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
nostra Regia suscipimus in protectionem nostram Regiam corpus terras bona de Warren Et nolumus quod inquiratur neque quod Praerogativa nostra arguatur The Protection was disallowed by the Court and it was said That the Prerogative of the King which tends to the prejudice of the Subject is not allowble Baldwine and Cooks Case 359. A Lease was made to Husband and Wife for years if they or any issue of their body should so long live one of them died having no Issue Resolved the Lease was not determined for it is to be taken if the Husband or the Wife or the Issue should live the Lease was to continue Kernes Case 360. Debt upon Obligation The condition was That if the Defendant within a Month after the decease of his Mother pay to I. S. 20. l. or 20. Kyne at the Election of I. S. that then the Obligation should be void The Defendant pleaded that the Plantiff did not shew to him his Election which of the things he would have within the month Resolved that he ought to have shewed his Election to the Defendant within convenient time before the expiration of the month for it shall be against Reason that the Defendant shall be charged to make provision of both things 361. The Case was T. B. recovered in a Quare Impedit and before he had Execution he was Out-lawed The Queen brought a Scire facias to execute the Judgment It was resolved that the Scire facias to execute the Judgment was well brought and there was priviledge enough to sue execution of the Judgment because the thing as it was in the Plantiff is in the Queen and that is a thing in action and therefore it cannot be a thing in possession in the Queen and so she is not to present but is to prosecute the Execuâ—ion of the Judgment 362. Note where an Obligation was taken with a Condition that he should not exercise the Art and Mystery of a Black-Smith within such a Town Resolved the Obligation was void and the Condition a Condition against the Law Mascalls Case 363. A. leased an house to B. for years B. covenanted to repair the house and that it should be lawfull for A. his Heirs and Assignes to enter into the House and see in what Reparations it stood and if upon view any default should be found and thereof warning be given to B. his Executors c. then within four months after such warning it should be amended A. granted the Reversion over to C. in Fee who upon view gave warning to B. which upon warning was not repaired upon which C. as Assigne of A. brought Covenant it was said the Action did not lye because the house became ruinous before his interest in the Reversion Resolved the Action did well lye for it is not conceived upon the ruinous Estate of the house but for the not repairing within the time appointed and so it is not material at what time the house became ruinous Caines Case 364. C. and his Wife being Joynt-Tenants the Husband alone was impleaded and made default the Wife prayed to be received it was the opinion of the Court she was not receivable because she was no Party to the first Writ Then he prayed that he in reversion might be received It was said he was receivable because but one of the Tenants for life was impleaded The opinion of the Court that he should be received and might plead the Joynt-Tenancy in abatement of the Demandants Writ Purfreys Case 365. P Leasee of 40. year of a Tavern in London leased the same to J S for three years who covenanted and granted with P. that from time to time he would keep the same a Tavern and sell Wine there and that he monthly and every month upon request would make an account to the Lessor or his Assignes of all Wines should be there uttered or sold and would pay to the Lessor or his Assigns 30. s. for every Tun of Wine sold P. granted the Interest of the Reversion of the Term to a Stranger and afterwarda he demanded an account and the Lessee refused upon which he brought the action upon the Bond to perform Covenants and if the Grantor should give an account notwithstanding his Assignment or the Grantee should have an account as Assignee by the Statute of 32. H. 8. was the Question the Case is argued but not resolved 366. Note by Anderson Chief Justice there is a difference between general words infamous given to a private person and when to a publique Officer or Magistrate for a private person is not slandered without a particular Infamy but by general words a Magistrate or Officer may be slandered Wherefore Resolved that these words spoken of a private person were not actionable viz. Thou shouldst have sit on the Pillory if thou hadst thy desert The Lord Wentworths Case 367. The Case was The Lord Wentworth procured a Grant of the Wardship of Withypoll from the Master of the Wards Attorney and Auditor and dyed The Lord Wentworth his Son procured a Bill assigned and upon it Letters Pattents within four months to be made to him which Letters Pattents were to this effect That the Queen had granted to him Custodiam haeredis terrae de Withypoll Proviso that if the said Withypoll shall die within age not married nor the effect of his marriage taken that then the said Lord Wentworth the Son should have the Ward and marriage of his Heir at the end of his Letters Pattent there was a general Non obstante of all Statutes Restrictions c. The Lord agreed with Withypoll for his Wardship and in consideration of 400. l. to him paid did release to him the Wardship and gave liberty to him to marry at his pleasure Proviso if he did not pay 1200. l. at a certain day the Grant should be void before which day Withypoll died his Brother being his Heir within age and the Lord Wentworth sued to have the Wardship of him by his Letters Pattents There were four points in the Case 1. If the Patent be persuant to the Statute of 32. H. 8. of Erection of the Court of Wards 2. If this Statute which enabled the Masters and Officers of the Court of Wards should have Authority to make Sale and Grants of the Kings Wards had restrained the King himself that he could not grant them 3. If the general Non obstante had dispensed with the Statute in the two points aforesaid The 4. If the effect of the marriage shall be said to be taken This case was argued by Cook and Egerton for the Queen and Heale and Yelverton for the Lord Wentworth but the case was not resolved but adjourned Ideo Qu. Margery Davies Case 368. A man was bound in Covenant and Obligation upon it to pay to the three daughters of a Stranger 10. l. a piece at their several ages of 21. years the party lying sick made his Will and in performance of the
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
when the Vendee had once cut down the Woods and Underwoods that he could not cut them again if Woods were standing and growing notwithstanding the words in the Grant viz. To Have c. for the life of the said A. Wilson and Wise Case 56. In Trespass for taking of his Cow The Defendant justified that he was seised and held of I. S. as of his Mannor of C. by Fealty rent suit of Court of I. S. And that within the said Mannor the Custom was That the Lord of the Mannor time out of mind c. after the death of every Tenant of any Messuage or Tenements of the said Mannor dying seised used to seise the best Beast of the Tenants found within the Mannor for an Heriot and if the Tenant had no Beast or if it were esloyned out of the Mannor before the Lord seized it Then the Lord had used to seise the best Beast Levant and Couchant upon the Messuage Lands and Tenements It was demurred upon the Custom and it was adjudged that the Custome was void and unreasonable and Judged for the Plaintiff 57. An Infant by his Prochin Amy brought a Scire facias to execute a Plea by Fine limited to his Grandmother The Defendant prayed that the Attainder might demur Resolved it should not But if the Defendant had pleaded the Deed of the Ancestour of the Infant in Barre there the Plea should have stayed 3 Eliz. Austin and Bakers Case 58. Attaint was brought into the Common Pleas upon the Statute of 23 E. 3. cap. 3. against the Executors of I. S. and the Terre Tenants and adjudged it was well brought although the Statute is that the Attaint shall be between the Parties of the first Judgement 59. A Subsidy is granted by Parliament That every one who expends in Land above 20 s. shall pay A man is assessed and before payment he dyes the Lands in the hands of the Heir shall be charged with it because it is a Duty upon Record and the Land chargeable with it 60. Judgement being against two upon an Avowry in Replevin They brought an Attaint depending which one of them dyed It was adjudged that the Writ should abate and it differs from the Case of Nonsuit for the Nonsuit is the Judgement of the Court that the Heir may proceed in Suit but when one is dead it is not so for then no act is done by the Court. 61. Note It was resolved That after a Verdict given it is no Plea for to say that the Jurors did eat and drink mean between the Court and their Verdict given but such Exception ought to be before the Verdict given 62. A Lease for years the Remainder for Life the Reversion in Fee Lessee for years committed Waste he in Remainder for Life dyed It was holden by the Justices That he in the Reversion in Fee should have an Action of Waste for waste done before the death of him in the Remainder because that the mean Remainder was the Cause that he could not have the Action at the first but when that Estate is ended the Action is maintenable because it was to the dis-inheritance of him in the Remainder in Fee 63. Tenant in Dower had power to cut down the Trees growing upon the Land and she covenanted with him in the Reversion that it should be lawfull for him every year to cut down 20. Trees and afterwards she cut down and destroyed all the Trees It was the opinion of the Justices That an Action of Covenant did lye against her and it was agreed by them That if a Covenant be that it shall be lawfull for the Covenantee to take the Trees and sell them or imploy them to his own use That in that Case the Covenantor cannot cut down the Trees because he hath given a propriety in the Trees to the Covenantee Mich 2 Eliz. 64. Trespass The Case was A man made a Lease for years of Lands a Stranger entred upon the Land let and cut down Trees growing and made them Tymber and carryed unto the Land where the Trespass is supposed and then gave the Timber to the Plaintiff and the Defendant entred into the Land and took the Timber It was the opinion of the Justices That in all Cases where a thing is taken wrongfully and altered in form If yet that which remains is the Principal part of the Substance the Notice of it is not lost and therefore if a man takes Trees and makes Boards of them The Owner may retake them quia major pars substantiae remanet and so in the principal Case But if an House had been made of the Timber there it had been otherwise 65. Father and Son made a Feofment in Fee with VVarranty the Father dyed The Feoffee impleaded brought a Warrantia Chartae against the Son unde Chartam Patris sui habet cujus haeres ipse est and in his Count shewed the Deed was made by them both It was the Opinion of the Justices the Count was agreeable to the VVrit and that the VVarranty against the Son was double the one of his Father the other of himself and that each of them warranted the whole so the Action well brought 66. Resolved by the Justices If Lessee for Life makes a Lease for years and afterwards purchaseth the Reversion and dyeth within the Term the Lease for years is determined But if one who hath nothing in the Lands makes a Lease for years and afterwards purchaseth the Lands and dyes if it be by Indenture his Heir is estopped to avoid the Lease 67. Two Copartners are one grants her Part and warrants that the Grantee shall have and hold it in common without partition It is a void Warranty because it is against Law 68. A Lease was made to Husband and VVife for years Provided that if the possession of the Lands came to the hands of any ther than the Husband and VVife and their Issues then upon tender of 100 l. it shall be lawful for the Lessor to reenter the Husband dyed the Wife took an other Husband the Lessor tendred the 1000 l. It was the greater opinion of the Justices That the Condition was not broken because that the second Husband was not possessed by vertue of the Lease but in the right of his Wife But the Court doubted of it It was adjourned 68. A Capias ad satisfaciend was awarded and an Extent and between the date of the Writ and before the Sheriff took the Inquisition the Defendant sold his Goods It was the Opinion of the Justices That the Sheriff might extend the Goods which were sold and it was said That if the Tenant in a Precipe allien after the date of the Writ and before the Retorn yet he continnes Tenant to the Action 69. Note it was holden by the Justices That if an Infant for Monies by Indentures bargain and sells Lands and afterwards levyes a Fine Sur Conusans de droit with Proclamations the Indenture is not void but voidable and
which they have otherwise not 245. Tenant in Tail disseiseth the Discontinuee and Levyeth a Fine and the proclamation passes but the Discontinuee during the proclamation makes claime and after the Tenant in Tail dyes and the Discontinuee enters It was the opinion of the Justices that the Issue in Tail was barred by the Fine and in this Case it was said That if the Lord entreth upon his Tenant and enfeoffs a stranger and the Tenant Reenters he avoids the Disseisin and estate but the seignoury is not revived but extinct Pasch 20. Eliz. Jackson and Darceys Case 246. Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levyeth a Fine with Proclamation It was holden it shall binde the Issue notwithstanding the saving in the Statute of 32. H. 8. for that here is not any Reversion in the King but a Remainder of which the Statute speaks nothing but yet this Fine doth not devest the Remainder out of the Kâ—ng but the Conusee shall have a Fee determinable upon the Tail 247. The Master takes an Obligation of his Apprentice that he shall not use his Trade within 4. years in the Town of N. where his Master dwells and he is an Apprentice It was holden the Obligation was not good not should binde the Apprentice 248. A man hath a Warren which extends into 3. Townes and by deed makes a Lease of it for years Rendering rent and after grants the Reversion in one of the Townes to another and the Lessee Attornes It was the opinion of the Justices That the grantee should have no part of the Rent nor the Granter because no Covenant can be apportioned Duland and Cleypooles Case 248. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. of Tillage That the Defendant had Converted 300. Acres of arable Lands to Pastures and that the Conversion hath continued from 15. Eliz. to 20. Eliz. The Defendant as to the Conversion pleaded Not guilty and as to the Continuance the general pardon of 23. Eliz. upon which it was demurred It was argued that the Condition did not extend to the Continuance of the said conversion It was said That if A be seised of arable Lands and converts the same to pasture and so converted Leaseth it to B. who continues it in pasture as he found it he shall be charged by the Statute And Note the words of the Statute are Conversion permitted and Conversion continued is Conversion permitted and the Statute doth not punish only the Conversion but the continuance of it One the other side It was said That the Conversion and the continuance thereof are 2. several things by it self and so the Conversion being only excepted the Continuare thereof is within the Pardon Quaere the Case was adjorned Term. Pasc 24. Eliz. Leeke and Grevells Case 249. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. for converting and using of 2000. Acres of arable into pasture The Defendant said and justified as to 800. Acres That the Queen by Deed under her Great Seal Licensed him to enclose the Mannor of Weston and Welford in the County of Gloucester and to make a Park so as it was not within any Forrest and to Convert and use the Land inclosed of tillage into pasture pro sustentatione ferarum Damarum averiorum suorum by which he enclosed them and converted the Tillage into pasture for the Sustentation of his beasts Upon which it was demurred It was argued that the License was not good because the Statute of 5. Eliz. was to continue but till the beginning of the next Session of Parliament at which time the Statute ended and was not revived till Anno 13. Eliz. so as in Anno 9. when the License was there was not any Statute to prohibit the Conversion of tillage into Pasture and therefore the License in 9. Eliz. could not dispense with the Statute of 13. Eliz. and the Statute of 13 Eliz. did not make such reviver of the Statute of 5. Eliz. as made mean Acts good by any Relation Quaere the Case was not adjudged but adjorned Dolman and the Bishop of Salisburies Case 250. Quare Imp. brought the Defendent pleaded the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 13. of Pluralities that the last Incumbent had a Benifice with Cure of the value of 8 l. and took another Benefice and was Inducted 1 Eliz. upon which the Queen did present the Defendant by Lapse The Plaintiff shewed the Proviso in the Statute of 25. H. 8. that Chaplains qualified might purchase Dispensations and take 2. Benefices and that 1 Eliz. before the Parliament he purchased a Dispensation from the Pope and after he took the second benefice and dyed The question was whether the Pope before the Statute of 25 H. 8. might grant dispensations It was Resolved he could not for that the Kings of England had been Soveraigns within their Realms of the Spiritualties and the Justices held that the dispensation in question was made 1 Eliz and so out of the Statute of 25 H. 8. and that this dispensation to retain a second benefice was against the Statute of 21 H. 8. Lacyes Case 251. In a scire facias upon a Recognizance for not appearing before the Justices of Assise at York the Defendant pleaded that after the Recognizance taken a Commission issued to the Admiral and others to hear and determine Treasons Felonies c. done within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty and that the Commissioners sent to Arrest him before the day of his Appearance because he had mortally wounded a Man upon Scarborow sands if within the flux and reflux of the Sea of which wound he dyed at Scarborow and that thereupon he was Arrested and detained in prison till after the day of Appearance and afterwards was Indicted and arraigned of the said Felony before the Commissioners The Court inclined to be of opinion that the Arrest was a sufficient excuse of his appearance because the Recognizance is a duty to the Queen and the Commission is the Act of the Queen and all that the Commissioners do is by authority from the Queen and in her person and shall be accounted her Act and then when she her self is a cause that the Defendant could not appear that she should not have benefit of the Recognizance 252. The Condition of an Obligation was That if the Obligor pay at or before the 25th day of March he tenders the money the 24th day It was the opinion of Anderson that if he tender the money the last instant of the 24th day he saveth his Bond But the other Justices held the contrary because the word before is not to have any Construction but the Obligor shall be admitted to pay it before by agreement only of the Obligee Quaere 253. A man seised of 3. Mannors in Fee of the value of 300 l. Covenanted in Consideration of the Mariage of his daughter that he would suffer 20 l. yearly to discend come and remain to his daughter and her Husband and the Heirs of their bodies It was the opinion
the Rent that the Lessor should not enter which being immediately sworn and the Records of the Outlawries against him produced the Justices dismissed the Lessee and that the Lessor should enter upon him Broughtons Case 269. Broughton a Justice of the Peace brought an Action upon the Case against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield because he wrote a Letter to the Earl of Leycester one of the Privy Council wherein he wrote That the Plaintiff was a Vermin in the Common wealth a false and corâ—upt man an Hypocrite in the Church of God a Dissembler He hath used many corrupt practises to work his VVill He procured my Register to be indicted of Extortion He willingly and wilfully hath boulstred out one Greenwood a Convict man of many offences and knowing him to be an Evil man maintaineth him against me without Law Conscience or Honesty Upon Not Guilty it was found for the Plaintiff and 300 l. Dammages It was objected the Action did not lye not being an overt Act but words written in a Letter Resolved the Act on did well lye being writ to a Stranger but otherwise if it had been written to the Party himself and it was also resolved That although but some of the words will bear Action yet the Dammages are well assessed because they are put in to increase the Dammages In this Case it was said if a slanderous Bill be exhibited in the Star Chamber against one the Action doth not lye because it is a Court of Justice and hath Jurisdiction to redress things but to exhibite a slanderous Bill into a Court waich hath not power to redress the thing is scandalous and an Action will lye for it Griffith and Clarks Case 170. A Writ of Disceit by the Lord of the Mannnor upon a Fine levyed of the Land within antient Demeasne The Defendants pleaded that the Lord of the Mannor in the time of E. 2. did release to one who was Tenant of the same Land de omnibus servitiis consuetudinibus salvis servitiis infrascriptis viz. pro una virgat terrae 2 s. rent suit of Court and Releife It was resolved The Custome of the Antient Demesne was extinct by the Release but the Rent Releife and suit of Court remained as parcel of the Seignory by the saving Ivors Keales Case 271. A. seised of Lands in Fee borrowed 20 l. of B. and they are agreed to assure Lands for it They went to the Land and A. there said to B. I am endebted to you 20 l. If I do not pay you at Michaelmas then I bargain and sell this Land to you and if I do pay you I am to have my Land again B. continued upon the Land a little space the Monyes was not paid at Michaelmas Adjudged the Land passed to B. upon a Condition subsequent for payment of the Mony by B. Mildmay and Standiskes Case 272. Action upon the Case for Slandering his Title In which the Defendant justified the Case was A. seised of Lands in fee had Issue 3. Daughters V. G. O. V. dyed without Issue The Father for love and affection and the better maintenance of G. and O. covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life the remainder to G. in tale of one Moyety the remainder to O. of the Moyety in Tail Provided it shall be Lawfull for the said A. for the payment of his Debts and Legacies and better preferment of his Servants and other good Considerations to devise the said Lands by his Last VVill and dispose of the same for lives or years and afterwards he devised the said Lands to F. and the said O. his wife for 1000. years and dyed wherefore the Defendant published the said Lands were assured for 1000 years upon which it was demurred It was said that the said V. might at any time determine any of the said uses and induce other Estates at his pleasure and the payment of his Debts and Legacyes with good considerations for the Leases But it was resolved for the Plaintiff because the Proviso was against the Law to enduce an Estate to a Stranger by way of Lease upon Covenant of Considerations to raise uses but such power might be good upon an Estate executed Or a Proviso good which did extend to determine the Estate but not to give another Estate to Lessees Veere and fâ—ofryes Case 273. It was Resolved That if the Metropolitan grant Administration where the Intestate had not bona notabilia indivers diocesses it is voidable only but not void But if a Bishop of a Diocesse grants Administration which belongs to the Metropolitan the same is void Russells Case â—74 Trover and Conversion of goods by the Executors of R. against Husband and Wife of the goods of the Testator which came to the hands of the Wife dum sola fuit The Defendant pleaded a Release of the Plaintiff after the death of the Testator and after the Trover and Conversion The Plaintiff said he was then within age It was adjudged that because there was no Consideration alledged for the Release it should not binde the Executor because it should be a Devastavit in him Twineos Case 275. Grandfather and Grandmother Tenants in special Tail before the Statute of 27 H. 8. the remainder to the right Heirs of the Grandfather The Father by deed enrolled Fine and Proclamation conveyed the Lands to the Queen and her Heirs and Successors in the life time of the Grandmother It was Resolved that by the Statute of 32 H. 8. by the Fine and Proclamation the Issue in Tail was Barred Vâ—ncent and Lees Case 276. It was adjudged in this Case That when a man devised that his Sons in Law should sell the Reversion of his Lands without naming their particular names and that some of them dyed That the Survivors could not sell the Land Sir Peter Carewes Case 277. It was Resolved in this Case That the Lord of a Mannor for life or a particular Tenant having interest in the Mannor might grant Copies in Reversion although they were not executed in the life of the grantor Moris and Franklyns Case 278. The Statute of 27 H. 8. which began 4. Feb. Anno 27. H. 8. and ended 14. April gave Monasteries of Petty value to the King The Abby of T. being of Petty value viz. 100 Marks per Ann. was mean between the 1. day and the last day Surrendred to the King It was holden the King should be in by the Statute and not by the Surrender Thorrowgood and Tarvors Case 279. In Trespasse The Defendent pleaded in bar the Release of the Plaintiff of all his right in the Land The truth was the Plaintiff was a man unlearned and the Release was read unto him only as a Release of the Arrerages of an Annuity It was the opinion of the Justices that he might plead Non est factum to it and it should nor bar him Dorrell and Thyns Case 280. Error was assigned in a Common Recovery That no Warrant of Attorny was
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
of himself for Life the Remainder to F. in tail the Remainder to the Defendant in tail and the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Father F. had Issue I. the Lessor of the Plaintiff and died in the Life of his Father The Father made a Lease for years the Lessee for years made a Feoffment in Fee the Father Releases with Warranty to the Feoffee and dyed The Feoffee enfeoffed the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices in this Case that the Warranty by reason of the Covyn should not bar and that it was a Warranty which did commence by disseisin The Earl of Lincoln and Fishers Case 644. The Defendant gave the Plaintiff the Lye openly in the Leer for which the Steward assessed a Fine of 20. s. upon him The Plaintiff brought Debt for the Fine It was adjudged the Action was maintainable because they are words of contempt in a Court of Justice to a Judge for which the Judge might fine him Canes Case 645. A Venire fac at the Suit of the Plaintiff was prayed to the Coroners because the Sheriff was his Master and the Defendant confessed it It was tried for the Plaintiff It was said it was a Mis-Tryal because a Venire fac ought not to be to the Coroners upon any suggestion if it be not a principal Challenge But the Court held it good although he did not conclude his Challenge and so favorable Revera and Baptistaes Case 646. Assumpsit The Jury found the Assumpsit but that it was upon another consideration and not upon the consideration layed in the Declaration Adjudged against the Plaintiff Tarrants Case 647. The Father made a Feoffment to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his eldest Son and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to his own Right Heirs Proviso That if any of them to whom the Estates are limited or any Issue Male of their Body intend or attempt or do any Act by which the Premises or any part of them should be discontinued that then of that part his Feoffees should be seised to the use of him to whom the Premises after the death of the said party should come as if he were naturally dead The Defendant being Tenant in tail suffered a common Recovery he in the Remainder entred It was Resolved that Tenant in tail could not be restrained from suffering a common Recovery vide accordingly Chomeleys case and Germin and Ascotts case before The Lord Cromwell and Andrews Case 648. In Assise the Case was A seised of a Mannor with an Advowson appendent granted bargained and sold the Mannor and the Advowson to B. and his Heis rendring Rent to A. and his Heirs and covenanted to suffer a Recovery to the use of B. and his Heirs and covenanted to levy a Fine to B. and his Heirs with a render of the Rent to A. and his Heirs Proviso that B. shall regrant the Advowson to A. for his Life so as he shall present as often as it should be void during his Life B. and A. both joyn in a Fine to I. S. who renders the Rent to A. in tail with the Remainder to I. D. and renders the Land to B. and his Heirs Afterwards B. died before a Regrant of the Advowson A. enters upon the Heir and enfeoffs the Lord Cromwell upon whom the Heir of B. reenters There were three points in this Case 1. If the Proviso for the regrant of the Advowson made the Estate of B. conditional in the whole Mannor 2. If the condition by the death of B. without regrant of the Advowson be broken 3. If the Condition be extinct by the Conusance and fine and revived as a Limitation in the use of the Fine The case is here only largly argued but not adjudged Vide Resolution of this Case Coo. â— pa. and here before pl. 229. Hiddy and Welhouses Case 649. In Trespass for taking of his Chattel The sole point in the Case was Whether Toll was incident to a Fair of common Right It was Resolved that Toll is not incident to a Fair of Common Right and that none shall have Toll in a Fair if he hath it not by Grant or Prescription But it was agreed that the King might grant Toll with a new Fair if the Toll be reasonable and not excessive but if it be to have 1 d. upon every Beast they took it to be unreasonable vide Cro. 3. part 559. accordingly The Queen and Doddingtons Case 650. In account against the Defendant Executor of Sir Walter Mildmay The Case was The Marquiss of Winton 1 Eliz. being Treasurer of England and Sir Walter Mildmay Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Court of Augmentation then lately dissolved and united to the Exchequer allowed Sir Walter Mildmay 100 l. per an for diet and 40. l. per an for his attendance in the Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer After which 2 Eliz. a Privy Seal came to the Treasurer Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay the Fees and Allowances by Patent or Parliament to the Treasurer Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Offices and to give such Rewards to other Officers they should think they deserved There were divers points in this Case 1. If the Treasurer alone ex officio might increase Fees or Allowances to the Queens Officers 2. If a Privy Seal was a sufficient Warrant to do it 3. If he might give a Reward to the Chancellor by the Warrant 4. If the Privy Seal being after the allowance made and before payment come in time to excuse the payment 5. If account did lie against Sir Walter Mildmay himself 6. If his Executors were chargable in account This Case is in this Report only argued but not Resolved But vide in Coo. 11. pa. in the Earl of Devonshires case this case is put and there it was said it was Resolved in this case that no officer of the King might ex officio issue or dispose of the Kings Treasure although it be for the honor and profit of the King without a Warrant from the King and a Warrant by word of mouth or under his privy Signet is not sufficient but the Warrant ought to be under the Great Seal or Privy Seal and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer doth receive the Kings Treasure to his own use he shall be charged in account for the same Worme and Websters Case 651. A seised in Fee of Lands holden in capite made a Feoffment thereof to B. and C. to such intents and purposes and to such uses and estates and in such manner as are declared and limited or should be declared in the last Will of the said A. Afterwards he made his Will in this manner viz. I Will and Devise that E. my wife during her Life shall have and take the profits of all my Mannors and Lands and after her decease I devise them to G. P. and the Heirs of his body and died E. entred and died G. P. entred 1. Question if the
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
Administratrix of W T. her Husband and that W. T. by his Bill such a day c. promised for him and his Executor to deliver to the Plaintiff 5000. Tyles before the Feast of All-Saints and to pay to the Plaintiff tantum quantum incrementuÌ„ and gaines which the Defendant should receive of the said Tyles for a year and averred the said W. T. received of the gaines 8 l. and that the Defendant in consideration the Plaintiff would suffer the Defendant to take and have the sole and only Administration of the goods of her Husband and give her day for the payment as well of the 8 l. as of the 5000. Tyles promised to pay the mony and deliver the Tyles upon request all which the Plaintiff did and yet the Defendant had not performed her promise Judgment upon Nihil dicit against the Defendant Error was brought it was adjudged that the consideration was insufficient because by the Law the Administration was to be counted to the Wife and it doth not appear that the Plaintiff had any Administration committed to him or that he exhibited any Caveat into the Spiritual Cour to hinder the Wife of the Administration and as to the giving day of payment that was not good because the Defendant was not his debtor nor chargeable in Law to pay him and for these causes the Judgment was reversed Hog and Blocks Case 898. Assumpsit The Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff 10 l. and in consideration the Plaintiff would not sue him for the said 10 l. he promised to deliver to the Plaintiff 14. Quarters of Barley upon request Issue was joyned the Clerk of the Assizes returned the Postea and therein put John Puckering before a Serjeant which was omitted which was assigned for Error but the Court held it no Error and the Judgment was affirmed Levine Vanvive and Michael Vanvies Case 899. Debt upon Obligation to perform the award of A. and B. of for and upon all Actions and other Demands whatsoever had stirred depending having been between the parties till the date of the Obligation The Arbitrators awarded the Defendant should deliver to the Plaintiff before the last day of June next six Kentish cloaths which were battered by I. S. for the thred of the said Levine Issue was upon the deliver of the cloaths and found for the Plaintiff Error brought and assigned the arbitrament was of a thing out of the Submission It was adjudged it was within the Submission and the party was tied to the performance of it The Judgment was affirmed The Lord Mordant and Bridges Case 900. Action upon the case for these words viz. The Lord Mordant did know that Proud robbed Shotbolt and at such time as Proue should be arraignes therefore be willed Bridges to compound with Shotbolt for the same Robbery and told Bridges he would see him satisfied therefore if it cost him 100 l. It was found for the Plaintiff and damages a 1000 l. and the Lord Mordant had Execution by elegiâ— of the Lands of Bridges Bridges died the Administrator broughâ— Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Lord pleaded in abatement oâ— the Writ of Error his Execution by elegit and so the Administraton could not have Error Resolved the Writ of Error did lie for the Administrator because it might be the Land might be evicted and then the Plaintiff might resort to the Goods 2. It was assigned foâ— Error that words were not actionable in themselves for it waâ— said that one may compound for a Robbery knowing of it but noâ— for the Felony and the words are not to compound for the Felony Also it was said that it doth not appear in the Declaration that thâ— Lord was a Justice of Peace at the time of these words spoken tâ— Bridges although he was at the time that Bridges spake the words oâ— him in the Declaration upon the Writ of Error it doth not appeâ—â— if the words were actionable or not for it doth not appear in the boâ—â— that the Judgment in B. R. which was given for the Lord was affirmed or Reversed ideo quaere Callard and Callards Case 801. Ejectione firmae in B. R. The Case was E. C. seised of Lands in Fee in consideration of Marriage of Eustace his Son and Heir apparent being upon the Land spake these words to Eustace viz. Stand forth Eustace I do here reserving an Estate for my own and my Wives Life give unto thee and to thine Heirs for ever these my Lands and Barton of S. And afterwards he enfeoffed R. his younger Son in Fee with Warranty and died Eustace entred and demised to the Plaintiff It was there holden that the words did amount to a Feoffment and Livery being spoken upon the Land and the use to be to the Feoffor and his wife for their Lives and after to Eustace and his Heirs upon that Judgment Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber and there the former Judgment was reversed for that the greater part of the Justices agreed that it was not any Feoffment executed because the intent was repugnant to Law to pass an Estate Eustace reserving any particular estate to himself and his wife and an use it could not be for the purpose was not to raise but use but by an Estate executed which took not effect and they all agreed if it was an use it could not rise upon natural affection without a Deed. The Judgment was reversed Westby Skinner and Catchers Case 902 A. was in Execution severally under the Sheriffs of London at the Suits of B. and C. the old Sheriffs delivered the body of A. by Indenture in which the Execution of B. was only mentioned and the other was omitted A. in the time of the new Sheriffs escaped It was adjudged in B. R. that the old Sheriffs should be charged in an Action for the Escape They brought Error in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment was affirmed because it was not found that the new Sheriffs were Sheriffs at the time of the delivery of A. to them and because they did not give notice to the new Sheriffs of all the Executions which were against A. Sacksord and Phillips Case 903. Assumpsit A. was endebted to the Plaintiff 460 l. the Defendant in consideration the Plaintiff would forbear to sue A. for the said Debt promised to the Plaintiff to pay it before Michaelmas next Upon non assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff But in the postea the Verdict was not certified that the Plaintiff sustained damage by reason of the not performance of the promise for 460 l. for which the Plaintiff had judgment That was assigned for Error and also because the Declaration did not mention the forbearance of Suit at the Defendants request the Court ordered the postea to be amended and affirmed the Judgment Wiseman and Jennings Case 904. The case upon the matter in Law was this Tenant for Life the Remainder in tail the Remainder in Fee Tenant for Life suffered a common Recovery
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
the Tenant in Dower shall not avoid it Hall and Fettiplaces Case 993. A man prescribed to make the first crop of the Hay in little Cocks that is no good prescription to discharge the Tythe of After-mouth but other it is of a Prescription to make it into great Cocks or to carry it into the Parsons Barn the same is a good Prescription Forster and Browns Case 994. Lessee for years devised his Term to his Wife for life the Remainder to A. for life if I. S. within two years after her death be not bound in 100 l. to pay 5 l. per an to the said A. for her life and if he do become bound he devised the Term to the said I. S. and the Heirs males of his body and if he dyed without Issue he devised the Remainders A. dyed within a Moneth I. S. never entred bond but dyed having Issue male and the Issue dyed during the Continuance of the Term It was in this Case holden 1. That it was a good Remainder 2. That the Remainder limited to I. S. upon this condition precedent was good and should take effect although he never entred Bond for he had time to do it within two years and then when A. dyed within the two years the Condition was discharged by the Act of God and so the Remainder was good Banks and Brownâ—s Case 995. Copyholder for life surrendred to the Lord of the Mannor in Tail the Reversion in the Crown the Tenant in Tail made a Lease for three lives the Lease to begin from the day of the Date and the old Rent was Reserved and more It was Resolved by the Justices that it was a good Lease within the Statute of 32 Hen. 8 if Livery was made after the day of the date Combes Case 996. It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case 1. That the omitting of a thing or Legacy out of a Will which is appointed to be inserted in it is not Forgery But if a man directs one who writes his Will to limit Land to one for life the Remainder to another in Fee and he leaves out the estate for life so as the Remainder takes present effect the same is Forgery 2. It a man writes a Will without direction and brings it to the Devisor who is non Compos mâ—nt is and he allowes of it the Will is void but it is not Forgery But if a man writs a Will with blanks and then the Devisor is not of perfect memory and the writer fâ—ills up the blanks though this be not Forgery yet it is a Misdemeanor punishable in the writer of it Stoâ—kwells Case 997. It was Resolved in the Star Chamber in this Case That a Purveyor or his Debuty cannot take any thing by way of purveyance without shewing of his Commission 2 That no Purveyor can take Wood or Trees growing upon the Land without agreement made with the owne of the Land 3. That no Purveyor can take any thing by Purveyance which is provided by the Owner for his own provision but of those who have the things to sell 4. That the King is to have the preemption of all things put to sale before others at reasonable Rate Bâ—llew and Brookes Case 998. The Plaintiff exhibited a Bill into the Star Chamber for the pulling up of 16 foot of hedging for putting of his Cattel to take Common there Both the Plaintiff and the Defendants were both Fined the Plaintiff for the Suit being to small a Ryot and the Defendants for the Act done Holloway and Pollards Case 999. A. bargained and sold Lands to B. and his Heirs for 500 l. upon Condition that if he paid 500 l. he should re-enter and be seised to the use of himself and his Heirs untill he should attempt to â—dien without the assent of the bargainee then to the use of the bargainee and his Heirs a Fine was Levyed to the uses the â—00 l. was paid A. aliened to I. S. and I. D. without the assent of the Bargainee Resolved that the use could not rise to the bargainee because the bargainor entring for the Condition broken was in of his old use and estate and the bargainor who came in by the use of the Fine could not â—tand seised to another use for then there should be an use upon an use which cannot be Springs Case 1000. In a Case of a Prohibition It was Resolved that a Parson cannot prescribe against the Composition made by the Vicar for things allowed to the Vicar upon Composition Heywards Case 1001. A. acknowledged a Statute and dyed Extent issued he was returned dead a new extent issued against his goods it was Returned that his Widdow Administratrix had sold them a new Extent Issued against her and her second Husband Andrews and Lord Cromwells Case 1002. In the Case of a Writ of Right it was Resolved That the demy mark may be tendred at the time of the appearance of the Jury 2. That the Tenant shall begin first to give evidence 3. That in this Action the Jury cannot finde a speciall verdict Reynolds Case 1003. Resolved by the Justices in the Case of a Prohibition That Tythes shall not be payd of the Lopping of Trees above the age of 20. years but Tythes shall be paid of Acorns Browne and Wottons Case 1004. In Trover and Conversion of Plate It was Resolved that it was was a good plea that the Plaintiff had brought Trover and Conversion against a stranger for the same plate and had Judgment But it is not so in Debt where a certain sum is demanded Richards Case 1005. He was sentenced in the Star Chamber for divers offences 1. That he took divers sums of mony from the Kings people affirming to them That the King had granted to him the penalty of penal Lawes for which he had Exhibited Informations whereas in truth he never had exhibited any Information and that he being a Deputy Purveyor had charged the people with so great sums of money for purveyance of Beans and Oates and to the purpose to take money for Composition which money he divided betwixt him and others and for divers the like Misdemeanors In this Case it was Resolved 1. That Purveyance was due to the King by Prerogative at the Common Law 2. Purveyors cannot take Trees growing nor transplant fruit Trees nor take without apprisement nor without shewing their Commission 3. That their deputies were under the same penalties as the Masters were and that the Masters should answer for the offences of their Deputies for all the wrong done to the subjects 4. That a Deputy could not make a Deputy 5. That the selling of things which the Purveyors took by way of Purveyance was Fellony The Countesse of Rutlands Case 1006. Information in the Star Chamber against divers Sâ—rjeants at Mace in London for arresting the body of the Countesse The case upon the matter appeared to be this A Capias was awarded against the Countesse out of Common Pleas In which Case