife Levy a Fine to the Heirs of I. S. and afterwards B. makes another declaration that the Land shall remain to the Wife and then B. dyes and the Wife enters It was adjudged her entry was not Lawfull because the Remainder if it was ever good was destroyed by the Feoffment and the Freehold supplanted before the Remainder took
The Wife entred and elected one yard Land and a half A. entred upon her Resolved that the use for the Life of the Father did cease in it without entry into the Land of the Wife and that she should haue the Election The Lady Burghs Case 791. A seised of Land bargained and sold the same to B. and C. with power of Revocation by tender of 20. s. to them or one of them in the Hall of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster in Westminster A. tendred the 20. s. in the Hall none of the Bargainees being present nor having any notice of it Afterwards A. covenanted to stand seised to the use of I. S. her Nephew It was Resolved in this Case that the tender of the 20 s. was no performance of the Condition to avoid the Estate 2. That the conveyance by Covenant to stand Seisor for consanguinity should make void the former Conveyance containing the power of Revocation wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Paramour and Veralls Case 792. The Town of Sandwich did prescribe that if any Goods of any Freeman of that Town came to the hands of a Freeman and citizen of London the Mayor of Sandwich c. had used to write to the Mayor c of London to take good order for restitution and it they refused and did not return the Answer to the Mayor of Sandwich c. and did not make Restitution within 15. days then they of S. used to detain the Body of any Londoner which they should find there till restitution was made It was Resolved by all the Justices that such a Prescription was not good Diggs Case 793. The case is very long but this in effect A man seised of Lands in Fee for diverse considerations covenanted to stand seised thereof to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his Son in tail Provided that at any time during his Life with consent of divers by Deed indented to be enrolled in any Court of the King to revoke the said uses and estates and to limit new uses and afterwards by Deed indented enrolled in the Chancery he revokes the uses in part of the Land and limits the same to him and his Heirs and afterwards by another Deed he declares that from the time of the enrollment of the Deed in the Chancery that all the first uses in the first Indenture shall be void and that the Land shall be to the use of himself in Fee and after he levyes a Fine of all the Land and after the Deed is enrolled in the Chancery In this case these points were Resolved 1. That he might revoke part at one time and part at another time but he could revoke one part but once 2. That where the Revocation is to be by Deed Indented to be enrolled it is as much as to say by Deed Indented Enrolled for it is no Revocation till enrollment 3. That there was not a compleat and perfect Revocation till the Deed was enrolled in the Chancery 4. That the Fine before the Enrollment had extinguished the power of Revocation 5. If the Fine had not been levyed then by the Revocation the ancient Uses had bin destroyed without entry or claim because he himself was Tenant for Life and he could not enter and Acts of Revocation are as strong as a claime 6. That by the same conveyance the ancient Uses might be recovered their Uses might be limitted Costard and Wingates Case 794. A Lay-man presented to a Benefice before the Statute of 13. Eliz. made a Lease for 60. years which was confirmed by the Patron and Ordinary After the Statute his Successor became bound in an Obligation that the Lessee should enjoy the Term and after he was absent from his Living 80. days It was adjudged the Obligation was not void by the Statute of 14. Eliz. because the Lease for years was good and the Bond for enjoyning it which the Successor cannot avoid 795. Resolved by the Justices of the Kings Bench that if the Sheriff hath a capias against one to find Sureties for the good behaviour he may break the House and enter and arrest the party as well as he may do upon a capias utlagatum Talbots Case 796. He was indicted for Recusancy That being of the age of 16. years and more non accessit ad Ecclesiam c. by the space of 6. months It was said the Indictment was not good for Existens aetatis 16. annorum shall be referred to the time of absence from the Church and not to the time of the Indictment but the Court held the Indictment to be good Lovegraves Case 797. A man sued in the Spiritual Court for calling him Goose Woodcock he being a Clerk A Prohibition was awarded and in this case it was said the High Commissioners could not hold Plea for slanderous words spoken of a Clerk but for laying of violent hands on him they might Binghams Case 798. The case was this Grand-father Father and Son the Grand-father held the Mannor of D. of B. as of his Mannor of S. by Knight-Service and levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself for Life the remainder to the use of the Father in tail and after to the use of the Right Heirs of the Grand-father the Father died his Son within age B. the Lord suffered a Recovery of his Mannor of S. unto the use of himself and his Wife in tail the Remainder to the use of C. and his wife in tail the Remainder to the Right Heirs of B. B. and his Wife died without Issue C. entred into that Mannor the Grand-father died his Wife died the Son entred and made a Lease for years It was Resolved in this case that as long as the Grand-father lived no Wardship of the body or Land was due because the Reversion remained in himself and the mean man could not be in ward during the Life of the particular Tenant for Life and in case of a Subject as long as the Reversion remained in the Donor or his Heir the Issue in tail should not be in ward to the Lord Paramount when the Son in remainder in tail died his Heir within age â— 2. Resolved that a man shall never have the Wardship of the Heir when the Land was never in his Fee or Seignory of him or any of his Ancestors at the time of the death of the Tenant Bullock and Thornes Case 799. The case upon the matter was shortly this A man conveyed Land to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of divers of his blood with a future power of Revocation as after such a Feast and afterwards and before the power of Revocation began he for valuable consideration sold the Land to one and his Heirs It was Resolved that this bargaine and sale is within the Remedy of the Statute of 27. Eliz. of Fraudulent Conveyances for the Act will not that such voluntary conveyance originally subject to a power of Revocation should stand
took him upon the Capias Utlegatum and returned Cepi and after suffered him to Escape It was adjudged an action of Escape lay against the Sheriff by the party and that the Jury are to give him the value of his debt and the damages Web and Hargraves Case 835 Debt upon Obligation the condition was where W. was Patron of a Benefice with Cure then void if he presented the Defendant and if the Defendant continued Incumbent for a year and after the year all time within three moneths after Notice and request was ready to resigne and did resigne the Benefice to the Ordinary to be presented thereunto again by W. and should not before Resign that then c. the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 13 and 14 Eliz. that Obligation and Covenants for enjoyage of Lease were void and pleaded that after he was Inducted he made a Lease to the Plaintiff W. of the benefices for 21. years and avered the Obligation was made for the enjoying of the Land by the Lease upon which the Plaintiff demurred It was the opinion of the Court that the plea was good but that the averment was not sufficient It was adjudged against him Williams and Greens Case 136. Debt upon a single Bill the Defendant pleaded he delivered it to the Plaintiff as an Escrowle upon Condition that if he delivered him a horse at such a day it should be his deed otherwise not It was the opinion of the Court that the Plea was not good because a Deed cannot be delivered to the party himself as an Escroale Hungate Mease and Smiths Case 837. Debt upon an Obligation to perform an accord of all Controversies betwixt the parties from the beginning of the World to the 30. of August 4 Eliz. so as the Award be pronounced and delivered utrique parti ante 14. diem Augusti and shewed that he awarded that all Suits should cease and they should be friends and that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff 7 l. and that the Award was pronounced to the parties before 14. Augusti upon nihil debet all the said matter was found only that the pronouncing of the Award was to Mease and not to Smith It was adjudged against the Plaintiff because he ought to have pronounced the Award to each of the parties Defendants and also it was void it was but an Award of one part also void that all Suits should cease which could not be without Non-suit Retraxit or discontinuance of the parties Dogett and Vowells Case 838. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff had lent to the Defendant 20 l. the Defendant promised to lend the Plaintiff 10 l. quando requisitus c. It was adjudged no good consideration because consideration of a thing past is not sufficient to ground Assumpsit Parhan and Nortons Case 839. Replevin The Defendant avowed for a Relief by the death of I. S. late Tenant The Plaintiff said the Land discended from I. S. to his two Daughters who enfeoffed the Plaintiff and that the Lord accepted the Rent of him Adjudged that the acceptance of the Rent from a new Tenant was no bar of the Reliefe due by the former Tenant Lord Berkley and Countess of Warwicks Case 840. Before the Statute of West 2. Lands are given to Husband and Wife in Frankmarriage the Remainder to the Heirs of the Husband if it be tail Quaere not adjudged vide 25. Eliz. Webb and Potters Case Guy and Brownes Case 841. A Farmor of the King of a capital Messuage made a Conduit to convey the water to his House over the Land of a Copy-holder of the Mannor afterwards the Mannor is granted to one and the Copyhold to another Resolved the Farmer may amend the Pipes in the Land of the Copyholder without Trespass Worleys Case 842. A. lent B. a 100 l. for a year and took an Obligation of him for 10 l. Interest Interest being then 10 l. per cent payable 5 l. at the half year and 5. l. at the end of the year Adjudged it was not Usury within the Statute Hainsworth and Prettyes Case 843. A seised in Fee having four Sons and a Daughter by Will devised 20 l. to each of his younger Sons and his Daughter to be paid by his eldest Son at their ages of 21. years and if the eldest Son do not pay he devised the Land which he had before devised to his eldest Son and his Heirs to the younger and the Daughter and their Heirs It was Resolved 1. That the eldest Son took by discent and not by the Devise 2. The breach of payment to one of them should give the estate to them all and the eldest Son should lose the Land for not payment of the Fourth and they should have the Lands as Joynt-Tenants 3. That the entrie of one of them in the name of the rest was good because they are Joynt-Tenants More and Morecombs Case 844. The condition of an Obligation was to deliver all the tackle of a ship mentioned in an Inventory under the hands of four men or in default thereof to pay so much mony to the Plaintiff before such a Feast as the four men shall value the tackle at the Defendant said they did not value the tackle Adjudged no Plea because the Defendant had Election to do two things and if he cannot do the one for any default of a Stranger or other he is to do the other and in this case he at his peril is to procure the men to value the tackle Walter and Pigotts Case 845. Debt upon an Obligation de Septingentis Libris The condition was Septuagintis Libris Adjudged he was to pay 400 l. not 70 l. and the Bond good Bibell and Dringhowses Case 846. A. conveyed Lands to the use of himself in tail with divers Remainders in tail with a Proviso it should be lawful for him to make Leases for Life or years afterwards he made a Lease for the Life of D. the Defendant After the death of A. the Plaintiff in the â—ight of his Wife in Remainder entred The points were 1. If the Demise generally made unto was Tenant in tail in Interest and who had Authority by the Proviso to make Leases shall be constâ—ued to be made by his Interest or his Authority without declaring his Election the Court doubted of this point 2. Because the Deed did comprise as well Fee simple Land and Lands in tail if it shall enure by way of Interest for the Fee simple Land only and by Authority for the Land in tail Quaere also But they Resolved the Proviso to make Leases was good 847. Note Upon the Statutes of 13 Eliz. Cap. 4. and 39 Eliz. Cap. 7. upon Sale made by the Queen upon Accomptants and Debtors Lands That if any Officer be Tenant in tail the Remainder over and afterwards the Officer dieth without Issue before any sale made by the Queen and he in the Remainder enters and is in by force of his Remainder which was created before the
and after to the use of C. in tail and after to D. in tail and after to the right Heirs of A. and of the Mannor of B. immediately after he the said A. should die without Issue of his Body to the use of E. daughter of I. for her Life and afterwards to D in tail and afterwards to C. in tail and to the right Heirs of A. And of the moiety of the Mannor of W. and other the Premises of which no use was before declared to the use of the said A. and such Heirs of his Body and after to the use of the said E for Life the remainder to D. in tail the remainder to C. in tail the Remainder to his right Heirs Provided That if at any time after he should be minded to revoke the said Indenture or any use or estates therein contained or to raise and create any other use or Estate and should declare the same to any person c. in the presence of two Witnesses then the Remainders and all other Estates in the said Indenture to be void and the Conusees of the Fine to stand seised to the use of the said A. and his Heirs Afterwards A. reciting the former Indenture and the Proviso in consideration of a Marâ—iage between I. D. and the said E. did declare to I. N. in the presence of two Witnesses that he did revoke and make void the former Deed and every Article therein concerning the Mannor of B. but as touching the Mannor of M that the same should stand in force and by the last Indenture did covenant with I. D. and E. his Wife that the Conusees of the Fine c. should stand seised of the Mannor of B. and the moiety of the Mannor of V. to the use of the said I. D. and E. his Wife for their Lives and after to the Issue of the Body of the said I. D. and E. as should be then eldest living at the death of the Survivors of them for the Life of such Issue and after to the use of the said A. and of such the Heirs of his Body as he should after beget on the body of I. his Wife or on the Body of any other woman which he should marry and after to â— in tail and after to C. in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. It was found that E. was the Daughter of I. but born before her marriage with A. A and I. his Wife died and found he married no other woman and that F. was Son and Heir of A. and was of full age The Questions in this long case were these 1. Whether all the use and agreements in the first Indenture as to the Mannors of B. and V. were revoked by the second Indenture 2. Whether the new uses limited by the second Indenture and such Revocation of the former uses were effectual to convey any Estate to I. D. and E his Wiâ—e with the Remainder over to take away the immediate discent from the Heir at Law The case was argued in B. R. and the Justices were divided in their opinions and afterwards it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber but whether there Resolved or not Quaere Sir Arthur Goâ—ges Case 967. The case was the Lord Viscount Brindon was seised of Lands holden of the Queen in capite he had Issue Douglasse his Daughter and Heir who was married to Sir Arthur Gorge and she by him had Issue Ambrosia Gorge Sir Arthur married his Daughter Ambrosia when she was above the age of eight years and before she was of the age of nine years to Francis Gorge Son and Heir of Sir Thomas Gorge who died before Ambrosia accomplished her age of eleven years The Question upon the whole matter was if the Wardship of the body of Ambâ—osia did belong to the Queen or not It was Resolved in this case amongst other points that the Queen should have the Wardship in regard the Marriage was not a compleat Marriage because the Husband died before the years of consent of Ambrosia Bartons Case 968. A seised of the Mannâ—rs of O. and R. and of Lands called F. in the counry of Lanc. holden in capite 16 Octob. 19 Eliz made a Writing purporting that he did give the said Mannors and Lands to B. C. D. and E. and their Heirs to the several uses and under the agreements contained in a Schedule to the said Deed annexed and by the Schedule he declared the uses to be to himself for Life without Impeachment of wast and afterwards of part of the Lands to M. his Wife for her life and then to the â—ight Heirs of A. with a Proviso that if at any time after his Life during the Life of the said M. the Heirs of â—he said A. or any claiming under his Heirs trouble or disturb the said M. that then the said B. and other the parties should stand seised of the Lands in which she should be disturbed to the use of the said M. and her Heirs for ever Afterwards the said A. made a Lease of the said Mannors and Lands to I. S. for 100 years to begin after the death of M. A. died M entred The Heir of A after his death entred and disturbed M. contrary to the Pâ—oviso it was Resolved by the Justices in this case that the future use was checked by the Lease although it was but interesse termini and that the use to M. and her Heirs could not rise upon her dusturbance but that it was destroyed for ever Vernons Case 969. Margaret Winter Widow the late wife of Henry Vernon seised of Lands in Fee holden in capite enfeoffed thereof I. S. and others to the use of herself for Life and after to B. her younger Son and the Heirs of his body with divers Remainders over with a Proviso if she should be minded to alter the uses and signâ—fie the same under her hand and Seal to her Feoffâ—es and tender to them 10 l. that then all the uses in the Indenture should be voâ—d and hâ—r Feâ—ffees should stand seâ—sed to sâ—ch new uses as should be limited by the said M. M. according â—o the Proviso signified her intent and tendred 10 l. to her Feoffees and then declared that her said Feoffees should stand seised thereof to the use of G. W. for Life the Remainder to the said M. for Life the Remainder to H. Vernon her Son and the Heirs of his Body Henry Vernon died having Issue a Daughter within age and after M. W. died It was holden clearly in the Court of Wards that because there is no mention of any entry by the eldest Son and Heir that the Estate which Henry Vernon had in Tail was not avoided and so by consequence the Daughter of Heary Vernon should be in Ward Sir Robert Remington and Savages Case 970. A levyed a Fine of Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his Executors for 20. years the Remainder to his Son in tail with diverse Remainders over Afterwards he
it was Resolved that upon such Writ the Sheriff or his Officer might without any Offence by a Warrant arrest the person of the Countesse for he is not to dispute the authority of the Coâ—rt in awarding the proces but he is to execute the Writ to him directed But because the Defendants did arrest the Countesse upon a feined action of their own heads without Warrant They were fined and sentenced by the Court. Dag and Penkevells Case 1007. A bill was exhibited in the Star Chamber against the Defendant and divers others for several Offences The Defendant for that he inserted the name of a special Bailiff in a Warrant which was made by the Sheriff with blanks without privity or direction of the Sheriff Note in this Case it was holden that where there are several Defendants and one only is sentenced the other shall have Costs because not charged with the offence for which the sentence was but with other Offences of which they were acquitted 2. It was holden in this Case that a Defendant shall not have benefit of a general pardon at hearing of the Cause unlesse he prayes the same upon his answer put into Court Clerks Case 1008. Note in this Case being the Case of a Purveyor who was sentenced in the Star Chamber for several Offences in executing his Office of Purveyor It was said there were 7. properties incident to every Purveyor 1. He ought to be sufficient to answer the King and the party 2. He is to do his service in person and not by Deputy because it is an Office of Tâ—â—st 3. He is to be sworn in Chancery before he execute his Office for he ought to have authority under the great Seal with blank Labells to insert what he takes 5. His Authority is to continue but six moneths without renewing 6. He ought to take where is plenty and in Convenient time and no more then is sufficient 7. He is to take the things in kind and not money for them Lovice and Goddards Case 1009. The Case was A. the Grandfather had Issue two Sons T. and W. and by his Will devised to T. all his Mannors Lands c. within the Counties of D. and C. viz. to T. and the Heirs males of his body after his decease for 500. years Provided if T. or any Issue male of his body give grant c. the premises or any parcel thereof oâ—herwise then to Lease and demise the same for any term or number of years as may or shall be determinable upon the deaths of aâ—y 2. persons c. to be made in the Leases c. then all the premises for default of such Issues males of the said T to be begotten c. immediatly upon such alâ—â—nation gift grant c. shall remain and come to W. and to the Heirs males of his body c. The devisor dyed T. entred and made a Lease for 1000. years to I. S. who never entred T. dyed without Issue male I. being his Daughter and Heir W. dyed having Issue the Plaintiff who entred upon whom I. entred In this Case it was Resolved in C. B. that the devise to T. and the Heirs males was an estate Tail and the limitation for years void 2. Resolved that there ought to be a concurrence of death without Issue male and also of alienation before the rising of the Remainder 3. That the Remainder should never rise because the particular estate was destroyed by the alienation before the Remainder could commence 4. That the Lease for 1000. years made to I. S. was not an alientation within the Proviso upon which the estate might rise to W. when T. was dead without Issue male because that T. who made the Lease was but Tenant in Tail and then the Lease was determined upon his death It was the opinion of all the Justices in C. B. that the Judgment should be for the Defendant upon which Judgment the Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error in B R. and there by all the Justices upon the matter in Law the Judgment was reversed Mich 3. Jan. Cargenter and Collins Case 1010. In Debt for Rent the Case was A. had a Son and a Daughter and devised that his Son should have his Land at his age of 24. years and gave 40 l. to his Daughter to be paid at her age of 22. years and appointed that C. should be his Excecutor and should have the oversight and dealing of his Lands and goods till his Children should come to the ages aforesaid and dyed C. the Plaintiff made a Lease to the Defendant at Will rendering Rent at Mich. and our Lady-day the Daughter entred upon the Tenant at Will the Tenant attorned to her the Son dyed within the age of 24 years the Defendant did not pay the Rent for which C. brought Debt against him It was adjudged against the Plaintiff Resolved 1. The word Oversight and dealâ—ng with his Lands and goods did not give any Interest to C. the Excecutor but an authority only and that the estate discended to the Son 2. That by the death of the Son the Interest of the Executor was determined for it was noâ— the intent of the devisor to bar the Heir of the Son untill the Son should come to the age of 24 years if he lived 3. That the Tenury at Will was determined by the entry of the Daughter because she entred by Title i. e. as Heir to her Brother Lord Aburgavenny and Edwards Case 1011. An Excommengement was pleaded in Bar and the Certificate of the Bishop of Lâ—ndaph shewed of it but doth not mention by what Bishop the party was Excommenge wherefore it was adjudged void Rastoll and Drapers Case 1012. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of so much Flemish mony the Plaintiff declared for so much English money and it was holden good by the Court. Doyly and Drakes Case 1013. A man had two Closes adjoyning time out of mind and sold one of them who should make the Inclosure the Purchasor or the vendor the Court was divided in opinion Vide 21 Eliz. Diâ—r 372. Williams and Vaughans Case 1014 Scire facias by the Plaintiff against the Defendant who was bail in Debt for I. S. who did not render his body nor pay the Debt the Defendant demurred 1. Because no Capias was sued against the principal and also because the Principal was dead before the Scire facias brought but both points overruled because the Condition of the bail was broken before Whitâ—ock and Harâ—wells Case 1015. A. and B. Sisters Joynt Tenant A. Covenanted with a stranger that he should enjoy the moyety which she held with her Sister in Joynture for 60. years from the death of her Sister if she the said A. should so long live and demised to him the other moyety from her own death for 60. years if her Sister so long lived Adjudged the Lease was void for both moyeties â—he one because of her moyety after the death of her Companion and the other is
be of the Castle The Court held it to be a Mis-tryal although it was tryed for the Defendant who moved the Exception Cooper and Andrews Case 1120. Prohibition upon a Modus Decimandi in a Park the Viccar had 2s yearly and the Shoulder of every third Dear killed in the Parke the Parke being Dis-parked the Viccar sued for Tythes in kind The Court was divided in opinion Nichols and Hobart Justices that notwithstanding the Dis-parking the Modus did remaine Winch and Warburton Justices that by the Dis-parking the prescription as to the Modus Decimandi was determined that Tythes should be paid in kind Quere Cuddington and Wilkins Case 1121. Action upon the Case for calling the Plantiff Theif the Defendant justifies that he had stollen the Sheep of I. S. the Plaintiff said that before the words were spoken he was pardoned by the general pardon and pleaded the Pardon adjudged the Action did lie by reason of the Pardon Pope and Skinners Case 1122. The Case was more fully reported in Hobarts Reports 73. and was this In a Replevin the Defendant avowed as a Commoner taking the Cattle dammage feasants The Plaintiff said that A. was seised of an House and Land wherein he had Common and devised the same to him the 30th of March 11. Jac. to hold from the Feast of Annunciation next for a year The Avowant traversed the Lease modo forma Issue was taken and found thereupon That A. made a Lease to the Plaintiff 25 of May. for a year thence next ensuing It was holden that although this be not the same Lease that the Plaintiff pleaded Yet the Court gave Judgment for the Plantiff for the substance of the Issue is whether the Plaintiff have such a Lease from A. or not as by force thereof he might have Common which appeared he had and the modo forma in the rest is not material but yet it was said he must not depart altogether from the forme of this Issue for if it had been found that he had right of Common by a Lease from another it would not have served his turn for that had been clear out of the Issue both for matter and form 1123. Debt upon an Obligation The Obligation was in Octogefimis Libris Yet the Court held the Obligation to be good Sparke and Parnells Case 1124. A. seised of Gavelkind Land had issue 3. Sons and devised to each of his Sons a several part and if any of them dyed without Issue the other should be his heir It was adjudged Tail in each of them and the Fee simple by the word Heir in the other Slawny and Elbridges Case 1125. It was Resolved in this Case That the Ordinary cannot take an Obligation of the Administrator after the Debts and Legacies paid but the residue of the goods shall remain at the appointment of the Ordinary Weaver and Wards Case 1126. Batterie the Defendant justified that he being a Training at a Common Master as a Soldier discharged his Gun per insortunium hurt the Plaintiff and traversed that he was guilty aliter vel alio modo adjudged the Justification was not good because he ought to have further said that he could not otherwise avoid the fact and when he justifieth the whole fact there needs no traverse Pye and Cookes Case 1127. Two persons exhibited two several informations against an Ecclesiastical person for taking a Lease for years contrary to the Statute of 21. H. 8. It was the opinion of the Court they being exhibited at one time and for one thing the Defendant was not Answer to any of them Pits and James Case 1128. The Case was The Hospital of Donnington in the County of Berks was founded by the name of Minister Dei pauperis domus de Donnington and they made a Lease of parcell of the Lands of the Hospital in English Minister of the Almeshouse of God of Donnington besides Newbury in the County of Berks. It was holden the seeming variance did not hurt nor avoid the Lease for if they do agree in Common understanding it shall be good vide the same Case Hil. 43. Eliz. in Banco Regis Sherborn and Lewis Case Robins and Barnes Case 1129. In a Quod permittat for erecting of an Newsance 20. foot in length and 8 in bredth It was Resolved by the Court that if one be owner of 2 Houses and one doth a Newsance to the other and the owner sells the house which makes the Newsance that the vender shall never abate the Newsance 1130. Words spoken of I. S. he was in prison for stealing of Horses adjudged an Action lyeth for the words otherwise it is if but for suspition 1131. In an Assise the Writ was Recognitionem illum where it should have been illum It was amended Lampleigh and Braithwaits Case 1132. Assumpsit B. having killed a man required the Plaintiff to do his endeavor to get his pardon for which he went to the King to Royston and obtained the pardon In consideration the Plaintiff had done his endeavour the Defendant promised him 200l It was said it was no good consideration because the consideration was executed before the promise But Resolved the Action did well lie because there is a Request before the endeavor had and then the Assumpsit subsequent after the Consideration executed is sufficient Tasker and Salters Case 1133. Batterie The Defendant Justified that he was a Copyholder and that the Lord of the Mannor for him and his Copyholders had a way over the Land of the Plaintiff who was also a Copyholder of the Mannor and that he going in the way was resisted by the Plaintiff for which Molliter he laid his hand on him upon which they were at Issue It was agreed by the Court that the Lord of the Mannor could not have a way over his own Land 2. Agreed although the verdict passed upon a void Issue the same was not remedied by the Statute of 32. H. 8. Wherefore a Repleader was awarded VVintham and Kemps Case 1134. Quare Impedit the Plaintiff counted that he was seized of a Mannor with an Advouson appendant viz. to present every first Turn It was said the viz. was void and made the Count insufficient because crossed the premises but the Court Resolved that the Count was good Coxes Case 1135. Words spoken of an Atturney viz. Thou art a Common maintainer of Suites and a Champerter I will have thee thrown over the Barre the next Terme Adjudged the words were Actionable Small and Dales Case 1136. A. seised of Lands in Copitie had Issue B. his Son and Heir and E. a Daughter by one woman and two Daughters by a second Wife and W. a Son by a third Wife and devised all his Lands to his Wife durante viduitate and dyed the Wife entred and dyed B. before any entred dyed It was Adjudged the Will was void for a third part and that the entry of the Wife in the whole made her seised but of two parts in Common