the Case of making this Statute it was not to overthrow a foundation as it hath been said but it was rather a gratuity of the Subjects to the King for his bounty towards them for whereas by the Statute of Vses Vses were executed in possession so as the Subjects could not dispose of their Lands by their Wills as before the Vses Now by this Statute the King was pleased to give his Royal assent to an Act by which Lands might become devisable in respect of which the Subjects added to this Act the last clause to give him Wardship where it did not lie before by the Common Law and that as a recompence from the Subjects for the King's bounty and therefore it ought to be construed beneficially for the King. And to prevent covin and fraud was not the scope of this Statute For if three purchase Lands unto them and to the heirs of two of them now it is uncertain whose heirs shall inherit for non constat which of them shall survive and therefore no covin is averrable in such case and yet if the survivor of two to whom the Fee is limited dieth his heir within age such heir shall be in Ward So if such Lands be given to two and to the heirs of him of those two who shall first come to the Church of Paul Now it is uncertain which of them shall first come to the Church of Paul yet if he who first cometh to the Church of Paul dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward which Cases prove that covin and fraud were not the cause of making this Statute but onely the thankfulness of the Subjects unto the King for his bounty as abovesaid for if this Act had not been made the Subjects should not have power to dispose of their Lands for the advancement of their children but all should descend So as now the King hath lost the Wardship and Primer seisin of two parts of the Lands of his Tenant and hath also lost the averment of covin which he had by the Common Law where Estates were made by the King's Tenant for advancement of their children In respect of which losses the Subjects gave unto the King Wardship in case where the Lands continue in jointure as to that which hath been said That this Statute shall not be taken by equity I conceive the contrary the words of the Statute are In every such case i. e. In every like case not onely where two or more persons hold jointly to them and the heirs of one of them but also in every the like Case as the Case now in question and in every Case where the life of him who hath the Freehold is the sole impediment quo minus the heir hath not the Land by descent in Demesne And it may be resembled unto the Statute of Marlbridge of Collusion which speaks of Leases for years Quas tradere voluerint ad terminum annorum and yet a Lease for life or Lease for years is within the said Statute for the Statute was made in restraint of an ill liberty that the Tenants had by the Common Law in prejudice of their Lords which see 4 E. 6. 53. Plow 59. And as to the word otherwise that may be construed for payment of his Legacies And as to equity enlarging the Statute speaks where many hold and to the heirs of one yet if two hold to them and the heirs of one of them the same is within the Statute And as to Equity restraining he puts this case Land is given to the Husband and Wife and the heirs of the body of the Wife who have issue the Wife dieth the issue within age he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute but because that other matter That the Estate for life in the Husband is an impediment Quo minus he shall be in Ward It is a maxim of the Common Law That the father shall have the Wardship of the son and heir apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within the Letter of the Statute So if Lands be given to my Villain and to another and to the heirs of my Villain who dieth seised his heir within age I seise the Villain and claim the remainder he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute But I conceive in our Case the King shall have two Wards Simul semel the heir general of Wiseman and the issue in tail the heir general by the Common Law by reason that his father was the King's Tenant who disposed of his Lands for the advancement of his children and therefore the Queen shall have the third part in Ward And also the heir special shall be in Ward for that part of the Statute And it is no new thing to have two Wardships for one and the same Lands As 14 H. 8. of the heir of Cestuy quae use and also of the Feoffee and if the Tenant dieth seised having issue a daughter who is his heir the Lord seiseth the daughter and marrieth her and afterwards a son is born he shall have the Wardship also of him So of the heirs of the Disseisor and Disseisee and he said If Lands holden in chief be leased for life the remainder to A. in Fee A. dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward and that by reason of these words in the Statute In every such case it is not the same Case but the like Case for if he who hath the Fee dieth so as the Freehold survives to the other now the Estate becomes as an Estate for life the remainder over It was adjourned CLXXXIV The Lord Howard and the Town of Walden 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer More Rep. 159. Post 162 163. BEtwixt the Lord Howard and the Town of Walden the Case was That the King made a Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster Tenend in feodi forma reddend inde sibi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. The question was How and of whom the Tenure should be It was argued by Plowden That it should be holden of the King as of his Dutchy he said The King is not bounden by the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum but here upon this Feoffment the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy All Grants of the King notwithstanding that they be of Lands yet they savour of the person of the King and his Prerogative being wrapt up in his person shall guide the disposition of the land and he said that this Tenure shall be implyed by reason and in respect of his person And the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum extends to Tenants onely Libere tenentes magnatum aliorum but the King is not Libere tenens alicujus magnat 32 H. 6. 21 22. The King hath an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy to which
first Fine doth not make any discontinuance and yet he conceived it is not altogether void against the issues before that they enter for no Right remains in the Conusor against his Fine and he conceived also that this clause ex uberiori gratia nostra did extend to pass more than passed before for he conceived that the Queen intended more liberally viz. the Reversion for this same is not any matter of Prerogative but this is a matter of interest which might even in the Case of the King pass out of the King by general words And see 3 H. 6. 6 and 7 Br. Patents A Grant of the King ex insinuatione shall not hinder the force of the words ex mero motu And the opinion of the Court was That the Reversion which was in the King did not pass by this Grant For the scope of the whole Patent was as was conceived to grant the same onely which the Queen had ratione attincturae Anderson held the Patent insufficient because that the Prohibition was not full and certain Also he said That ex speciali gratia c. would not help this Case if it were well argued for the Estate tail is not well recited but onely that he was seised de Statu haereditario c. so as the Queen was deceived Periam contrary The Queen was apprised well of the mischief and Grant aforesaid viz. of such Estate with which he departed by the Fine And as to the other point it was the opinion of Walmsley That the Fine with Proclamation did bind the Entail And as to the Objection which hath been made That the Conusor at the time of the Fine levied was not seised by force of the Entail the same had been good matter to avoid a common Recovery to alledge such matter in the Tenant to the Praecipe but not to this purpose for if Tenant in tail levieth a Fine although he was not seised at the time of the Fine levied by force of the Entail yet such a Fine shall bind the issues So if the Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth the Discontinuee and so levieth a Fine And he conceived That the issue in tail is bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. even of the Gift of the King. And see 19 H. 8. 6. and 7. where it is holden That the issue in tail is bound by the Act of 4 H. 7. And whereas it hath been objected That it doth not extend but to such Fines which make a discontinuance at the Common Law the same is not so for if Tenant in tail of a Rent or Common levieth a Fine with Proclamation it is very clear that the issues shall be barred thereby And he relied much upon the Book of 29 H. 8. Dyer 32. Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King levyeth a Fine or suffereth a common Recovery although it be not a discontinuance because the Reversion is in the King yet it is a bar unto the issue But note That that was before the Statute of 34 H. 8. And see now Wiseman's Case 27 Eliz. Co. 2. part and see the Lord Stafford's Case 7 Jacob. Co. 8 Reports fo 78. CXCII Pleadal 's Case 21 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THe Case was That a man seised of Lands in fee took a Lease by Indenture of the Herbage and Pawnage of the same Land It was the Opinion of the whole Court that the same was no Estoppel to him to claim the Soil or the Freehold And it was said by Plowden and agreed by the Court That if the Father and Son be Ioint-tenants for an hundred years and the Son takes a Lease of his Father of the Lands for fifteen years to begin c. the same shall conclude the Son to claim the whole term or parcel of it by Survivor CXCIII 21 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber NOte That in the Star-Chamber it was resolved by the Advice of many of the Iustices That an Infant having levyed a Fine may declare the uses upon it and such Declaration is good notwithstanding his Nonage and Mr. Plowden affirmed 2 Co. 10 42 57. that so it was adjudged in his own Case by which he lost Lands of the yearly value of 40 l. So a Declaration by a man in duresse is good which Anderson denyed CXCIV The Lord Awdley 's Case 21 Eliz. In the Court of Chancery THE Lord Awdley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Sommerset Dy. 166 324 325. and afterwards by Indenture reciting the said Feoffment and the date of it and also that it was to the intent that his Feoffees should perform his Will as follows in effect viz. My Will is 6 Co. Sir Ed. Cloer's Case That my said Feoffees shall stand seised to the use That the said Hoddy shall receive of the yearly Profits of the said Lands one hundred pounds which he had lent to the said Lord Awdley and also stand seised to pay all his Debts upon Bills signed with his Hand and after the Debts paid That the said Feoffees shall make Estate of the said Lands unto him the said Lord Awdley and Ioan his Wife and to the Heirs of their Bodies c. with divers Remainders over The said Lord had issue by the said Joan and also had issue by a former Wife a Daughter The Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his Wife And it was the Opinion of divers of the Iustices and Sages of the Law That upon this matter no use was changed for it is not a last Will but an intent And although that the Feoffees shall be seised unto the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because that no consideration was for which they should be seised to their own use yet the same cannot make a new use unto the said Lord and his wife in tail without conveying an Estate for the wife is a stranger unto the land and also to the other use And it cannot be a Testament or last Will for the Estate mentioned in the said Writing ought to be made to the said Lord and his wife who cannot take by his own Will. And this matter was depending in the Chancery and the advice of the Iustices being there required they did deliver their opinions That by this Writing no use was changed nor any Estate vested in the said Lord and his wife and a Decree was made accordingly untill proof might be made of such an Estate made CXCV. Borough and Holcroft 's Case 21 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Co. 3. Inst 31. 4 Co. 45. IN an Appeal of Murther by the son of the Lord Borough of the death of his elder brother Henry Borough against Thomas Holcroft who pleaded That heretofore he had been indicted of the Murther of the said Henry Holcroft before J. S. Coroner of the Verge and also Coroner of the Country of Middlesex within which County the Verge was and upon that indictment he was arraigned and confessed the
Writ of Account against Robston Hil. 29 Eliz. Rot. 1. and now Robston brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That whereas the said Writ of Account was brought against the said Defendant as Receiver of Monies for to render Account quando ad hoc requisitus fuerit the said Writ ought to have been more special But the opinion of the Court was That the Writ in his generalty was holden good And so it was adjudged in the Case of one Gomersal scil quod reddat ei rationabilem computum suum de tempore quo fuit Receptor Denariorum ipsius A. Another Error was assigned That the Iury had assessed damages which ought not to be given in an Action upon Account which see 2 R. 2. Acco 45. and 2 H. 7. 13. But see the Book of Entries fo 22. In a Writ of Account against one as Receivor to Account render damages were given For if my Bailiff 1 Leon. 302. by imploying of my Moneys whereof he was the Receivor might have procured to me profit and gain but he neglects it he shall be chargeable to me in right and shall answer for it And here in our case damages shall be given and afterwards notwithstanding all objections made to the contrary the Iudgment given before was affirmed CLXI Yates 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the King ' s-Bench 3 Len. 231. A Writ of Error was brought by Yates and others upon a Iudgment given in a Writ of Partition and it was assigned for Error that the Writ of Partition was not sufficient for it is there set forth That the Plaintiffs insimul pro indiviso tenent cum defendente c. and do not shew of what Estate or whose inheritance See F. N. B. 61. 5. and 62. a. insimul pro indiviso tenent de haereditate quae fuit A. matris of the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1 Cro. 759 760. And yet see F. N. B. 62. A. A Writ of Partition betwixt strange persons without naming haereditate in the Writ And see also that a Partition of Lands in London without shewing of what Estate Courtney and Polewheel's Case Finch and Firrel's Case L. Cheney and Bell's Case See Register 76. 6 Eliz. in a Partition by Courtney against Polewheel no Estate shewed in the Writ so betwixt Finch and Firrel and betwixt Fry and Drake 14 Eliz. Devon. 26 Eliz. betwixt the Lord Cheney and Bell and Mich. 4 and 5 Ph. and Ma. Rot. 208. It was holden That it is not necessary in such a Writ to shew the Estate and such also was the opinion of the Court in the principal Case but Tenants in common ought to shew it in the Count And the Iudgment given was affirmed CLXII Phillips and Stone 's Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 32 H. 6. upon which this special matter was found That one J. S. had heretofore recovered against him 100 l. in an Action of Debt and upon the Capias ad satisfaciend he was taken and committed to the Plaintiff who was Gaoler c. to the Sheriff and so being in Execution he escaped and afterwards he was re-taken by the Plaintiff and kept in prison and so being in prison made the Bond upon which the Action is brought It was said by the Court That if a Prisoner being in Execution escapes with the permission of the Gaoler the Execution is utterly gone and extinguished and the Plaintiff at whose Suit he was taken in Execution shall never resort to him who escapes but shall hold himself to the Goaler for his remedy but if such a Prisoner escapeth of his own wrong without the privity or consent of the Gaoler the Gaoler may well take him again for his indemnity untill the Plaintiff hath determined his Election whether he will have his remedy against the Gaoler or that he will maintain his Execution 13 H. 7. 1 and 2. But as unto the Statute of 23 H. 6. the Court was of Opinion That posito that the party who escapes cannot be taken again yet being taken the Bond which is taken colore Officii is within the said Statute because the party was retaken colore Executionis and so the Bond was void CLXIII Gering 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation against one as Executor 1 Len. 87. the Case was That the Testator of A. by his Will appointed certain lands and named which should be sold by his Executor and the monies thereof coming to be distributed betwixt his daughters when they have accomplished the age of one and twenty years The lands are sold and if the monies thereof being in the hand of the Executor untill the full age of the daughters shall be Assets to pay the debts of the Testator was the question and it was the opinion of the whole Court that the said monies should not be Assets for they said that that money is limited to a special use Quaere of this Case For I have heard that it was afterwards resolved in another Case that the monies in the like Case remaining in their hands should be Assets CLXIV Davies and Percie 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEtween Margaret Davies and one Perce the Case was 2 Roll 284. Goldb 58. That one Anth. Perce upon speech of a marriage to be had betwixt the said Anthony and the mother of Margaret covenanted by Indenture with certain friends of the mother to pay to all the daughters of the mother 20 l. a piece at their several ages of four and twenty years and to perform the Covenant was bound to the said friends in an Obligation Anthony Perce made his Will and willed that his Executors should pay to each of the daughters 20 l. at their several ages of four and twenty years in discharge of the said Covenant and died Now the said Margaret sued the Executors in the Spiritual Court for the 20 l. bequeathed to her and upon this matter the Executors prayed a Prohibition And by the Lord Anderson a Prohibition will lie for here is no Legacy but the Will refers to the Covenant and is in discharge of the Covenant As if A. be indebted to B. in 20 l. And if A. by his Will willeth that his Executors shall pay to the said B. 20 l. in discharge of the said debt the same is not any Legacy but a Declaration that the intent of A. is that the debt shall be paid Periam Iustice was of the same opinion as the Lord Anderson and Anderson said If a Legacy be bequeathed to me and the Executor covenants to pay me the said Legacy and afterwards J. sueth the Executor in the Spiritual Court he shall have a Prohibition Quod caeteri Justiciarii negaverunt See F. N. B. 44 Br. If the Testator by his Will charge his Executors to pay his debts and his creditors they do
not pay them and the creditors sue them in the Spiritual Court they shall not have a Prohibition Vide 6. H. 3. Prohib 17. which Anderson Vehementer negavit and afterwards the Iustices looked and advised upon the Indenture and found that the indenture and Obligation were made to the friends of the mother of the daughters and not to the daughters themselves to whom the Legacies were give and bequeathed and therefore were of opinion that a Prohibition did not lie CLXV Thorp and Tomson 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 336. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That one Thimblethorp was seised of the lands where c. and by Contract sold the same to Thorp but no assurance was yet made and afterwards Thorp before any assurance made sold likewise the said lands to Tomson and afterwards Thimblethorp made assurance thereof to Tomson and afterwards Tomson being seised devised the Lands to his younger son Dyer 376. by these words I bequeath to R. my son all the lands which I purchased of Thorp whereas in speaking the truth according to Law he purchased them by immediate assurance of Thimblethorp although he did contract with Thorp for the same And the opinion of the whole Court was without argument either at Bar or at the Bench That the Devise was good for in the repute of the people they preseised of Thorp for Tomson paid the monies for the same to Thorp and the Court commanded Iudgment to be entred accordingly And afterwards Exception was taken to the Verdict because it is not found by what service the land devised was holden Socage or Knight-service nor that the Devisor is dead and these were holden to be material Exceptions and for that cause the Iudgment was stayed and afterwards the Verdict was rejected and a Venire facias de novo awarded CLXVI Grove and Sparre 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Trespass was brought by Grove against Sparre Process continued untill Sparre was outlawed and now it was moved unto the Court to avoid the Outlawry That the original Writ and all the Iudicial Process thereupon are directed Vice-Com Wigorn. and in the Filazar's Roll in the Margent is written Hereford and in the body of the said Roll is written Et praedictus Grove obtulit se quarto die post Et Vicecomes modo mandat quod praedictus Spar non est inventus c. Ideo praeceptum est Vicecom c. and at the Capias retorned it is entred in the Roll as before Hereford whereas the Capias is directed Vicecom Wigorn. as of right it ought to be and the Roll was perused by the Court and it was ut supra and that without any suspicion of Rasure for which the Court gave day to the Queens Serjeants to advise themselves to maintain the Outlawry and the Defendants Council prayed That a Recordatur be made in what Estate the Roll now is for doubt of amendment by way of Rasure or otherwise which was granted by the Court. CLXVII Rushton 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer RUshton was indebted to the Queen in 200 marks See this Case vouched in C. 4 part in Palmer's Case 3 Len. 204. upon which issued an Extent against him out of the Exchequer to levy the said sum to the Sheriff of Suffolk and it was found by Inquisition That Rushton 22 Junii 22 Eliz. was possessed of a Lease for the term quorundam annorum adhuc venturorum and the debt of the Queen did begin 12 Febr. 17 Eliz. Exception was taken to this Office because that the term is not certainly found but generally quorundam annorum and it was said by Coke That the Office was good notwithstanding that Exception for the Queen is a stranger to the Lease and therefore ought not to be forced to find the precise certainty which see in Partridge's Case in Plowd The Defendant had made a Lease Pro termino quorundam annorum contra formam statuti Also Rushton came not to the Lease by Contract but by compulsary means as by Execution c. And here we are not in the Case of pleading but of an Office where such precise form is not requisite As if it be found by Office that J. S. was seised in tail without shewing of whose gift the same was it is good so an Indictment De morte cujusdam hominis ignoti the same is good but such Endictment taken before the Coronor is not good And that a Lease for years may be extended see 21 Ass 6. If a man be indebted to the Queen being a Lessee for years and afterwards before any Extent comes sells his term the same cannot be extended after And here it appears That this Lease was to begin at a day to come and that the Lessee did enter before the day by which he was a Disseisor and so he said he had lost his term Tenant for the life of another is disseised and dieth he remains a Disseisor and the occupancy doth not qualifie such disseisin And afterwards the Inquisition for the incertainty aforesaid was holden void and a new Commission was awarded CLXVIII Holland and Boin 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Thomas Holland against William Boin's 3 Len. 175. 1 Len. 183. Ow. 138. who made Conusans as Bailey to Thomas Lord Howard and shewed that the Prioress of the late dissolved Priory of Hollywell was seised of the Manor of Priors in the County of Hertford and granted the same by words of Dedi Concessi pro certa pecuniae summa to Thomas Audley Chancellor of England and his Heirs who entred and died seised and that the said Manor inter alia descended to Mary daughter and Heir of the said Thomas Audley who entred and also died seised by force whereof the said Manor descended to the said Thomas Lord Howard c. and shewed that the said conveyance by the prioress to Audley bore date 4 Novemb. 29 H. 8. and then enrolled in the Chancery The Plaintiff in Bar of the Avowry shewed that after the making and enrolling of the said Conveyance the said Prioress Leased the said land to Sir H. Parker for 99 years and conveyed the said land to him and shewed farther That the said Conveyance specified in the Conusans was primo deliberatum 4 Nov. 31. H. 8. Absque hoc that the said Prioress the said 4 Novembris 29 H. 8. dedit concessit the said Manor to the said Audley upon which it was demurred in Law and the Court was clear of opinion That the averment of primo deliberatum against a Deed enrolled ought not to be reversed for by the same reason it may be averred never delivered and so upon the matter Non est factum And it was farther objected That bargain and sale by a Corporation is not good for a Corporation cannot be seised to another use and the nature of such Conveyance is to
in fact so as he might have an Assise or an Action of Trespass Antea 210 1 Cro. 920. Ow. 96. So the Law is now taken A. deviseth his Lands to B. and dieth and a stranger entreth and dieth seised before any Entry by the Devisee now is the Devisee without remedy And here in our Case the Intruder hath not gained any possession in the Lands by his intrusion no more than if the King gives Lands to one in Fee and before the Patentee enters a stranger enters now cannot the Patentee grant it over if he doth not reduce the Estate by Entry See Dyer 9 and 10 Eliz. 266. P. 20 Eliz. in Curia Ward Garbery's Case acc The Queen seised of the Manor of Beverley a stranger erected a Shop in a vacant plat of the Manor and afterwards took the profits of it without paying any Rent for the same to the Queen and afterwards the Queen granted the Manor to the Earl of Leicester and he never entred into the said Shop nor took any Rent for the same and afterwards the Occupier of the Shop died in possession and his Son and Heir entred and the better opinion was that the same was not a descent against the Patentee because at the first it was not a disseisin against the Queen Another Question was moved as to a path-way then in question And the Iury found that one side of the path-way was the Land of the Parson of the Church and the other side the Church-yard and prayed the opinion of the Court therein to whom the interest of the path-way did belong to which it was said by the Court That that ought to be found by the Verdict For although that both be the Freehold of the Parson yet the soil of the path-way might be conveyed by an express Grant unto another But the Court seemed to incline that the soil of the path-way did belong to him who had the Lands on both sides and that is the Case as well of a high-way as of a path-way And it is also good Evidence to prove such matter Who hath used to cut down the Trees or to cleanse the way CLXXXIII Wiseman 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Court of Wards 6 Co. Weeden Baldwin's Case IN the Court of Wards before the Lord Treasurer Master of the Wards Wray chief Iustice Anderson and Periam Assistants to him the Case was That Wiseman was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service in Capite had issue by a former Wife who died and made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of her who should be his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of himself and of his issue of the body of such Wife to be begotten the remainder over Wiseman took a Wife and had issue and died If now living the Wife the issue shall be in Ward was the question It was argued by Coke That he shall not be in Ward And first it was agreed of both sides and also by the Iustices That it was a remainder and not a reversion and that at the Common Law the descent of a remainder during the Estate for life doth not entitle the King unto Wardship and there we are to see if upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. the last branch of it where two or more persons hold any Lands of the King by Knights-service jointly to them and the heirs of one of them and he that hath the Inheritance thereof dieth his heir being within age in every such Case the King shall have the Ward and marriage of the body of such heir so being within age the life of the Freeholder or Freeholders of such Lands notwithstanding See 33 H. 6. 14. That the father to prevent Wardship may alien and take to him and his son and the heirs of the father which mischief was intended to be remedied by the said Statute But these words shall not in construction thereof extend farther than the words especially because they cross the Common Law and go to charge the Inheritance of others and therefore they shall be taken strictly and not by equity as the Statute of West 2. cap. 40. Cum quis alienat jus uxoris suae concordat est Quod de cetero secta mulieris aut ejus haeredis non differatur propter minorem aetatem haeredis qui warrantizare debuit that Statute is taken strictly for if the Vouchee voucheth over the second Vouchee shall have his age Quod vide 18 E. 4. 16. Also the Stat. of West 1. enacts That where the Disseisor dieth seised the Disseisee shall have his Writ upon the Disseisin against the heir of the Disseisor of what age soever he be So the heirs of the Disseisee yet it is holden 9 E. 3. If the Disseisor leaseth for life and dieth and the Lessee be impleaded and makes default after default upon which the heir of the Disseisor prayeth to be received being within age he shall have his age notwithstanding the said Statute which shall be taken strictly because it controlls the Common Law and chargeth the Inheritance of the Subject So upon the Statute of West 1. cap. 39. That none shall vouch out of the line upon that Statute although the Tenant to the Action against whom the Praecipe is brought is bound by the Statute yet Tenant by receit is at large and he may vouch at the Common Law 2 H. 7. 2. 16 H. 7. 1. for these Statutes go in abridgment of the Common Law and therefore shall be taken strictly Now according to this Statute it is of the same nature as the other before remembred and therefore shall not be extended in construction beyond the Letter As Sir Rowland Hill's Case Grandfather father and son the grandfather seised of Land ut supra makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the son in Fee The grandfather dieth the father dieth the son shall not be in Ward Causa qua supra For this Statute shall not be construed by equity and by it the words thereof Preferment of children shall not extend unto the childrens children but to the children onely of the King's Tenant who makes the Conveyance And the words in this Statute or otherwise shall not be intended to other persons than are remembred in the Statute There was a Case late where the Statute was construed in such a manner Quod vide 18 Eliz. 345. Thornton's Case A Lady seised of Lands in chief made Conveyance of her Lands for the advancement of her bastard-bastard-daughter the same Conveyance is not within the Statute See also the Lord Powes's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. So in the Case of Sir Hugh Calverley the Law was taken That where the Husband dieth seised in the right of his Wife and they levy a Fine unto the use of the Husband and Wife for the advancement of the Husband such Conveyance and disposition is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Popham contrary And as to