King and a Common Person was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant Dyer Iustice I conceive That it is a good Purchase in Law as well in the Case of the King as in the Case of a Common Person And see to that purpose 39 E. 3. and in this Case If the King had granted the Land to John Holt without naming him Son the same had been a good Purchase But if the King had called him John the Son of Thomas without giving him a sirname there such a Purchase should not be good if he were a Bastard because he hath not Nomen Cognitum as where he hath a sirname and a Man cannot purchase by the Name of John only and then if he be called John the Son of Thomas when he is not his Son it cannot be good And such Case hath here lately been adjudged Where the Lord Powis gave certain Lands to Thomas Gray his Son by him begotten upon the Body of Jane Orwell and in truth the said Thomas was a Bastard of the said Lord Powis and the name of Jane was not Orwell but the Daughter of one Punt and the Mother of Jane who was first married to Punt betwixt whom Jane was begotten married with one Orwell and yet notwithstanding that wrong Name and that the said Thomas Gray was not the Son of the Lord Powis born of Jane Orwell but of one Jane Punt yet it was a good Purchase and Gift to Thomas Gray because it was his known Name Manwood As I take it the Letters Patents are Ex certa scientia ex mero motu and then the Kings Grant shall not be taken in such plight as the Grant of a Common Person void for incertainty because that the King takes notice of the Person of what degree he is and in the Kings Case where he takes knowledge by the words Ex certa scientia there all matter of uncertainty shall be avoided and made good but not matter which is not true And for uncertainty he said Where a thing may be taken two ways there without the words Ex certa scientia c. the best shall be taken for the King and strongest against the Patentee But by Dyer by the words Ex certa scientia c. that incertainty is saved and shall be taken strong for the Patentee and if it can any ways be taken for him then the Patent shall not be void and then when in the principal Case there is the word Son and the word Son may be taken two ways either for a base Son or a true Son there by the words Ex certa scientia the King taketh upon him to know in what manner he is Son and a base Son is a Son Quodam modo so as the Letters Patents shall not be false But where the King in his Letters Patents recites a thing which is false that shall not make the Patent good although the words be Ex certa scientia et mero motu LXX Mich. 15. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was agreed by the Court That if a Man in a Replevin pleadeth and they are at Issue and the Iury is charged and gone from the Bar and returns to give their verdict and the Plaintiff be non-suit their retorn irreplevisable shall not be awarded as in case if a verdict had been given But the party may have a Writ of second Deliverance as well as if he had been nonsuit before declaration or appearance LXXI Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Husband levied a Fine of his Land and died and his Wife within the 5 years after the death of her Husband brought her Writ of Dower but did not pursue her Writ until 6 years were past and then she would have revived her Suit. And Meade Serjeant demanded the Opinion of the Iustices If the Wife should be barred of her Dower or not And by Manwood Iustice it was moved again If they at the Bar did agree That if a Fine be levied by the Husband and the Wife doth not make her claim within the 5 years if for that she shall be barred And he conceived That she should not be barred For he said That he who hath Title to the Land at the time of the Fine levied if he doth not sue within 5 years after his Title accrued should be barred But where the Title accrues after the Fine there he who hath Title shall not be barred by the 5 years but he may come 30 years after and make his Title and Claim But in the principal case he said That if the Fine had been levied after the death of the Husband there the Wife should be barred if she did not pursue her Right and Claim within 5 years And he agreed That if the 5 years be a Bar here that then by the Wives suffering of her Writ of Dower to be discontinued till after the 5 years were past that she should be barred because vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt Leges Harper said That the Discontinuance should be no Bar unto her For he said That if a gift be made to one in tail the Remainder over and Tenant in tail dieth without Issue and he in the Remainder brings a Formedon in the Remainder within 5 years and discontinueth it yet it is no Bar but that after the 5 years ended he may revive his Suit Which Manwood denyed And then Dyer came into the Court and the Case was moved to him And he said That the not prosecuting of the Action by the Wife should be a Bar unto her and that the Marriage which was before the Fine was the cause of Dower although she could not come to be endowed until after the death of her Husband And he said That the Wife could make no other to have her Dower but only by bringing of her Writ of Dower and therefore if she did surcease her time until the 5 years were past that her new claim by her new Writ would not revive the Ancient Claim and that therefore she should be barred For she could not enter into the Land to defeat the Fine And he said That as to the principal Case That it was adjudged Anno 4 H. 8. And it was also said by the Court That an Assignment of Dower made to the Wife in the Court of Wards was no sufficient claim of the Wife because she cannot have a Writ of Dower there and there by this surceasing of her demand of her Dower for the 5 years at the Common Law that she should be barred LXXII Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for years and the Lessee Covenanted to make Reparations The Lessor granted the Reversion to another and the Lessee for years made his Wife his Executrix and died It was holden in this Case by the Court That the Grantee of the Reversion should not recover damages but from the time of the Grant and not for any time before But yet the
Plaintiff had acquitted and discharged him of the Reparations Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Manwood The same is an Acquittal and Discharge of the Reparations as well for the time past as for the time to come by force of the said Covenant and amounts to as much as if he had Released the Covenant And it was moved If the Covenant being broken for want of Reparations If now that Acquital and Discharge or Release of the Covenant should take away the Action upon the Obligation which was once forfeited before And it was the Opinion of Manwood That it should not For if one be bound in an Obligation for the performance of Covenants and before the breach of any of them the Obligee releaseth the Covenants and afterwards one of the Covenants is broken the Obligation is not forfeited for there is not now any Covenant which may be broken and therefore the Obligation is discharged But if the Release had been after the Covenant broken otherwise all which Dyer and Mounson Concesserunt CVI. Mich. 20. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HVsband and Wife seised in the right of his Wife of certain Customary Lands in Fee he and his Wife by Licence of the Lord make a Lease for years by Indenture rendring Rent have Issue two Daughters The Husband dieth The Wife takes another Husband and they have issue a Son and a Daughter The Husband and Wife die The Son is admitted to the Reversion and dieth without Issue It was holden by Manwood That this Reversion shall descend to all the Daughters notwithstanding the half-blood For the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by Licence of the Lord is a Demise and Lease according to the Order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the Devise the possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder For his possession is Customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be said the possession of the other and therefore there is no possessio fratris in this Case But if he had been Guardian by the Custom or this Lease had been made by surrender There the Sister of the half-blood should not inherit And Meade said That the Case of the Guardian had been so adjudged Mounson to the same intent And if the Copyhold descend to the Son he is not Copyholder before admittance 1 Len. 174 175. but he may take the profits and punish Trepass c. CVII Hinde and Lyons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 11. Dyer 124. Ante 64. DEbt by Hinde against one as Son and Heir of Sir John Lyon who pleaded Nothing by descent but the third part of the Mannor of D. The Plaintiff replyed Assets And shewed for Assets That the Defendant had the entire Mannor of B. by descent Vpon which they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence to the Iury That the Mannor was holden by Knights-Service and that the said Sir John the Ancestor of the Defendant by his Will in writing devised the whole Mannor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years And that at the age of the Son of 24 years his Wife should hold the third part of the said Mannor for the Term of her life and his Son should have the residue And if his Son do die before he come to the age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain over to J.S. the Remainder over to another The Devisor died the Son came to the age of 24 years Dyer and Mounson Iustices conceived That here was not any Estate tail and then for two parts he is not in by descent For no Estate tail shall rise unless that the Son dieth before his said age and therefore the Tayl never took effect and the Feesimple descends and remains in the Son if not that he dieth before the age of 24 years and then the whole vests with the Remainder over but now having attained the said age he hath a Fee and that by descent of the whole Mannor and then his Plea is false that but the third part descended And a general Iudgment shall be given against him as of his own debt And an Elegit shall issue forth of the moyety of all his Lands as well those which he hath by descent from the same Ancestor as of his other Lands And a Capias lieth also against him But Manwood Iustice conceived That if a general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such case a Capias doth not lie although in case of a false Plea it lieth But Dyer held the contrary And the Writ against the Heir is in the debet detinet which proves That in Law it is his own Debt And he said That he could shew a President where such an Action was maintainable against the Executor of the Heir CVIII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Seised of Lands in Fee Devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease she to give the same to whom she will Latch 9,39 had issue two Daughters and died The Wife granted the Reversion to a stranger and committed Waste And the two Daughters brought an Action of Waste It was holden by the Iustices That by that Devise the Wife had but an Estate for life but she had gained authority to give the reversion by his Will to whom she pleased And such a Grantee should be in by A. and his Will For A. had given expresly to his Wife for life and therefore by Implication she should not have any further Estate But if an express Estate had not been appointed to the Wife by the other words an Estate in Feesimple had passed CIX Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lessor Covenanted with his Lessee That the Lessee should enjoy the Lands demised without any lawful Eviction And afterwards upon a Suit depending in Chancery by a stranger against the Lessor for the Land demised The Chancellor made a Decree against the Lessor and that the stranger should have the Land. It was moved If that Decree were a lawfull Eviction by which the Covenant was broken It was holden by the Lord Dyer That the same was not any Eviction For although that in Conscience it be aequum that the said stranger have the possession yet the same is not by reason of any right paramount the title of the Lessor which was in the party for whom it was decreed CX The Marquess of Northamptons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. PArre Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bouchier the Heir of the Earl of Essex 1 Roll. 430. who levied a Fine of the Land of the said Lady Sur Conusans de droit c. with a Grant and render to them for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the Lady And afterwards by Act of
here it is found That she clearly departed out of London but they have not found that she dwelt in the Country c. but only that she went to Melton but she ought to do doth before her Estate shall cease It was argued by Towse for the Plaintiff That the Defendant ought to be found guilty of the Ejectment For it is found That the Defendant entred before the Commandment of Anne but they have not found that Anne was alive Fenner Iustice the same is well enough and so it was holden 18 Eliz. in this Court for although her life be not found yet it shall be intended that she was alive For the Iury did not doubt of it and the Conclusion of the Verdict is That if it shall seem to the Court that his Entry is lawful Then the Defendant is not guilty So as the doubt of the Iury is only upon that point Which Wray concessit Gawdy Iustice If one Deviseth Land to one for life upon Condition That his Estate shall cease which is all one with the Case at Bar and after the breach of the Condition he continueth in possessions he is not Tenant for life but Tenant at sufferance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant for the life of another continues in possession after the death of Cestuy que vie he hath not any Freehold remaining in him for if he dieth nothing descends And so it was lately adjudged by all the Iustices of England upon a Conference had between them And the Book of 18 E. 4. is not Law. Which Gawdy Iustice concessit See 35 H. 8. 57. acc And he said That the same shall be as a Limitation by which the Estate shall cease without an Entry And here in this Case because they have not found That Anne had dwelt in the Country here is no breach of the Condition in the Case And afterwards by the Advice of the whole Court Iudgment was given for the Defendant Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCV Cadee and Oliver's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione Firmae by Cadee against Oliver 1 Cro. 152. Roll. Tit. Grant. 48. of a House in Holborn c. The Case was The Lord Mountjoy and the Lady Katherine his Wife seised of the said House and of other Lands in Fee in the right of the Wife 6 Eliz. acknowledged a Statute-Staple of 1200 l. to Sir Lyonel Ducket Afterwards 9 Eliz. the said Lord Mountjoy and his said Wife Leased the said House to Hoskins for 21 years And afterwards by Indenture 11 Eliz. they Leased the same to Sir Tho. Cotton for 99 years to begin at Michaelmas last past 12 Eliz. Sir Lyonel Ducket extended his Statute and the Land extended was delivered to him at 53 l. 7 s. per annum who held the same until 22 Eliz. Anno 23 Eliz. the Lord Mountjoy and his Wife levied a Fine to Perry to the use of Perry and his Heirs 27 Eliz. Sir Thomas Cotton not being upon the Land granted omnia tunc bona catalla sua to Robert Cotton his Son 28 Eliz. the Lady Mountjoy died Mich. 29 Eliz. the Lease to Hoskins expired Perry entred and Leased the House to Oliver the Defendant for 21 years And afterwards Robert Cotton entred and Leased the House c. to the Plaintiff It was first moved by Brantingham and argued by him If this Lease for 99 years which was made to begin after the Lease made to Hoskins should pass to Robert Cotton by the words aforesaid But the Court eased him from arguing of that point for it was holden That it passed notwithstanding the word tunc 1 Cro. 386. Another matter argued by him was because at the time of the Grant the Lands were in extent and so the said Sir Thomas Cotton had but a possibility If therefore the said Grant made during the Extent was good And he argued That it was for it is more than a bare possibility for it is an Interest vested And in some Cases a possibility may be granted As 19 H. 6. 2. The King granted to a Prior That when any Tenth is granted to the King by the Clergy his House shall be discharged of it c. And 19 E. 2. Avowry 224. The Lord grants to his Tenant That if he dieth his Heir within age that such Heir shall not be in Ward So 21 E. 4. 44. A Grant unto an Abbot to be discharged of the Collectorship of Tenths when it shall be granted by the Clergy It hath been Objected That the Term for 99 years is suspended therefore it cannot be granted during the suspension But the same is not so for a thing suspended may be granted As 15 Eliz. Dyer 319. Husband and Wife Ioynt-Tenants of Lands in Fee The Queen having a Rent out of it in Fee giveth the Rent to the Husband and his Heirs now the Husband Deviseth the said Rent and dieth the same is good a Devise notwithstanding the suspension And he cited the Cases 16 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 22. And 20 E. 3. ibid. 31. A Lease is made to one for life and if he dieth within 20 years that his Executors and Assigns shall hold the Land until the expiration of the 20 years the said Interest may be granted Which Wray Chief Iustice denyed See Gravenors Case 3 4 Ma. Dyer 150. such Interest is void It was further moved by him and argued If the Conusee of the Fine might avoid the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotten And he said He could not for he is in under the Lessors So is 34 E. 1. Recovery in value 36. see the Case there And here although the Wife after the death of her Husband may affirm or disaffirm the Lease at her Election yet this Election is not transferred to the Conusee by the Fine but the Conusee shall be bound by the Fine See 33 H. 8. Dyer 51. As Tenant in tail makes a Lease for years not warranted by the Statute and dieth the Issue alieneth the Land by Fine before affirmation or disaffirmation of the Lease by acceptance or Entry the Conusee cannot avoid this Lease for the Liberty is not transferred Which Gawdy Iustice concessit And Election cannot be transferred over to the prejudice of another person As if a Rent de novo be granted to the Father in Fee who dieth before Election the Heir cannot make it an Annuity to defeat the Dower of the Wife quod Curia concessit It was also moved by Brantingham If the Lessee might enter upon the Conusee of the Statute after his Extent expired without suing forth a Scire facias But the Court discharged him from arguing that Point for that by the Death of the Lady Mountjoy the Extent was void and therefore the Feoffee or Conusee might avoid it by Entry And so Wray Chief Iustice said it had been adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas. At another day the Case was argued by Stephens on the part of
Issue in tail may enter upon the Conusee of a Statute acknowledged by his Father For if Execution had been sued against the Issue in tail it had been a Disseisin And see 2 R. 3. 7. That in such case the Wife or her Heirs may enter upon the Conusee And by Consequence the Conusee who is in by her c. Cook contrary I conceive that this Grant of this Lease by Sir Thomas Cotton to his Son is not good 2 Roll. 48 1 Cro. 15. 1 Inst 22. b. for it is but a possibility and no Interest I agree all the Cases which have been put before for Law but they cannot be applyed to this Case The Book in 7 H. 6. 2. is That if the Term of the Wife be extended upon the Statute of the Husband that the Wife shall have the residue after the death of the Husband but it doth not say that the Wife or her Husband may grant it during the Extent which is the matter now in Question And I conceive That Sir Thomas Cotton hath but a possibility For the Conusee upon the Extent hath but an incertain Interest And although it may be by some means reduced to a certainty in the Chancery where the Costs and Damages shall be assessed yet until it be reduced to a certainty it cannot be granted And therefore it is clear That if I have a Term for 8 years in Land and grant it unto another until he hath levied 100 l. and all his Costs of suit for it by this Grant all the Interest of the Term is in the Grantee and nothing is in me but a possibility 8 Co. Mannings Case And so it was holden in the Common Pleas by the Lord Anderson the day when he was made Chief Iustice there At which time this Case was put Lands of the yearly value of 20 l. are Leased to one until he hath levied 100 l. And the matter was What estate the Grantee hath And it was holden That if Livery be not made that he hath but an estate at Will for the profits of the Lands are incertain the one year more and the other year less And Bromley Lord Chancellor was then of the same Opinion Then if in case of a Lease it be so it shall also be so in case of an Extent and in both the Cases the whole Interest is out of the parties And 19 Eliz. the Case was in this Court That the Lessee for years devised his Term to his Executors for the payment of his Debts and Legacies and after the payment of them the residue of the years he devised to his Son The Executors enter which is an assent to the remainder he in the remainder grants his Interest And it was holden void because it was but a possibility and so incertain and although it might be reduced to a Certainty afterwards yet the same is not sufficient for it ought to be reduced to a certainty at the time of the grant And 17 Eliz. in this Court the Case was That Land was given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Husband the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth the Wife enters and entermarrieth with the Lessee And it was moved If the Interest of the Lessee by the entermarriage was extinct And it was holden That it was not for it was but a possibility and not an Interest quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam And if a possibility cannot be extinct then it cannot be granted And he denyed the Case put by Stephens Where a Man seised of Lands Leaseth the same for years to begin at a day to come and afterwards before the day the Lessor is disseised now during that Dissesin the Grantee cannot enter for his future Interest For the Feesimple being turned into a Right so also shall be the Interest And that is proved by Delamere's Case A Feoffment in Fee was made to the use of A. for life and afterwards to the use of C. for life and afterwards to the use of D. in Fee and afterwards A. enfeoffed a stranger who had notice of the use The same doth take away all the other uses and said Feoffee although he had notice of the use yet he shall not be seised to the first use for the estate out of which the first uses do arise is taken away and then also the uses And he said also That the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotton is not good for it was made 11 Eliz. And it is found by Verdict That 10 Eliz. a Writ of Extent issued forth upon the Statute then was the Lands in the hands of c. during which time the Lord Mount joy and his Wife could not make the Lease aforesaid to the said Sir Thomas Cotton And as to that see 5 E. 3. Retorn of the Sheriff 99. See the Case of 3 E. 6. Dyer 67. Stringfellow's Case Then admitting the Lease to Sir Thomas Cotton yet the Lessee cannot put out the Conusee without a Scire facias for the Conusee is in by matter of Record Also here this Lease made by the Husband and Wife without any Rent reserved is utterly void and then the Conusee shall take advantage of it 9 H. 7. 24 18 E. 4. 2. And so was it ruled in the Case of Seniori puero in the case of an Enfant And see 7 Eliz. Dyer 239. Where the Provost of Wells being Parson impersonee of the Patronage of W. Leased the Tythe for 50 years rendring Rent which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter but not by the Patron and Ordinary And afterwards by Act of Parliament the Provostry was united to the Deanery cum primo vacare contigerit The Provost died the Dean accepteth the Rent The same shall not bind the Church for the Lease is void as it is of a Parson or Prebend c. And so the Dean shall take advantage of it although not privy to it See 16 Eliz. Dyer 337. Lands given to a Parson and his Successors for to find Lights and he Leaseth the same for life The Rent is so imployed accordingly The Incumbent dieth The Successor accepteth the Rent the King grants it over The Patentee shall avoid the Lease as the Successor might have done before the Statute if he had not accepted the Rent but the acceptance before the Statute shall bind the Successor for that it was but a voidable Lease And the Case between Harvy and Thomas which hath been put on the other side serves to our purpose for there the Conusee shall avoid a Lease in Law which is void and here in the Principal Case the Lease is void for that no Rent is reserved upon it Wherefore c. It was adjourned CCVI. Beadle's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was That A. Leased to B. certain Lands for 40 l. per annum 2 Len. 115. And a stranger Covenanted with A. That B. should pay him 40 l. for the Farm and Occupation
Land as it might be Leased And so it is where the Sheriff retorns Issues c. for the Corn there growing may be of the value of 40 l. where the Land is but of the value of 10 l. CCXXV. Weshborn and Mordant's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 103. 1 Cro. 191.199 1 Len. 247. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That whereas he was possessed of a piece of Land containing 2 Acres called Parsonage lying adjoyning to a certain River from the 20th of May 29 Eliz. usque diem impetrationis istius Brevis c. the Defendant had the said 20th day of May estopped the said River with certain Loads of Earth and so continued estopped until the 14th of February by reason of which his Land was drowned and so he had lost the profit of it for the said time It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That upon the Declaration it doth not appear that there is any cause of Action for the Plaintiff hath made title to the Land drowned from the 20th day so as that day is excluded and the Nusance is laid to be done the said 20th day and if so then he cannot complain of any wrong the Nusance being laid to be before any possession of the Plaintiff To which it was answered That although the stopping was made before the possession yet the Continuance of it after is a new wrong for which an Action lieth As 5 H. 7. 4. It was presented That an Abbot had not cleansed his Ditch c. by reason of which the Highway is estopped The Successor shall be put to Answer to that Indictment by reason of the Continuance of it See that continuance of a Nusance is Quasi a new Nusance 14 15 Eliz. Dyer 320. And it may be that the Plaintiff was not damnified until a long time after the 20th of May scil after the Estopping and the words of the Writ here are satisfied and true Afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXXVI The Queen and Scot's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of London and Scot And the Case was 1 Len. 40. A. seised of an Advowson in gross holden of the Queen in Chief aliened the same by Fine without Licence of the King The Church became void The Conusee presented the Queen without Office found brought a Quare Impedit The Question was If the Queen without Office found should present It was agreed by the whole Court That if the alienation had been by Deed only there the Queen without Office should not have the presentment For upon such alienation by matter in fait without Licence no Scire facias shall issue without Office found of the alienation But upon Alienation without Licence by matter of Record a Scire facias lieth before Office. And in the last Case the Queen shall have the Issues from the time of the Scire facias retorned but in the first Case from the time of the Office found See Stam. Prerogat see 8 E 4. 4. It was then moved That if the Queen being entituled to present ut supra pardon the Conusee all alienations without Licence and Intrusions If the Estate of the Incumbent thereby be confirmed But the Court would not argue that Point CCXXVII Sir Thomas Holland and Bonis's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin 1 Len. 183. 2 Len. 12. Owen Rep. 138 139 the Defendant made Conusans as Baily to Tho. Lord Howard and shewed That the Prioress of the late dissolved Priory of Hallywell was seised of the Mannor of Priors in the County of Hertford and granted the same by words of Dedi concessi pro certa pecuniae summa to the Lord Audley Chancellor of England and his Heirs who died thereof seised and that the said Mannor inter alia descended to Mary Daughter and Heir of the said Tho. Lord Audley who died thereof seised by force of which the said Mannor descended to the said Tho. Lord Howard c. And shewed That the Conveyance by the Prioress bore date 4. Novemb. 29 H. 8. and then enrolled in the Chancery The Plaintiff in bar of the said Conusans shewed That after the making and inrolling of the said Conveyance the said Prioress Leased the Lands to Sir Hen. Parker for 99 years and conveyed the said Lands to himself and further shewed That the said Conveyance specified in the Conusans fuit primo deliberatum 4. November 31 H. 8. without that that the said Prioress the said 4. Novemb. 29 H. 8. dedit concessit the said Mannor to the said Lord Audley Vpon which it was demurred And it was the clear Opinion of the Court That the Averment de primo deliberatum against a Deed enrolled ought not to be received For by the same reason it might be averred Nunquam deliberatum and so upon the matter Non est factum It was further Objected That a Bargain and Sale by a Corporation is not good For a Corporation cannot be seised to another's use and the nature of such a Conveyance is to take effect by way of use in the bargain and afterwards the Statute draws the possession to the use But the Court utterly rejected the said Exception as dangerous for that such were the Conveyances of the greater part of the possessions of Monasteries And it was in this Case said by Shuttleworth Serjeant That although such a Corporation could not take an Estate to another's use yet they might charge their own possessions with an use to another CCXXVIII The Queen and the Bishop of Gloucester's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Queen recovered in a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester and one S. in which Quare Impedit the Bishop pleaded as Ordinary scil Quod ipse nihil habet nec habere clamat in Ecclesia praedict neq in Advocatione ejusdem nisi Admissionem Institutionem c. And now the Bishop and S. the Incumbent brought a Writ of Error And If this Writ of Error brought joyntly by the Bishop and the Incumbent was well brought was the Question Some held That the Bishop had not cause to bring Error for that he had disclaimed in the Church and the Patronage of it For if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant disclaims he shall never have a Writ of Error 16 E. 3. 7. Fitz. Error 78. And Note That in the Writ of Error at the Bar the perclose was Ad grave damnum Episcopi whereas the Bishop could not be grieved by the said Iudgment because he had nothing nor claimed any thing in the Church c. Wray The Writ of Error had been the better if those words ad grave damnum Episcopi had been left out for the Bishop hath lost nothing And it was Objected by some If the Iudgment in this Case be reversed the usual Iudgment cannot be given scil That the Bishop shall be restored to