abate For the Writ shall be brought by the Heir of the Survivor of the said two Daughters because they have that remainder as purchasors XXXIII Stuckly and Sir John Thynns Case Mich 9 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THo Stuckly Administrator of the Goods and Chattels of one Tho. Curties Alderman of London brought Debt upon an Obligation against Sir John Thynn and demanded of him 1000 l. Et modo ad hunc diem venerunt Tam praefatus Tho. Stucklie quam praedict Johannes Thynn Et super hoc dies datus est usque Oct. c. in statu quonunc c. salvis c. At which day the Defendant made default and thereupon the Plaintiff prayed his Iudgment against the Defendant But the Opinion of the Court was That he could not have it but was put to process over because Dies Datus is not so strong as a Continuance XXXIV Luke and Eves Case Pasch 10 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Luke against Eve The Defendant Avowed because that the Iury at such a Leet did present That the Plaintiff was a Resiant within the Precinct of the said Leet c. and that the Plaintiff was warned to appear there and notwithstanding that made default For which he was Amerced by the Steward there to 5 s. And so for that Amercement he avowed the taking c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry pleaded That at the time of the said Leet holden he was not a Resiant within the Precinct of the said Leet Vpon which they were at Issue And it was found for the Avowant Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Avowant to have a Retorn XXXV Mich. 14 Eliz. Rott 1120. In the Common Pleas. THe Abbot and Covent of York Leased to J.S. certain Lands at Will and afterwards by Deed Indented under their Covent Seal reciting That whereas J.S. held of them certain Lands at Will they granted and demised that Land to the said J.S. to hold for life rendring the ancient Rent And by the same Indenture granted the Reversion of the same Land to a stranger for life It was holden by the Court clear That an Estate for life accrueth unto J.S. by way of Confirmation and the remainder unto the stranger depending upon the Estate created by the Confirmation XXXVI Sir Francis Carews Case Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIr Nicholas Carew seised of the Mannor of A. of which Mannor B. held certain Lands B. is disseissed by C. C. assures the same to Sir Nicholas Carew who is attainted of Treason by which Attainder the Mannor and Land cometh to King Henry 8th who thereof dieth seised and the same descends to King Edward the 6th who grants the same Mannor to the Lord Darcy who grants the same to Queen Mary who grants the same to Francis Carew Son of Nicholas Carew who by Fine assures the same to the Lord Darcy the Proclamations pass and the 5 years pass she who hath right to the Lands whereof the Desseisin was made being for all that time a Feme Covert And therefore the Fine did not bar her But because that the King was entituled to the Land by a double matter of Record and by the descent from Hen. the 8th to Ed. the 6th And also because a Seignory is reserved to the King upon the Grant made by King Edward the 6th to the Lord Darcy The Iustices were all of Opinion That the Entry of the Heir of the Disseisee was not lawful upon the Patentee of the Queen 2 Len. 122. but that she ought to be Relieved by way of Petition XXXVII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man brought an Action of Trespass against another for chasing of his Ewes being great with Lambs so as by such driving of them he lost his Lambs The Defendant justified because they were in his several Damage-feasans wherefore he took them and drove them to the Pound And it was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for although that he might take yet he cannot drive them with peril c. XXXVIII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. More Rep. 16 23. THe Case was A. made a Lease to B. for life and further grants unto him That it shall be lawful for him to take Fewel upon the premisses Proviso That he do not cut any great Trees It was holden by the Court That if the Lessee cutteth any great Trees that he shall be punished in Waste but in such case 1 Len. 117. the Lessor shall not re-enter because that Proviso is not a Condition but only a Declaration and Exposition of the Extent of the Grant of the Lessor in that behalf And it was holden also by the Court That Lessee for life or for years by the Common Law cannot take Fewel but of Bushes and small wood and not of Timber-Trees But if the Lessor in his Lease granteth Fireboot expresly if the Lessee cannot have sufficient Fewel as above c. he may take great Trees XXXIX Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Roll. 787. IN Trespass upon an Evidence given to the Iury at the Bar the Case appeared to be thus Land was given to A. in tail the remainder in Fee to his Sisters being his Heirs at the Common Law A. made a Deed in this manner viz. I the said A. have given granted and confirmed for a certain piece of Mony c. without the words of Bargained Sold And the Habendum was to the Feoffee with warranty against A. and his Heirs And a Letter of Attorny was to make Livery and Seisin And the Deed was in this manner To all Christian People c. And the Deed was enrolled within one month after the making of it And the Deed was Indented although that the words of the Deed were in the form of a Deed Poll And after 4 months after the delivery of the Deed the Attorny made Livery of Seisin A. died without Issue and the Sisters entred and the Feoffee ousted them of the Land and thereupon they brought an Action of Trespass And the Opinion of the whole Court was for the Plaintiff for here is not any Discontinuance for the Conveyance is by Bargain and Sale and not by Feoffment because the Livery comes too late after the Inrollment and then the Warranty shall not hurt them And although that in the Deed there be not any word of Indenture and also that the words are in the first person Yet in as much as the Parchment is Indented 2 Roll. 787. and both the parties have put their Seals to it it is sufficient Also It was clearly agreed by the Court That the words Give for Mony Grant for Mony Confirm for Mony Agree for Mony Covenant for Mony If the Deed be duly Inrolled that the Lands pass both by the Statute of Vses and by the Statute of Inrollments as well as upon the words of Bargain and Sale. And by Catline Wray and Whiddon the party ought to take by way
of his Body after the decease of the said J.N. It was the clear Opinion of all the Iustices in this Case That by the said Indenture No use is changed in J N. nor any use raised to the said Son and Heir but that it is only a bare Covenant XIX Andrews and Glovers Case Trin. 4 Eliz. Rott 1622. IN Trespass by Andrews against Glover The Lady Mary Dacres being seised of the Mannor of Cowdam by her Indenture bargained and sold to the said Andrews all those her Woods More Rep. 15. Post 29. Winch. Rep. 5. Vnderwoods and Hedge-Rowes as have been accustomably used to be felled and sold standing growing being in upon and within the Mannor of Cowdam c. To have and to hold c. from the Feast of S. Michael last past during the natural life of the said Lady Mary And the said Andrews for himself his Heirs and Assigns doth Covenant and Grant to and with the said Lady her Executors c. to content and pay or cause to be contented and paid to the said Lady her Executors c. yearly during the said Term 10 l. By force of which Grant he cuts down all and singular the Trees Woods and Vnderwoods in the aforesaid Mannor growing at the time of the making of the Indenture aforesaid And afterwards the said Lady by her servants felled all the other Woods and Vnderwoods growing in the same Mannor after the said felling made by the said Andrews Whereupon Andrews bringeth Trespass And the Opinion of the Court was clear That after the Bargainee had once felled that he should never after fell in the same place where the first felling was made by force of the said Grant notwithstanding the Rent yearly reserved and notwithstanding the words of the Grant viz. To have and to hold during the life of the said Dame Mary Wherefore the said Andrews durst not Demur c. XX. 6 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. is bounden to B. in an Obligation to pay to B. 20 l. at the Feast of our Lady without limiting in Certain what Lady-Day viz. the Conception Nativity or Annunciation And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Deed should be construed to intend such Lady-Day which should next happen and follow the date of the said Obligation XXI Scarning and Cryers Case Mich. 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rott 1851. IN a Second Deliverance by Scarning against Cryer the Defendant makes Conusans as Bailiff to J.S. and sheweth More Rep. 75 That the said J.S. and at the time of the taking c. was Lord of the Mannor of A. Within which Mannor there was this Custom time out of mind c. That the Tenants of that Mannor and other Resiants and Inhabitants within the said Mannor or the greater part of them at the Court-Baron of the said Mannor at the Mannor aforesaid holden were used and accustomed to make Laws and impose Pains as well upon the Resiants and Inhabitants within that Mannor and the Tenants of the said Mannor there being as upon every Occupier of any Tenements within the said Mannor for good government there to be had and kept and for the preservation of the Corn and Grass there growing And that the said J.S. and all those whose Estate c. distringere consueverunt pro omnibus poenis sic forisfact per Juratores Curiae praed ex assensu dictor Tenent Inhabitant residentium ibid. in forma praedict assessis impositis tam super quibuscunque tenent Maner praedict aut inhabitantibus aut residentibus infra Maner illud quam super occupatoribus aliquor Tenementor infra idem Maner ' And further said That at a Court-Baron there holden That Coram Sectatoribus ejusdem Curiae by the Homage of the said Court then charged to present with the assent of other Tenants and Inhabitants of the said Mannor it was Ordained and Established That no Tenant of the Mannor aforesaid nor any of the Resiants or Inhabitants within the said Mannor nor any Occupier of any Tenements within the said Mannor from thenceforth should keep his Cattel within the several Fields of that Mannor by By-herds nor should put any of their Oxen called Draught-Oxen there before the Feast of St. Peter upon pain Quod quilibet tenens residens c. should forfeit 20 s. And further said That the Plaintiff at the time c. Occupied and had such a Tenement within the said Mannor And that at such a Court afterwards holden viz. such a day It was presented that the Plaintiff Custodivit boves suos called Draught-Oxen within the several Fields by By-herds contrary to the Order aforesaid by which the penalty of 20 s. aforesaid was forfeited Notwithstanding the said pain de gratia Curiae illius per quosd A. E. afferratores Curiae illius ad hoc jurat assess afferrat fuit ad 6 s. 8 d. And further he said That the place in which the taking c. is within the Mannor aforesaid And that A. B. Steward of the said Mannor extraxit in scriptis extra Rotulis Curiae praed the said pain of 6 s. 8 d. and delivered the same to the Defendant Bailiff of the said Mannor to Collect and Receive by force of which he required the said 6 s. 8 d. of the Plaintiff and he refused to pay it and so avoweth the taking c. And upon this Conusans of the Defendant the Plaintiff did Demur in Law And Iudgment was given against the Conusans 1. Because he pleaded That it was presented Coram Sectatoribus and doth not shew their Names 2. The penalty appointed by the By-Law was 20 s. and he sheweth it was abridged to 6 s. 8 d. and so the penalty demanded and for which the Distress was taken is not maintained by the By-Law and a pain certain ought not to be altered 3. He sheweth that it was presented that the Plaintiff had kept his Draught-Oxen and he ought to have alledged the same in matter in fact that he did keep c. XXII Dedicots Case 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. DEdicot seised of certain Customary Lands Dyer 210 251. Hob. 285. surrendred the same into the hands of the Lord to the intent that the Lord should grant the same de Novo to the same Dedicot for life and afterwards to Jane his Wife during the Nonage of the Son and Heir of Dedicot and afterwards to the said Son and Heir in tail c. Dedicot died before any new Grant Afterwards the Lord granted the said Land to the Wife during the Nonage of the said Heir the remainder to the Heir in tail the Heir at that time being but of the age of 5 years so as the said Wife by force of the said Surrender and Admittance was to have the said Lands for 16 years The Wife took another Husband and died And it was the Opinion of Brown and Dyer Iustices That the Husband should have the Lands during the Nonage of
Bar for no person is named there Manwood If a Lease be made made to J.S. except Green-Close to J.D. who is a stranger the Exception is good and J.D. shall have it The Principal Case was Adjourned LXI The Lord Windsors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence given to a Iury in the Kings Bench in an Ejectione Firmae the Case appeared to be thus That Sir Roger Lewknor Knight being seised in Fee of the Mannor of South Myms made an Indenture Anno 11. H. 8. by which Indenture he Leased the said Mannor to 20 persons to the use of Andrew Windsor afterwards Lord Windsor and Henry his Son and the Survivor of them as long as any of the said persons named in the said Indenture should live And further Covenanted by the same Indenture To stand seised of the said Mannor To the use of the said Andrew and Henry and the Survivor of them during the lives of any of the said Feoffees named in the same Indenture which Deed was made without Livery and Seisin and reserved upon it an yearly Rent and afterwards the Son died And in 22 H. 8. A Fine was levied by a stranger upon a Release to Andrew Lord Windsor And afterwards 34 of Henry 8 Andrew Lord Windsor made a Lease to one for years and died and made William and Edmond his Sons his Executors And afterwards William his eldest Son being Lord Windsor 2 3 Phil. Mary made a Lease of the same Land unto another to begin after the first Lease ended Which William died and the Lord Windsor that now is accepted the Rent and of late time agreed with one Vaughan who had married the Heir of Sir Roger Lewknor for the Reversion in Fee and afterwards the Lease made by Andrew Lord Windsor 34 H. 8. ended in the 4th year of the Reign of the Queen that now is Whereupon the second Lessee that is to say the Lessee of William Lord Windsor entred and being ousted he brought the Ejectione firmae And then and yet one of the 20 Feoffees of Sir Roger Lewknor is alive so as the Estate of Cestuy que Vie is not as yet determined And now the Question upon the first part of the Evidence is If this later Lease made by William Lord Windsor be a good Lease or not And who shall be said Occupant For when the Lord Andrew died then the Lessee as Catline said shall not be said in otherwise than according to his Lease when his occupation by Lease was lawful before And he who shall be said Occupant shall have a Freehold and if he should be Occupant he should be in by a new title Then we are to see If the Executors of the Lord which have the Rent and to whom the same is paid by the Lessee shall be said Occupant And he conceived That they should not although that they enter unless they claim the Freehold at the time of their entry for if they enter generally it shall be intended according to the Will as Executors and if he had granted his Estate to another there after his death the Grantee shall be said to be in by reason of his Grant and not as Occupant And so if he would devise his Estate the Devisee shall be in by reason of the Devise and not as Occupant Which Case of Devise Southcote denyed That he should not be in by reason of the Devise when his Estate determines with his death But if the Devisee entreth by force of the Devise he shall be in as an Occupant And also Southcote denyed that which had been said That the Lessee for years who holdeth the Lands after the death of Andrew Lord Windsor should not be an Occupant For as he said the Lessee being in possession after the death of the Lord Andrew should be said Occupant and no other for the Executors of the Lord could not be Occupant by the having of the Rent because they had not the possession of the Land for none shall be Occupant but he who is in possession Whiddon said That if the first Lease made by Andrew Lord Windsor was now in esse and that an Ejectione Firmae was brought upon that that the Lessee ought to aver That some of the Feoffees for whose lives c. were then living Southcote If a Praecipe quod reddat shall be brought against whom shall it be brought against him in the Reversion or against him in possession And if it shall be brought against the Tenant in possession then he ought to have the Freehold for it cannot be brought but against one who hath a Freehold at the least And then if the Lord William Windsor had nothing in the Land then how could he make this Lease to the Plaintiff that now is when the first Lessee continueth Occupant after the death of the Lord Andrew during the life of Cestuy que Vye And as to the Fine the Question did further arise If the Lord Andrew Windsor should have a Feesimple by that Fine For being levied as Catline said It cannot be to the first Vses because a Fine upon a Release cannot be intended to the use of any other but to him to whom it is levied unless an use be expressed in the Fine or by another Deed And upon a Fine levied upon a Release made unto Tenant life by a stranger the same is not a forfeiture of his Estate But if Tenant for life taketh a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. the same is a forfeiture And although a Fine levied by those who have not any thing in the Lands be void Yet here it is not so and it ought to be pleaded specially and shewed that he had not anything in the Land at the time the Fine was levied as Anderson said And Catline said That this Fine was not without good advice for the Lord Brook and others who were learned in the Law were of Counsel with the Lord Windsor in the levying of this Fine so as the intent was to settle the Feesimple in himself by the Fine and not that the first Vses should stand after that And thereupon he put the Case of Putnam and Duncomb which hath much Resemblance to this Case which he argued when he was Serjeant and held the same Opinion as he holdeth now And therefore he said That although the Purchase was but of late time of Vaughan and his Wife yet the Fee was in the Lord Windsor before and this manner of purchase was to no other end but to discharge the Lands of Incumbrances as appeareth by the small sum which was paid the Land being of a great yearly value And as Vaughan confessed he took this sum of Mony because that his Council informed him that the Feesimple was in the Lord Windsor before and that otherwise he would not have sold it at such a price And he said That before that agreement the Lord Windsor told him that he had the Feesimple in himself
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
that the Queens Attorny said That it is true that Thomas Robinson was possessed but it is further said That Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides and therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary But the Opinion of Manwood Chief Baron was That if the parties do admit a thing per nient dedire the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed there the Iury shall be bound by it And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant CCLXXIII Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt by A. against B. upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded tender of the Mony according to the Condition upon which the parties were at Issue And after the Defendant pleaded That after the Darrein Continuance the Debt now in demand was Attached in the Defendants hands according to the Custom of London for the debt of C. to whom the Plaintiff was endebted It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was insufficient for it is altogether contrary to the first Plea. And also the Court held That in an Action for the debt depending here in this Court the debt cannot be attached and the Court would not suffer a Demurrer to be joyned upon it but over-ruled the Case without any Argument For it was said by Wray Chief Iustice That it was against the Iurisdiction of the Court and the Priviledge of it CCLXXIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden by the Court That if a Copyholder in Fee dieth seised and the Lord admits a stranger to the Land who entreth that he is but a Tenant at Will and not a Disseisor to the Copyholder who hath the Land by descent because he cometh in by the assent of the Lord c. CCLXXV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought de uno Cubiculo and Exception was taken to it But the Exception was disallowed The Declaration was special viz Leas unius Cubiculi per nomen unius Cubiculi being in such a House in the middle story of the said House And the Declaration was holden good enough and the word Cubiculum is a more apt word than the word Camera And such was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice And it was said That Ejectione firmae brought de una rooma had been adjudged good in this Court. CCLXXVI Johnson and Bellamy's Case Rot. 824. Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae It was holden by Special Verdict 1 Cro. 122. That W. Graunt was seised of certain Lands and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life And further he willed That when Rich. his Brother should come to the age of 25 years that he should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten W. Graunt died having Issue of his body who was his Heir Rich. before he attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. sic ut partes finis nihil habuerunt And If this Fine should bar the Estate in tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the Case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged Mich. 29 Eliz. Where the Case was Tenant in tail discontinued to E. and afterwards levied a Fine to B. That although that partes finis nihil habuerunt yet the said Fine did bind the Estate tail But the Serjeants at the Bar argued That there was a difference between the Case cited and the Case at Bar For in the Case cited the Fine was pleaded in Bar but here it was not pleaded but found by Special Verdict To which it was said by the Court That the same is not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or Conclusion but by the Statute binds and extincts the entail and the right of it And Fines are as sufficient to bind the right of the entail when they are found by Special Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar. And Periam Iustice said A Collateral Warranty found by Special Verdict is of as great force as pleaded in Bar. And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate tail by that Fine was utterly barred and extinct CCLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent at Michaelmas and further Leased the same to the Executors of the Lessee until Michaelmas after the death of the Lessee It was affirmed by Cook That in that Case it was adjudged That the word Until shall be construed to extend to the Term unto the end of the Feast of St. Michael and so the Rent then due payable by the Executors for without such Construction no Rent should be then due because the Term ended before Michaelmas CCLXXVIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was bounden to stand to the Award of two Arbitrators who awarded That the party should pay to a stranger or his Assigns 200 l. before such a day The stranger before the day died B. took Letters of Administration The Question was If the Obligee should pay the Mony to the Administrator or if the Obligation was discharged It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is an Assignee And by Gawdy If the word Assigns had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator Which Cook granted CCLXXIX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Defendant in Debt being ready at the Bar to wage his Law was examined by the Court upon the points of the Declaration and the cause of the Debt upon which it appeared that the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And accompting together they were agreed That each of them should be quit of the other It was the Opinion of Periam and Anderson Iustices That upon that matter the Defendant could not safely wage his Law For it is but an agreement which cannot be executed but by Release or Acquittance CCLXXX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail Covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levied a Fine with proclamations and died It was moved by Fenner If any Estate passed to the Son by that Covenant for it is not any discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the Estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson Iustice The Estate passeth until c. And he cited the Case of one Pitts where it was adjudged That if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee and a Collateral Ancestor releaseth with warranty and dieth
Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was said by Dyer and Brown Iustices That if a Man deviseth by his Will to his Son a Mannor in tail 2 Cro. 49. Yelv. 210. and afterwards by the same Will he deviseth a third part of the same Lands to another of his Sons they by this are Ioynt-Tenants And if a Man in one part of his Will deviseth his Lands to A. in Fee and afterwards by another Clause in the same Will deviseth the same to another in Fee they are Ioynt-Tenants XXVIII Drew Barrentines Case Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Drew Barrentine and Winifred his Wife were seised of the Mannor of Barrentine which is Ancient Demesne and holden of the Lord Rich as of his Mannor of Hatfield levy a Fine thereof Sur Conusans de droit c. by which Fine the Conusee rendreth the said Mannor to the said Drew and Winifred in special tail the Remainder to Winifred in tail the remainder to the Countess of Huntington in tail the remainder to the Heirs of the body of Margaret late Countess of Salisbury the remainder to the Queen in Fee It was moved by Bendloes Serjeant If the Lord Rich being Lord of the Mannor might reverse this Fine by a Writ of Disceit and so Recontinue his Seignory and he said That he might and thereby all the Estates which passed by the Fine should be defeated even the remainder which was limited to the Queen for by it the Fine shall be avoided to all intents Welsh Iustice Such a Writ doth not lie For by the remainder limited to the Queen by the Fine all mean Signories are extinct Then if it be so Disceit doth not lie If the Tenant in Ancient Demesne levieth a Fine and afterwards the Lord Paramount who is Lord of the Mannor doth release to the Conusee and afterwards the Lord of the Mannor brings a Writ of Disceit he gains nothing by it And if the Tenant in Ancient Demesne levieth a Fine of it and dieth and the Heir confirmeth the Estate of the Conusee and afterwards the Lord by a Writ of Disceit reverseth the Fine yet the Estate of the Conusee shall stand But all these cases differ from our case For in all those cases another act is done after the Action given to the Lord but in our case the whole matter begins in an instant quasi uno flatu and then if the principal be reversed the whole is avoided For the whole Estate is bound with the Condition in Law and that condition shall extend as well to the Queen and her Estate as to another And if Lands is Ancient Demesne be assured to the King in Fee upon Condition Now during the possession of the King the nature of the Ancient Demesne is gone but if the Condition be broken so as he hath his Land again it is Ancient Demesne as it was before and so the Estate of the Queen is bounden by a Condition in Law. XXIX Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Dutchy-Chamber NOte It was holden by Welsh in the Dutchy Chamber That whereas King Edw. the 6th under the Seal of the Dutchy had demised Firmam omnium tenentium at Will Manerii sui de S. That nothing but the Rent passed and not the Land for Firma signifies Rent as in a Cessavit de feodo firmae But the Clerks of the Court said That their course had always been to make Leases in such manner But Welsh continued in his Opinion as aforesaid And further he said That this was not helped by the Statute of Non-recital or Mis-recital c. for that here is not any certainty For sometimes Firma signifies Land sometimes Rent XXX Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was holden for Law by the whole Court Two Coparceners are and one of them dieth her Heir of full age she shall not pay a Relief for if she should pay any at all she should pay but the moyety and that she cannot do for a Relief cannot be apportioned for Coparceners are but one Tenant to the Lord. XXXI 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought for stopping of a Way The Plaintiff declared That the Duke of Suffolk was seised of a House in D. and Leased the same to the Plaintiff for life And that the said Duke and all those whose Estate c. have used time out of mind c. to have a Way over the Lands of the Defendant unto the Park of D. to carry and recarry Wood necessary for the same House from the said Park to the same House and further declared That the Defendant Obstupavit the Way It was moved by Carns That upon this matter no Action upon the Case lieth but an Assise because that the Freehold of the House is in the Plaintiff and also the Freehold of the Land over which c. is in the Defendant But if the Plaintiff or Defendant had but an Estate for years c. then an Action upon the Case would lie and not an Assise All which was granted by the Court. Post 263. It was also holden That this word Obstupavit was sufficient in it self scil without shewing the special matter how as by setting up any Gate Hedge or Ditch c. for Obstupavit implyes a Nusans continued and not a personal disturbance as a Forestaller or in saying to the Plaintiff upon the Land c. that he should not go there or use that Way for in such cases an Action upon the Case lieth But as to any local or real disturbance Obstupavit amounts to Obstruxit And although in the Declaration is set down the day and the year of the Obstruction yet it shall not be intended that it continued but the same day for the words of the Declaration are further by which he was disturbed of his Way and yet is and so the continuance of the disturbance is alledged And of such Opinion also was the whole Court. Leonard Prothonotary said to the Court That he had declared of a Prescription habere viam tam pedestrem quam equestrem pro omnibus omnimodis Cariagiis and by that Prescription he could not have a Cart-way for every Prescription is stricti juris Dyer That is well Observed and I conceive that the Law is so and therefore it is good to prescribe habere viam pro omnibus Cariagiis generally without speaking of Horse-way or Cart-way or other Way c. XXXII Stowell and the Earl of Hertfords Case Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedom in the Remainder by John Stowel and R.R. against the Earl of Hertford the Case was That Lands were given to Giles Lord Daubeney in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of J.S. who had Issue two Daughters Agnes and Margaret and died The Donee died without Issue and the Demandants as Heirs of the said Agnes and Margaret brought a Formedom in the Remainder And it was awarded by the Court That the Writ should
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
Wife the Executrix should be charged for the not Reparations as well in the time of her Husband as in her own time And if she do make the Reparation depending the Suit yet thereby the Suit shall not abate but it shall be a good cause to qualifie the damages according to that which may be supposed that the party is damnified for the not repairing from the time of the purchase of the Reversion unto the time of the bringing of the Action And it was said by Manwood That by the Recovery of the damages that the Lessee should be excused for ever after for making of Reparations so as if he suffer the Houses for want of Reparations to decay that no Action shall thereupon after be brought for the same but that the Covenant is extinct LXXIII Easter Term. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace moved the Court that in the Kings Bench this case was argued upon a Demurrer there A Feoffment was made by one Coxley who took back an Estate for life the remainder to him who should be his Heir at the time of his death and to the Heirs males of his body begotten And afterwards the Tenant for life after the Statute of 32 H. 8. suffered a Recovery to be had against him that that Recovery was good as it was at the Common Law Because the Statute doth not speak but that it shall not be a bar to him who hath the Reversion at the time of the Recovery but this remainder was in Abeyance until the death of the Tenant for life and that in the same Court it was adjudged accordingly in an Ejectione firmae and because the same was a discontinuance the Plaintiff had here brought his Formedon in the Remainder and therefore Lovelace prayed That they might proceed without delays because the Plaintiffs Title appeareth without Essoigns and feigned delays Which Dyer Iustice conceived to be a reasonable request and that it should be well so to do because as he said This Court is debased and lessened and the Kings Bench doth encrease with such Actions which should be sued here for the speed which is there And he said That the delays here were a discredit to the Court so as all Actions almost which do concern the Realty are determined in the Kings Bench in Writs of Ejectione firmae where the Iudgment is Quod recuperet terminum and by that they are put into possession and by such means no Action is in effect brought here but such Actions as cannot be brought there as Formedons Writs of Dower c. to the Slander of the Court and to the Detriment and Loss of the Serjeants at the Bar. And Lovelace shewed That divers mean Feoffments were made c. LXXIV Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte This Case was in Court An Heir Female was in Ward of a common person who tendred to her a marriage viz. his younger Son and she agreed to the Tender and the Guardian died The Heir married the younger Son according to the Tender The Executors of the Guardian brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii supposing the Tender by the Lord to be void by his death But the Court was of a contrary Opinion because the Tender of their Testator was executed LXXV Riches Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ELizabeth Rich brought a Writ of Dower against J.S. who pleaded and Iudgment given for the Defendant and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed And she brought a new Writ of Dower and the Tenant pleaded That he always was ready and yet is c. Against which the Demandant pleaded the first Record to estop the Tenant To which the Tenant pleaded Nul tiel Record It was the Opinion of the Court That here the Demandant cannot conclude the Tenant by that Replication to plead Nul tiel Record For the Iudgment is reversed and so no Record and it cannot be certified a Record But if the Tenant had taken Issue upon the plea of the Tenant absque hoc that he was ready the same might well have been given in Evidence against the Tenant Note That the Case was That the Demandant after the death of her Husband entred into the Land in Demand and continued the possession of it 5 years and afterwards the Heir entred upon which she brought Dower It was agreed in that Case That the Tenant needed not to plead Tout temps prist after his re-entry for the time the Demandant had occupied the same is a sufficient recompence for the Damages LXXVI Vavasors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NIcholas Ellis seised in Fee of the Mannor of Woodhall Leased the same to William Vavasor and E. his Wife for the life of the Wife the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives the remainder to his right Heirs The Husband died the Wife held the Land and did Waste in a Park parcel of the Mannor It was moved to the Court If the Writ of Waste should suppose that the Wife held ex dimissione Nicholai Ellis or ex dimissione of her Husband It was the Opinion of the Court That upon this matter the Writ should be general viz. that she held de haereditate J.S. haeredis c. without saying any more either ex dimissione hujus vel illius For she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Vses and therefore the Writ shall be ex haereditate It was also the Opinion of the Iustices That the Wife here is not remitted but that she should be in according to the Term of the Feoffment Note in this Case The Waste was assigned in destroying the Deer in the Park And Meade Serjeant conceived That Waste could not be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant had destroyed all the Deer And of that Opinion also was Dyer Manwood said If the Lessee of a Dove-house destroyed all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is Waste And if a Keeper destroy so many of the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is Waste although he doth not destroy them all See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Waste 97. If there be sufficient left in a Park Pond c. it is enough LXXVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought against Executors They were at Issue Vpon nothing in their hands It was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That a stranger was bound to the Testator in 100 l. for performance of covenants which were broken For which the Executors brought Debt upon the Obligation depending which Suit both parties submitted themselves to the Arbitrament of A. and B. who awarded That the Obligor should pay to the Executors 70 l. in full satisfaction c. and that the Executors should release c. which was done accordingly And it was agreed by the Court That by the Release it
Parliament 35 H. 8. it was Enacted That the said Lady should hold part of her Inheritance and dispose of the same as a Feme sole and that the Marquess should have the Residue and that he might Lease the same by himself without his Wife for 21 years or less rendring the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess Leased for 21 years and afterwards durante Termino praedict Leased the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the first Lease It was moved in this Case That this last Lease was void and that for 3 Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but an Estate for life and then it could not be intended that the Statute did enable one who had but such an Estate determinable to make such a Lease which peradventure might not commence in his life-time 2. The Letter of the Statute is 21 years or under and the word Under strongly expounded the meaning of the Statute to be not to extend to such an Estate For here upon the matter is a Lease for 40 years 3. Because the Land demised is the Inheritance of the Wife And in this Case it was said That in the Case of one Heydon such a private Act was strictly construed which was That it was Enacted That all Copies for 3 Lives granted by the Lord Admiral of the Lands of his Wife should be good The Admiral granted Leases in Reversion for 3 Lives And it was holden That that Grant was not warranted by the Statute Dyer said The words are general Omnes dimissiones and therefore not to be restrained unto special Leases scil to Leases in possession Manwood said A Feme Covert by duresse joyns in a Lease with her Husband the same shall bind her CXI The Queen and Sir John Constables Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 5 Co. Constables Case A Quo Warranto was brought by the Queen against Sir John Constable who claimed certain Wreck in the County of York The Defendant pleaded That Edward Duke of Buck. was seised of such a Mannor to which he had Wreck appendant and that he was de alta proditione debito modo attinctus and that found before the Escheator And shewed further That the said Mannor descended to Queen Mary who granted the same to the Earl of Westmerland who granted the same to the Defendant Vpon which It was demurred And Exception was taken to the Plea because the Attainder is not fully and certainly pleaded It was argued by Plowden That the Attainder was certainly pleaded scil debito modo attinctus And it is shewed That the Wreck is appendant to the Mannor and then if the Defendant hath the Mannor he hath the Wreck also and if he hath the Mannor it is not material as to the Queen how he hath it for the Queen doth not claim the same but impeacheth the Defendant for using there such a Liberty But if the Heir of the said Duke had demanded the Mannor there against him the Attainder ought to have been pleaded certainly And it was said by him That the Interest of the Queen in the Sea extends unto the midst of the Sea betwixt England and Spain But the Queen hath the whole Iurisdiction of the Sea between England and France because she is Queen of England France c. And so it is of Ireland CXII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life made a Feoffment of White-Acre of which he was seised for life and made a Letter of Attorny to deliver Livery and Seisin secundum formam Chartae before Livery the Tenant purchased the Fee and afterwards Livery was made It was resolved by the Court in this Case That all passed But if the Feoffment had been of all his Lands in D. and the Letter of Attorny accordingly and before Livery made the Feoffee had many Lands there If he purchased one Acre after the Livery should not extend to that Acre because the Authority was satisfied by the other Acre CXIII Banks and Thwaits Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Case was That A. had pawned an Indenture of Lease for years of a Messuage and Lands to Banks Thwaits intending to purchase the same required Banks to deliver him the said Lease and he would give Banks 10 l. whether he bought it or no at what time he would request the 10 l. Post 200. And Banks delivered the same to Thwaits accordingly Post 200. And afterwards brought an Action upon the Case and declared upon the whole matter and concluded Licet saepius requisitus c. without alledging a request express in certain and the day and place of it It was said by Cook That here the monies did not grow due before Request nor is payable before Request and therefore a Request ought to be made in facto And so he said It was ruled in this Court in an Action upon the Case betwixt Palmer and Burroughs and he said that the Mony was not due by the Promise but by the Request And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That although it be a duty Yet it is not a duty payable before Request And the Request makes a Title to the Action But if A. selleth to B. a Horse for 10 l. there is a Contract and a Request in facto need not be layed And the Opinion of the Court was also That upon this matter the Plaintiff could not have an Action of Debt for there is not any Contract for the thing is not sold but it is a Collateral promise grounded upon the delivery And by Clench Here the Request is traversable And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And it was said It was so ruled in Alderman Pullisons Case in the Exchequer Post 201. CXIV Segar and Boyntons Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 156. IN Trespass the Case was this King Henry the 8th Anno 27 of his Reign gave the Mannor of D. to Sir Edward Boynton Knight and to the Heirs Males of his body Sir Edward Boynton had Issue Andrew his eldest Son and C. the Defendant his younger Son and died Andrew Boynton Covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore that the said Andrew Boynton would assure the said Mannor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said Lord and his Heirs The said Lord Seymore in recompence thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Boynton in tail who 37 H. 8. levyed a Fine of the said Mannor without proclamations to two strangers to the uses according to the said Agreement and before any Assurance made by the said Lord The said Lord was Attainted of Treason and all his Lands were forfeited to the King And afterwards the said Andrew Boynton made a Suggestion to Queen Mary of the whole matter and upon his humble Petition the said
confirms it is a void Confirmation And 7 E. 6. Br. Grants 154. A Man possessed of a Lease for 40 years grants so many of the said years which shall be to come at the time of his death it is a void Grant for the incertainty Afterwards Shuttleworth moved another point viz. The Plaintiff hath declared of a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. The Defendant shews in Evidence a Lease for years to him made 14 Januarii the same year which is 13 days after the Trespass whereof the Plaintiff hath declared and it shall not be intended that the Plaintiff had another Title than that which he hath alledged and forasmuch as he hath not disclosed in himself any Title Tempore transgressionis the Plaintiff should punish him in respect of his first possession without any other Title And although it may be Objected That where the Defendant hath given in Evidence That Williamson leased to the Defendant that is not sufficient and the words subsequent 14 Januarii are void as a nugation and matter of surplusage Truly the Law is contrary for rather those words ante Transgressionem shall be void because too general and shall give way to the subsequent words after the videlicet because they are special and certain As the Case late adjudged The Archbishop of Canterbury leased three parcels of Land rendring Rent of 8 l. per annum viz. for one parcel 5 l. for another 50 s. and for the third 40 which amounts to 9 l. 10 s. It was adjudged That the videlicet and the words subsequent concerning the special reservation of the Rent was utterly void because contrary to the premisses which were certain viz. 8 l. and that the Fermor should pay but 8 l. according to the general reservation but in our case the words precedent are general i. e. ante Transgressionem and therefore the words subsequent which are special and certain shall be taken and the general words rejected As in Trespass the Defendant pleads That A. was seised of the Land where and held it of the Defendant and that the said A. 1 die Maii 6 Eliz. aliened the said Land in Mortmain for which he within a year after viz. 4 Maii Anno 7 Eliz. entred now the same is no bar for upon the evidence it appeareth that the Lord hath surceased his time and the words within the year shall not help him for they are too general and therefore at the subsequent words viz. c. Cook on the Defendants part took Exception For it appeareth here upon the Evidence of the Defendant which is confessed by the Demurrer of the Plaintiff That upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot punish the Defendant for this Trespass for he was not an immediate Trespassor to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff hath declared upon a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. And it is given in Evidence on the part of the Defendant and confessed by the Plaintiff c. That 22 Eliz. Cordell Savell levied a Fine to Williamson by force of which the said Williamson entred and was seised and so seised 14 Januarii 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant Now upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot have Trespass but the Defendant for Williamson was the immediate Trespassor to him for he entred 22 Eliz. And at length after deliberation had of the premisses by the Court The Court moved the Plaintiff to discontinue his suit and to bring de novo a new Action in which the matter in Law might come into Iudgment without any other Exception But the Plaintiff would not agree to it Wherefore it was said by Wray Chief Iustice with the consent of his Companions Begin again at your peril for we are all agreed That you cannot have Judgment upon this Action CXXVI Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his younger Son in tail and after to the use of the Heirs of his body in posterum procreand and at the time of the Feoffment he had Issue two Sons and after the Feoffment had Issue a third Son The younger Son died without Issue Vpon a Motion at the Bar it was said by Wray Iustice That after the death without Issue of the second Son the Land should go to the third Son born after the Feoffment for this word in posterum is a forcible word to create a special Inheritance without that it had been a general tail CXXVII Smith and Smith's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LAmber Smith Executor of Tho. Smith brought an Action upon the Case against John Smith That whereas the Testator having divers Children Enfants and lying sick of a mortal sickness being careful to provide for his said Children Enfants The Defendant in Consideration the Testator would commit the Education of his Children and the disposition of his Goods after his death during the minority of his said Children for the Education of the said Children to him promised to the Testator to procure the assurance of certain Customary Lands to one of the Children of the said Testator And declared further That the Testator thereupon Constituted the Defendant Overseer of his Will and Ordained and appointed by his Will That his Goods should be in the disposition of the Defendant and that the Testator died and that by reason of that Will the Goods of the Testator to such a value came to the Defendants hands to his great profit and advantage And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff And upon Exception to the Declaration in Arrest of Iudgment for want of sufficient Consideration It was said dy Wray Chief Iustice That here is not any benefit to the Defendant that should be a Consideration in Law to induce him to make this promise For the Consideration is no other but to have the disposition of the Goods of the Testator pro educatione Liberorum For all the disposition is for the profit of the Children and notwithstanding That such Overseers commonly make gain of such disposition yet the same is against the intendment of the Law which presumes every Man to be true and faithful if the contrary be not shewed and therefore the Law shall intend That the Defendant hath not made any private gain to himself but that he hath disposed of the Goods of the Testator to the use and benefit of his Children according to the Trust reposed in him Which Ayliffe Iustice granted Gawdy Iustice was of the contrary Opinion And afterwards by Award of the Court It was That the Plaintiff Nihil Capiat per Billam CXXVIII Amner and Luddington's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. 2 Len. 92. 8 Co. 96. And the Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased to one Peerepoint for 99 years who devised the same by his Will in this manner viz. I Bequeath to my Wife the
he might be disseised But because the words of the Indictment were Expulit disseisivit which could not be true if the party expelled and disseised had not Freehold the Exception was disallowed Another Exception was taken to the Indictment For these words In unum tenementum intravit and this word Tenementum is too general and an uncertain word and therefore as to that the party was discharged But the Indictment was further In unum Tenementum decem acras terrae eidem pertinent And therefore as to the 10 Acres the party was enforced to Answer CL. Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Granted to B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to begin when J.S. died without Issue of his body J.S. died having Issue which Issue died without Issue Dyer said The Grant shall not take effect For J.S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore then the Grant shall not begin and if not then then not at all And by Manwood If the words had been To begin when J.S. is dead without Issue of his body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dieth without Issue c. Dyer If the Donee in tail hath Issue and dieth without Issue The Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself died without Issue For there is an Interest and there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A. and B. for the Term of their lives if any of them dieth the Survivor shall have the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the life of B. and C. now if B. or C. die all the Estate is determined because but a Limitation and B. and C. had not any Interest See Cook 5 Part Bradnell's Case CLI Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Enfeoffed B. upon Condition That if he pay 10. l. to the Feoffee his Executors or Assigns 4 Len. 232. 1 Len. 285 286. Hill. 12. Car. 2 B.R. Goodyer and Clarks Case within 3 yeares next ensuing that then it should be lawful for him and his Heirs to re-enter The Feoffee hath Issue two Sons whom he makes his Executors and dieth before the day of payment The Ordinary commits â—etters of Administration to J.S. during the minority of the Executors Manwood conceived That it is a most sure way for A. to pay the Monies to the Executors for they remain Executors notwithstanding the Administration committed to another For the Administrator in such case is but as Bailiff or Receivor to the Executors and shall be accomptable to them Which Harper and Dyer Concesserunt And Manwood said If in this Case the Monies be paid to one of the Executors it is sufficient and the same well paid but that Conditional Feoffments are as a Sum in gross and not in nature of a Debt Which the rest of the Iustices granted CLII. Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of a Mannor seased the same for years rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry and afterwards levied a Fine Sur Conusans de Droit to the use of himself and his Heirs The Rent being demanded is behind Dyer A. cannot re-enter for although in right the Rent passeth without Attornment yet he is without remedy for it is without Attornment and it would be hard without Attornment to re-enter c. It was moved further If here the Conusor be Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Manwood The Reversion of a Termor is granted by Fine there wants privity for an Action of Debt Waste and Re-entry But if the Conusee dieth without Heir although that in right it was in the Conusee yet the Lord by Escheat shall make Avowry and yet the Conusee by whom he claimeth could not And in the Case at Bar the Conusee himself could not but the Conusor being Cestuy que use who is in by the Act of Law 1 Inst 309. shall avow and shall re-enter without Attornment For the Conusor is in by the Statute of 27 H. 8. Harper The Heir of the Conusee shall avow and re-enter before Attornment Dyer 13 H. 4. The Father leaseth for years rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry the Father demands the Rent which is not paid the Father dieth the Son cannot re-enter For the Rent doth not belong unto him And therefore in the Case at Bar the Conusee cannot avow for the Rent before Attornment therefore not re-enter CLIII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT is Enacted by the Statute of 5 Eliz. Cap. 8. That no person shall cut down any Oak Trees but between the first day of April and the last day of June but Timber imployed and bestowed in or about Buildings or Reparations of Houses c. And upon an Information upon that Statute the Defendant pleaded That he cut down the said Oak Trees and thereof made Laths to be bestowed in building and that he had sold them to J.S. who had imployed part of them in building and is imploying the residue in the same manner Windham The intent of the Defendant in cutting down the Oaks was not to have them imployed in building but to sell them Although it is not necessary for the satisfaction of that Statute that the Oaks presently after the cutting be imployed about building For if the Lessee of a Messuage who is to have House-bote seeing that his Messuage will want reparation cutteth down a Tree for such intent although there be not such urgent occasion at present that it ought to be presently repaired the same shall not be said Trespass for it is good Husbandry to have such Timber to be seasonable which cannot be without some reasonable time between the cutting down and the imployment Periam If at the time of the cutting the Vendor or Vendee had an intent to employ them about building it is good enough And it is a strong Case here because the Defendant imploys the Timber himself in Laths which is not of any use but for building and cannot be made but of Timber CLIV. Eve and Finch's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEter Eve and John Finch brought an Action of Trespass against Nathaniel Tracy and Margaret his Wife and upon the pleading the Case was that John Finch Father of J.F. the Plaintiff seised of the Mannor of St. Katherines held the same of the Queen by Knight service in Chief and was also seised of the Land where the Trespass was done being holden in Socage and so seised 6 Junij 20 Eliz. for the preferment of the said Margaret then his Wife enfeoffed of the said Mannor A. and B. unto the use of himself and the said Margaret and their Heirs And that the said John the Father had not any other Land but that before mentioned and that the said Mannor at the time of the said Feoffment and at the death of the said John the Father attingebat ad duas partes of all the Lands and Tenements of the said
that now the time before the forfeiture ought not to be accounted in this Case But the Orginal beginning of the Copyhold shall be holden to be 23 H. 8. when the Grant de Novo by Copy was made between which time and 8 Eliz. is an interval but of 47 years within which time a Customary Interest cannot be attached upon the Land And then before sufficient time encurred c. the Lord may well enter upon such a Tenant at Will For as yet there is not any Custom begotten by sufficient time to bind him It was also agreed by the Iustices That if the Lord of a Mannor is seised of an ancient Copyhold for forfeiture or by reason of Escheat and Lett the same at Will without any Copy for divers years one after the other that that is not any Interruption of the Customary nature of the Land but that the Lord may grant it again by Copy As to other parcel of the Land It was given in Evidence That at a Court lately holden at Northelman It was presented by the Homage there That Taverner the Plaintiff being a Copy-holder of the said Mannor had forged a Customary of the said Mannor containing divers false Customs pretending them to be true Customs of the said Mannor and that he had forged and put a Seal to it about which this word viz. Northelman is engraven And that he had procured divers Copyholders of the said Mannor to set their seals to it and that he said unto them That that Customary should be put into the Church of Northelman amongst the Charters and Evidences of the said Church And that he had now made his Copyhold as good as his Freehold And If the said Offence committed by the Plaintiff ut supra be a forfeiture of his Copyhold was the Question It was argued by Popham who was of Counsel with the Plaintiff That without further matter it was not any forfeiture And yet he confessed It is a forgery against the first branch of that Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 14. And so he said it was lately adjudged in the Star-Chamber But as to the point of Forfeiture he put this difference If the Lord demand his Services of his Copyholder there If the Copyholder upon debate between the Lord and himself sheweth forth such a forged Customary and Counterpleads the Demand of the Lord with it now it is a forfeiture for that the Inheritance of the Lord is thereby hazarded As if the Copyholder after the forfeiture keep it himself and doth not encounter his Lord in his demand with it in his services the same is not any forfeiture As if the Copyholder before any Rent be due saith That he will not pay any Rent to the Lord hereafter Or when a Court is to be holden That he will not after appear to do any Suit at the Court of his Lord c. But if his Rent being due he denyeth it Or when the Court is holden he saith That he will not do any Suit the same is a foreiture As it was lately adjudged in the Kings Bench in the Case between Sir Christopher Hatton and his Copyholders of his Mannor of Wellingborough So if a Copy-holder being with the other Copyholders charged upon Oath to enquire of the Articles of the Court-Baron and sufficient matter being given to them in Evidence to induce them to find a matter within their Charge and they or any of them obstinately refuse to find the same the same is a forfeiture of his Copyhold As it was adjudged in the Case of Sir Rich. Southwell Knight and Thurston Clench Iustice conceived That in the principal Case the Offence of the Plaintiff is not any forfeiture no more 1 Roll. 508. than if a Copyholder makes a Charter of Feoffment of his Customary Land and delivereth the same as his Deed to the party but doth not execute it by Livery the same is not any forfeiture It was argued by Gawdy Serjeant who was of Counsel with the Defendant to the contrary For he said That if a Copyholder will forge a Deed of Feoffment purporting That the Lord of the Mannor hath enfeoffed him of the said Customary Land notwithstanding that he keepeth such Charter himself without shewing it forth yet it is a Forfeiture At the length The Court wished the Iury to find the special matter and to refer the same to the Court Whether it was a Forfeiture or not In this Case another matter was moved viz. The Auncestor of the Plaintiff had purchased divers several Copyholds from several Copyholders by several Copies whereof he died seised Or committed several Offences by which he forfeited to the Lord all his Copyholds for which the Lord seised and granteth them again to his Auncestor wtih the Ancient Rent and to his Heirs Tenendum per antiqua servitia consueta c. And afterwards the same Copyholder commiteth Waste whether the same shall now trench to forfeit all the Copyhold Lands which were granted ut supra by one entire Copy Or only that which was before the seizure holden by the same Rent Et nihil ultra For these words Tenendum per antiqua servitia do not trench only to the Quantity of the Services but also to the Quality scil severally so as there shall be several Services as before As if A. be seised of Copyhold Land on the part of his Father and of other Copyhold Land on the part of his Mother and thereof dieth seised and his Son and Heir be admitted to it by one Copy and by one Admittance Now if that Son dieth without Issue the Copyholds shall descend severally the one to the Heir on the part of his Father and the other to the Heir on the part of his Mother c. And afterwards the Iury found the Special Verdict and the special matter ut supra c CLIX. Vincent Lee's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer 1 Inst 138. b. VIncent Lee seised of Lands in Fee had Issue 3 Sons F.G. and J and by his last Will in writing Devised That J. his Son should have the Land for the Term of 31 years without impeachment of Waste to the intent that he pay certain Debts and Legacies set down in his said Will The remainder after the said Term expired to the Heirs Males of the Body of the said J. begotten And further willed That if the said J. die within the Term aforesaid that then G. his Son shall have such Term c. and then also shall be Executor but made the said J. his present Executor and died J. entred by force of the Devise F. died without Issue by which the Feesimple descended upon J. who had Issue P. and died within the Term P. entred G. as Executor entred upon him and he re-entred upon which re-entry G. brought Trespass Pigott said That the Term by the descent of the Fee from F. to J. being the second Son of Vincent and Heir of F. is not extinct but only suspended It hath
no case where the party useth but the means of the Law by the Kings Writ without any Corruption or Covin of the party he shall be amerced only pro falso clamore and no Action lieth against him because he hath not used but the means of the Law. Which see 2 R. 3. 9. by all the Iustices But yet in an Appeal because it toucheth the life of a Man the Defendant shall have his damages against the Plaintiff but not in any other Action which is a vexation by suit if no Corporation or Covin be in the party who prosecutes such suit See such matter justifiable in Conspiracy 35 H. 6. 13 14. Afterwards the principal Case was adjourned CXCI. Parker and Howard's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 102. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff and Defendant be now joyntly seised of the Office of the Register of the Court of Admiralty If the Defendant shall permit the Plaintiff to exercise the said Office and take the profits of it wholly to his own use during his life without let or interruption done by him That then c. The Defendant pleaded That the Custom of the Realm of England is That the Lord Admiral for the time being might grant the said Office and that such Grant should be good but for the life of the Grantor And further shewed 1 Len. 103. That the Lord Clynton Lord Admiral granted the said Office to the Plaintiff and the Defendant and died And that the Lord Howard was appointed Lord Admiral And that he 27 Eliz. granted the said Office to one Wade who put him out and interrupted him before which time the Defendant suffered the Plaintiff to enjoy the said Office and to take the profits of it Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Cook argued for the Plaintiff That the Defendant's Plea was not good for he hath not entituled the Lord Admiral to grant the Office For he saith That the Custom of the Realm of England is which he hath pleaded in such manner as no Issue can be taken upon it for it is pleaded Quod usitatum est quod Admirals pro tempore existens Non potest Concedere Officium praedict nisi pro termino vitae suae and that cannot be for it cannot be tryed for the Venire facias cannot be Of the Realm of England Also if it be Through the whole Realm of England then the same is the Common Law and not Consuetudo Which see Br. Custom 39. And see 4 5 Mar. Dyer 152 153. An express case of this Office And there he prescribes in Consuetudine in Anglia c. And also that such Grant is good but during the life of the Admiral who granted it Also he doth not answer to any time of the Grant of the Admiral Howard For if he were lawfully put out by Wade yet the Defendant against his own Obligation cannot put us out or interrupt us As L. 5 E. 4. 115. In a Quare Impedit against an Abbot and the Incumbent who make default upon the distress upon which a Writ to the Bishop was awarded for the Plaintiff Vpon which the Bishop retorned That the Incumbent resigned of which the Bishop gave notice And afterwards Lapse encurred and the Bishop collated the said former Incumbent and then that Writ came to him Now although the Incumbent be in by a new title yet he is bound by the Iudgment So here although the Defendant had another title and the former title of the Plaintiff be determined yet against his own Deed and Obligation he shall not put out the Plaintiff And the Court was clear That the Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff But afterwards the Cause was Compounded by the Order of the Lord Chancellor CXCII Mannings Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was agreed by the Iustices in this Case That where an Enfant Executor sold the Goods of his Testator at less undervalue than they were worth And afterwards brought an Action of Detinue against the Vendee upon it in retardatione executionis Testamenti That this sale of the Enfant Executor was good and should bind him notwithstanding his Nonage CXCIII Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest Son in tail and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs not having at the time of the Feoffment any Son Afterwards he suffered a Common Recovery had Issue a Son who died in the life of his Father having Issue a Son and afterwards he himself dieth It was holden in this Case That the Son and Heir of the Son should not avoid this Recovery by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For there was not any remainder in him at the time of the Recovery had but the remainder then was in abeyance for then the Son was not born And the words of the said Statute are That such Recovery shall be void against such person to whom the Reversion or Remainder shall then appertain i. e. at the time of the Recovery And it was said That if Lands be given to E. for life the Remainder to B. in tail the Remainder to C. in fee B. dieth his Wife with Child with a Son A Recovery is had against E. with the assent of C. and afterwards the Son is born he shall not be helped by this Statute for that the Remainder was not in esse at the time of the Recovery But it was holden in the principal Case That the Heir might avoid this Recovery by the Common Law For the Recompence could not extend to such a Remainder which was not in esse CXCIV The Countess of Sussex and Wroth's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was moved in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant If the Disseisee Licence J.S. to put his Cattle into the Land whereof he was disseised If it were a good Licence And If by the Execution of the said Licence the Freehold should be revested in the Disseisee so as if the Disseisor distrain the Cattel of J.S. for Damage-feasant and in a Replevin avow the Plaintiff may plead That the Freehold was in the Disseisee who so Licensed him Periam Iustice The Licence is void For at the time of the grant of it the Disseisee had but a Right before he had recontinued the Land by re-entry Windham If the Disseisee make a Lease for years of the Land whereof he is Disseised it is a void Lease Anderson If the Disseisee command one to enter into the Land and he doth accordingly the same is good The Case was adjourned CXCV. Payn 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Len. 205. A Writ of Error was brought by Payn Treasurer of the Records in the Kings-Bench in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Court of the Exchequer for the Queen upon an Assignment of a
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
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
Rent 11 H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 24. 14 H. 8. 35. So where the Successor accepts of a Rent upon a Lease made by the Predecessor 37 H. 6. 4. 8 H. 5. 10. 4 E. 4. 14. The same Law in Exchanges and Partitions If the Wife accepteth of Dower of the Land which her Husband hath taken in Exchange she shall be barred of that Land which her Husband gave in Exchange 6 E. 3. 50. 15 E. 3. tit Bar. 125. 12 H. 4. 12. c. And in all these Cases where there is an Agreement and therein an Agreement implyed scil An Agreement to the Lease and a Disagreement to have the Possession c. And so Agreement to the Land received in Exchange and Disagreement to the Land given in Exchange and all that by word and act in pais And so here in these Cases Estates are affirmed and entred and benefit of the possession waived and refused So it is also of a Right and Title of Action 21 H. 6. 25. The Lord entituled to have a Writ of Right upon Disclaimer accepts a Rent of the Tenant Now he is barred of his Action 13 Ass 3. The Disseisee accepts homage of the Disseisor it is a good bar in an Assise 21 Ass 6. Pendant a Cessavit the Tenant aliened the Lord accepted the Services of the Alienee his Action is gone 11 E. 3. tit Dower 63. A Woman entituled to Dower accepteth Homage of the Ter-Tenant the same is a Bar of her Dower And as it hath been said of Entries and Actions of which a Man may refuse the benefit by word and Acceptance in pais So is the Law also in Cases of Estates vested if the party doth not Enter Husband and Wife Tenants in special tail the Husband levyeth a Fine to his own use and afterwards Deviseth the Land to his Wife for life the Remainder over rendring Rent the Husband dieth The Wife Enters and pays the Rent now she hath waived her Remitter 18 Eliz. Dyer 351. 10 E. 4. 12. The Tenant enfeoffed the Lord and a stranger and made Livery to the stranger although the Freehold vested in them both yet if the Lord disagreeth to the Feoffment in futuro he cannot enter and occupy the Land and he may distrain for the services c. If a Disseisin be made to the use of the Husband and Wife and the Husband agreeth to it the Freehold vests in the Husband and Wife but the Wife is not a Disseisor and after the death of the Husband she may disagree unto the Estate by word 12 E. 4. 7. And also an Agreement shall make her a Dissessisor See to the same intent 7 E. 4. 7. and Litt. 129. Although that in such and the like Cases the Estate vests in some manner yet it shall never vest to the prejudice of the party without an express and actual agreement And that disagreement to an Estate in such manner vested may be in pais and by word seems by a Clause in the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 1. Where a Ioynture is made after Marriage there the Wife after the death of her Husband may at her pleasure refuse her Ioynture and have and demand and take her Dower her Writ of Dower or otherwise scil by word and Acceptance in pais And if in a Writ of Dower the Tenant will bar the Demandant by Ioynture made during the Coverture he ought to say Quod intrando agreeavit See Litt. in Dower ad Ostium Ecclesiae If the Wife entreth and agreeth the same is a good Bar in Dower Littl. 8. Now in the principal Case When the Wife agreeth to the Devise of Thoby and the same is executed by entry now the same is a full Disagreement to Hinton It was afterwards Objected That although it be clear That the Wife may waive her Ioynture in Hinton by word and act in pais without matter of Record Yet some conceived That this manner of Devise of Thoby is void by the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. The Statute enables to Devise two parts or so much as amounts to two parts in value at the time of the death of the Devisor for then the Will takes effect which cannot be here in this Case for at the time of his death the Ioynture of Hinton was in force and so continued until the disagreement afterwards Also the words of the Statute are Having a sole Estate in Fee-simple but here the Devisor had but a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate tail c. As to the first Point it was answered That the Disagreement doth relate to the death of the Husband and is now as if no Ioynture had been made ab initio And here the Heir shall have Hinton by descent and he shall be Tenant to every Praecipe and if it be brought against him the same day that the Husband dieth the Writ shall be good by the Disagreement after and the Heir shall have his age c. And if the Father had been a Disseisor and had Conveyed the Land ut supra now by this argeement of the Wife the Heir shall be accounted in by descent and thereby the Entry of the Disseisee taken away And if the Heir in such case taketh a Wife and dieth by this disagreement after the Wife shall have Dower of Hinton and hath such a possession quod faciet sororem esse haeredem And if that the same day that the Husband dieth the Heir levyeth a Fine or acknowledge a Statute or maketh by Indenture enrolled a Bargain and Sale of it by the said agreement Hinton shall be subject to such Acts of the Heir All which Cases prove That the Devisor upon this matter at the time of his death had a sole Estate in Feesimple in the Mannor of Hinton and that the third part in value descended to the Heir and so the Devise of Thoby good It hath been Objected That here is not an immediate descent of which the Statute of 34 H. 8. speaks And here the Mannor of Hinton doth not descend immediatly for there was a mean time between the Death and the Disagreement and so the Will void for Thoby To that it was answered That this word immediatè sumitur dupliciter re tempore and shall be taken here immediatè re statu scil That a Reversion or a Remainder dependant upon a particular Estate in possession which is mean shall not be allowed for the third part descended For a Descent which takes away an Entry ought to be immediate for a mediate descent doth not take away an Entry Litt. 92. as the descent of a Reversion or Remainder And if this word Immediatè had not been in the Statute Then the Statute might have been construed That it should be sufficient to leave the third part to descend in Reversion or Remainder but this word Immediatè makes it clear And therefore the third part which descends ought to descend immediatè in re Statu Yet a Reversion upon a Lease for
awarded not good p. 100 Two Matters are in Issue the Jury find the one and says nothing to the other if a good Verdict p. 149 Where eating and drinking of the Jurors at their own charges doth not make the Verdict void otherwise if at the charges of any of the parties p. 267 Unity Of possession where shall extinct a Common p. 127 Usurpation Where puts the King out of possession where not p. 17 W. WAger of Law Where cannot be upon an Agreement that one Creditor be acquitted against the other for Debt p. 212 258 Warrants Of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed not good p. 84 Warranty Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee a collateral Ancestor releaseth with Warranty a bar to the Issue p. 212 Wasts p. 7 60 What a sufficient Plea in it what not p. 9 Wills General words in a Will where not enlarge special words before in it p. 18 Words in a Will or Testament conditional where construed not to give tail by Implication Upon a Devise for three where the words of the Will shall be taken distributively and not jointly p. 117 Not to be taken by Implication p. 131 In a Will a thing implyed shall not control a thing expressed p. 167 Withernam Upon return of a Withernam if the Plaintiff tendereth the Damages he shall have a special Writ to restore his Chattel p. 236 Writs In a recovery upon a Writ in the Court of a Mannor the party who recovered in it cannot be put in possession with the Posse Comitatus p. 99 In the nature of a Scire Facias out of the Court of Admiralty to repeal Letters Patents of an Office is good p. 192 FINIS An Exact TABLE to the Three Parts of Reports of Mr. William Leonard And a Correction of divers Mistakes in Printing of Cases and other Matters in all the Three BOOKS A Denotes the first B the second and C the third Book A Abatement of Writs IF one of three Executors die pend brevi the Writ abates A. 44. Administrator sued as Executor may abate the Writ if the Administrat was committed before Action brought A. 69. A Feme sole Plaintiff takes Baron the Writ is not abated but abateable A. 168 169. If matter of Abatement appear in any part of the Record the Court after Judgment will reverse the Judgment A. 255. Action does not abate if the Defendant die after the first Judgment in Trespass and before the Return of the Writ of Enquiry A. 263. Death after Issue joyned no cause of Abatement in the Civil-Law A. 278. The Writ shall abate if it appear the Plaintiff cannot recover the thing in demand A. 333 334. In what Real Actions two Tenants may plead several Tenancy B. 8. It an Action shall abate after the Verdict if it appear to be brought before time A. 186 187. B. 20. Writ shall abate if the Feme be put before the Baron B. 59. Where upon pleading Joyntenancy or Villenage the Writ shall abate without any answer to the Pleas B. 161 162. Where a Writ shall abate Ex Officio Curiae B. 162. A Writ of Deceit not abated by the death of one Defendant C. 3. Abeyance In what Cases a Use may be in Abeyance B. 18. C. 21 22 23. The like of a Remainder B. 73. Acceptance Where the Issue of him in Remainder accepts the Rent of Tenant for life it is a good affirmance of his Estate A. 243. What Acceptance of Rent by Lessor shall bar him of his Re-entry for non-payment A. 262. The Acceptance of Rent by the Feme confirms the Lease of the Husband C. 271. The like by Issue in Tail of a Lease not warranted by the Statute C. 271. The like by an Infant at his full Age C. 271. The like of a Lease by a Predecessor and the Successor accepts the Rent C. 271. By the Wives Acceptance of Dower out of Lands exchanged she agrees to the Exchange C. 271. One disclaims and after the Lord accepts the Rent of the Tenant the Lord is barred of his right Sur Disclaimer C. 272. Pending a Cessavit Tenant aliened the Lord accepts Services from the Alienee he is barred C. 272. Accord and Concord No Bar if not executed A. 19. C. 212. Account Duresse a good Bar to it A. 13. Capias ad Comp. after a former executed A. 87. The power of Auditors A. 219. Of what things an Auditor by Deed may make Allowance A. 219. The power of an Auditor deputed by a private person A. 219. The difference of an Auditor deputed by Parol and by Deed A. 219. After Account and the Defendant found in Arrear and then the Defendant dies yet the Plaintiff shall recover A. 263. Lies not for the profits of Lands if the Defendant were in by Title A. 226. C. 24. If the Jury ought to assess Damages A. 302. B. 118 196. C. 150 192 230. What may be pleaded in Ear or must be pleaded in discharge before the Auditors B. 30 31 195. If a Factor account to one of many joynt Traders it is sufficient B. 75 76. If the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff gave him the Goods he must traverse that he was Bailiff to render account B. 195. If it lies against a meer Trespasser or wrongdoer C. 24. Where Account or an Action upon the Case lies against one who receives Mony to buy Cattle and does not buy them C. 38. In some Cases it lies against an Apprentice C. 62. Action upon the Case for Tort See Nusance Trover Slander For Erecting a Fould-course in disturbance of the Lord who had one by Prescription A. 11. By a Father against the Master of his Son for beating and laming his Son whereby he was disparaged in Marriage A. 50. Where it lies for malitiously indicting of Felony A. 107 108. Lies and not Trespass for pulling down Hurdles in a Market A. 108 109. Lies against an Under-Sheriff who took Mony to return but did not return a Summons A. 146. Against a Justice of Peace for Arresting one for Felony without accusation A. 187. Against a Mayor for not taking Bail to an Action A. 189. By Tenant in ancient Demesne for taking Goods for Toll A. 231 232. B. 190. By a Sheriff against a Prisoner who escaped out of Execution satisfaction being acknowledged A. 237. If it lies for retaining anothers hired Servant A. 240. Lies for a Tenant in Fee for a Nusance though he may have an Assise A. 247 273. Con. C. 13. If it lies for diverting a Mill-stream without Prescription A. 273. If it lies against a Justice of Peace for refusing to examine one who is Robbed A. 323 324. For conspiring with a Factor to cheat the Plaintiff who was a Joynt Trader with the Defendants in Account B. 75 76. For laying too much weight on a Floor which fell into the Plaintiffs Wares B. 93. An over-loading a borrowed Horse B. 104. By a Commoner for over-charging the Common with Conies B. 203. Against