sold Lands to B. and C. by Deed enrolled they suffered a Recovery to the use of A. and his Wife who was the Daughter of B. for her Joynture the Remainder over in Tail to their Issues A. dyed his Heirs within age Resolved in this Case it was an Assurance by A. himself for the advancement of his Wife and her Issues within the Statute of 34 H. 8. and the Heir of A. should be in Ward for the third part of the Land The Earl of Bedfords Case 954. The Case was this Francis Earl of Bedford made a Feoffment in Fee of the Mannor of D. to the L. St. John and others to the use of himself for 40. years and after to the use of John his second Son and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Afterward Edward Lord Russell Heir apparent of the Earl dyed without Issue male of his body having issue Eliz. and Anne Daughters Afterward Francis by Indenture between him and I. S. and others for the advancement of the Heirs males of the body of the said Earl and the establishing of his Mannors in his blood Covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannor to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of Francis Lord Russell his youngest Son and the Heirs males of his his body with divers Remainders over Afterwards Francis Lord Russell dyed having Issue Edward Lord Russell and after dyed and if the Daughters of the said John Lord Russell or the Earl of Bedford should have the Mannor of D. was the Question in the Court of Wards It was Resolved the Daughters should not have the said Mannor but the Earl because there was no right Heir to take as purchasor when the estate Tail was determined by the death of John Lord Russell without Issue male for the Remainder to the right Heirs cannot be preserved by the mean estate for years for it ought to be a Freehold at least which ought to preserve such a Remainder till there be one to take it by the name of a purchasor as right Heir Andrews and Sheffields Case 955. A. hath Issue three Sons B. C. and D. and seised of Lands in P. by Will deviseth them in this manner viz. I will that all my Lands in P. shall Remain after the death of my Wife to C. my Son and his Heirs and if it fortune that D. liveth untill the said Lands come to C. then I will that C pay to D. 10 l. every year as long as D. liveth A. dyeth C. commeth to the Lands and payeth the Rent hath Issue and dieth It was Resolved that in this Case the devise did enure as a Rent-seck for the life of D. and the Lands in the hands of the Heir or Assignes of C. should be chargeable with the same Wrotesleys Case 956. A. seised in Fee of the Mannors of N. and W. of the Mannor of D. in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife and to his own right Heirs Afterward he dyed seised of these Mannors and also sole seised of other Lands in Fee The Mannor of D. was holden in Capite It was found that A. dyed his Heirs within age the body and Lands of the Mannor of D. was committed to I. S. and I. D. the committee ousted the Wife of D. It was Resolved that the Wife of A. should have recompence to the value of the said Mannor of D. out of the other Lands of the Heir of which his Ancestors dyed seised Boydell and Walthalls Case 957. The Case was A. seised of Land in Fee an Indenture was made purporting a Feoffment to B. and C. with Waranty There was another Indenture bearing date the same day with the first between the Feoffees and the Feoffor whereby the Feoffer reciting the former Feoffment to them granted that immedâ—atly after the said Feoffees and their Heirs and Assignes have taken and received the profits of the Lands during the Terme of 100 years then it should be Lawfull for A. his Heirs and Assignes to reenter and have the said Lands in their first right and Title It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that the Intent upon the Livery was that the Feoffor should have the Lands after the 100. years quit possession of the Feoffees and that the use did immediately arise to the Heirs of the Feoffor as soon as the Lands had been enjoyed for 100. years and that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the Heir of the Feoffor might enter The Earl of Rutlands Case 958. Ed. Earl of R. seised in Fee of and in the Reversion or Remainder of the Mannor of E. expectant upon the death of B. Countesse of B. who held the same for life for the augmentation of the Joynture of I. his Wife Covenanted 21 Eliz. with I. S. and I. D. before the last day of Trinity Term next following by Fine or other assurance to assure the Reversion or Remainder of the said Mannors to them and their Heirs and the parties thereof seised should stand seised of and in the Reversion and Remainder of the said Mannor to the use of the said Earl and the said I. his Wife and the Heirs of the said Earl for ever Afterwards in the same year by another Indenture made between the said Earl the Lord Treasurer and the said I. S. and others of the other part for the advancement of him who should succeed him in the Earldom and the advancement of the Heirs male of T. late Earl of R. his Grandfather to convey the Castle and Honor of B. and the said Mannor of E. amongst other Lands to the said Lord Treasurer and others to the use of the said Earl and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the Heirs males of Tho. his Grandfather with divers Remainders over and by the last Indenture further Covenanted that if the said Earl before the Feast of our Lady next should not sufficiently convey all the said Honors Mannors c. in the last Indenture in manner and forme as therein is mentioned that then he and all other persons seised should from thenceforth stand and be seised to the uses in the last Indenture No Fine was levyed of the Mannor of E. before the end of Trinity Term but in Mick Term a Fine was levyed of the said Mannor within the time limited in the last Indenture and another Fine was levyed of other Land but not of the Mannor of E. and after the Earl died The Quest on in this case only was whether I. the wife of the said Earl might during the Life of B. Countess of B trayerse the Office found after the death of the Earl viz. That the Fine levyed of the Mannor of E. was not to the uses limited in the latter Indenture Resolved that the Office was insufficient for the Incertainty where it found the Earl was seised of the Reversion
June 14. 1664. Imprimatur Orl. Bridgeman AN EXACT Abridgement IN ENGLISH Of the CASES REPORTED By Sr. FRANCIS MORE Kt. Serjeant at Law With the Resolution of the Points in Law therein by the Judges Collected by WILLIAM HVGHES of Grayes-Inn Esq LONDON Printed for John Starkey Thomas Basset and Samuel Speed and are to be sold at their Shops in Fleetstreet 1665. A Table of the Names of the Cases A. Â Sect. AGar and the Bishop of Peterboroughs case 44 Austen and Bakers case 58 Lady Andleys case 80 The Arch-Bishop of Yorks case 18 Arden and Mitchells case 202 Appowel and Monnoux case 231 Andrews case 239 Allen and Givers case 316 Ashley and Harrisons case 432 Atkinsons case 509 Aâ— Richard and Penrys case 513 Ascue and Hollingsbrokes case 520 Alsop and Cleydons case 522 Adderley and Boothbyes case 525 Austen and Twines case 526 Awdâ—h and Noakes case 554 Abraham and Twiggs case 569 Arkinsal and Dâ—â—ays case 607 A miger and Hollands case 687 Ardes and Watkins case 704 Agar and Candâ—shes case 730 Atkins case 759 Arundells case 765 Alderton and Mans case 766 Adams and Albons case 784 Agars case 816 Arden and Backhouses case 833 Adams and Lamberts case 848 Austin and Twynes case 855 Aoliffe and Archdales case 780 Atkins and Longvills case 785 Adams and Dixons case 941 Andrews and Sheffields case 955 Aden and Ayres case 960 Andrews and the L. Cromwells case 1002 Lord Aburgaveny and Edwards case 1011 Apsleys case 1067 Austin and Monks case 1099 Anderson and Robinsons case 1138 Adams and Curwins case 1158 Andrews and the Bishop of Yorks case 1172 Austin and Lucas case 1211 Awberies case 1212 Austin and Pigotts case 1217 Annonimus 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 45 46 57 59 60 61 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 74 75 76 77 78 81 82 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 119 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 147 148 149 150 151 152 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 172 163 164 165 167 169 171 174 175 176 177 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 188 189 190 191 19â— 193 197 208 214 215 216 217 219 220 221 223 224 226 227 242 243 244 245 247 248 252 253 254 255 256 257 266 268 285 289 291 292 296 297 302 303 304 305 306 307 310 312 313 314 317 321 322 357 361 362 366 369 370 371 372 375 376 378 379 390 391 394 412 438 479 543 557 558 562 564 580 606 616 617 635 659 660 683 686 706 715 722 727 739 743 768 795 802 803 804 818 821 847 854 856 879 886 892 943 975 980 984 986 988 989 1060 1077 1083 1084 1098 1123 1130 1131 1160 1173 1187 1196 1208 1216. B. BAker and Brookes case 18 Sir Edward Bray and Andrews case 166 Belfield and Rowses case 203 Bullock and Budetts case 205 Brabrokes case 225 Bossevile and the Corporation of Bridgwaters case 263 Broughtons case 269 Bonncys case 282 Brand and Glasses case 284 Buntings case 288 Bâ—ckwiths case 331 Branches case 340 Beverley and the Bishop of Canterburies case 348 Broke and Smiths case 354 Bonds case 356 Balwine and Cooks case 359 Butler and Bakers case 384 Briscot Chamberlains case 385 Bennet and Halsies case 387 Bond and Richardsons case 400 Beverley and Cornwell 's case 404 Bewacorn and Caters case 409 Bird and Adams case 414 Battey and Trivillions case 415 Barton and Andrews case 425 Blackwel and Eyres case 448 Beswick and Cundens case 452 Bullen and Bullens case 471 Barton Lever and Brownloes case 476 Barwicks case 486 Banks and Whetstons case 487 Bale and Rhodes case 507 Besey and Hungerfords case 512 Borough and Talors case 517 Belchamber Savages case 518 Beckford and Parncotts case 519 Brown and Brinckley case 524 Broughton and Mulshoes case 528 Brokâ—s case 530 Bowyer and Jenkings case 534 Bab and Clerkâ— case 540 Buckâ—er and Harvyes case 568 Boneham and Springs case 575 Blodwell and Edwards case 579 Blinco and Marsons case 600 Barkby and Forsters case 604 Blowfield and Withes case 605 Bradshaws case 621 Bacon and Hills case 625 Beamonts case 626 The Lord Buckhursts case 656 Baâ—kâ—r and Bornes case 657 Broughton and Randals case 666 Benson and Trotts case 667 Bannister and Lilleys case 676 Butler and Goodales case 680 Bâ—l's and Smiths case 694 Barres case 724 Boddy and Hargraves case 731 Bennet and Edwards case 744 Bullock and Dibleys case 771 Bufkyn and Edmonds case 779 Beswick and Cundens case 781 The Lady Burghs case 791 Binghams case 798 Bullock and Thornes case 799 Blake and Allens case 801 Lord Bukley and the Countess of Warwicks case 840 Bibell and Dringhowses case 846 Boulton and Bastards case 860 Bridge and Atkins case 863 Bothes case 864 Bâ—oke and Smiths case 881 Brown and Nicholls case 888 Bucknell and Heys case 912 Bishop and Gins case 917 Bowes and Powletts case 924 Bardolf and Perrys case 932 Sir Henry Baâ—kley and the Earl of Pemhrok's case 937 Bridges case 953 Boydel and Walthalls case 957 Bartons case 968 Bakâ—r and Bacons case 987 Banks and Browns case 995 Bellow and Bâ—ookâ—s case 998 Brown and Wottons case 1004 Baxter and Woodyards case 1016 Bird and Smiths case 1022 Boldney and Curties case 1034 Sir Anthony Barkers case 1046 Billingsby and Hercys case 1052 Brokes case 1069 Brownloe and Cops case 1072 Blandford and Blandfords case 1080 Buckham and Dendriges case 1087 Barrey and Perins case 1088 Babington and Lamberts case 1102 Brown and Goldsmiths case 1143 Bird and Hains case 1147 Bagnell and Stoâ—ks case 1021 Broke and Rogers case 1205 Bedingfields and Feckes case 1209 Blincoes case 1214 Beadle and Stermons case 1220 Bakâ—r and Rogers case 1223 Biggs case 1234 Babingtons case 1235 Barnard and Bridgmans case 1237 C. CApel and Churches case 1 Capel and Apprices case 2 Cleydon and Spencers case 3 Case of the Sheriffs of London 5 Caâ—ket and Sheldons case 54 Cranmers case 234 Cdlthrops case 237 Case of the Skinners of London 262 Sir Peter Carews case 277 Case of Safforn Walden 286 Cooks case 300 Colborns uase 305 Cheneys case 329 Carewas case 346 Cropps case 347 Crosman and Reads case 352 Caines case 364 Countess of Rutlands case 399 Cornwalls case 429 Sir Hugh Chomleys case 443 Corbet and Marshes case 444 Crispe and Fryers case 445 Collins case 456 Carter and Loves case 464 Castleman and Hobbs case 493 Carith and Reads case 511 Carters case 533 Colmans case 553 Corbet and Downings case 578 The Countess of Northumberlands case 598 Coote and Lighworths case 602 Cheney and Hawes case 628 Cote and Hadgills case
Lawfull before he had a discharge of this Office or perfect notice of a new Sherff Johnson and Smiths Case 318. Action upon the Case for slandring of his Title and declared That he was seised of Lands by discent from hâ—s Father and was agreed with I. S. for a sale of the same Lands and I. S. went to the Defendant being an Attorney and prayed his advice for the making the Assurance and that the Defendant said to I. S. that he had heard that the Father of the Plaintiff had granted a Rent Charge out of the Lands in Fee by reason of which words I. S. refused to buy the Lands and all other persons for fear of the said Incumbrance to his damage c. The Defendant said he was an Attorney at Law and I. S. came to him for Counsell in secret he said the words spoken in the Declaration It was strongly urged that although he was an Attorney that would not excuse him because an Attorney is allowed to give Counsell and the utterance of the words in private did not excuse being spoken to the buyer himself But it was Resolved the Action did not lye and adjudged against the Plantiff Dawbney and Goores Case 319. In Disceit D. G. and G. were Joynt Merchants they made F. and S. their Factors in Barbary G. and G. conspired with S. to demand allowance of 1000 l. which was allowed them upon accompt by which D. was damnified for that the money was not due and the truth was S. only made the Account The poynt was if one Factor might make an Account for both and if the two Merchants might take an Account for them all three It was said that they all ought to joyn in Account but one solely might Assigne Auditours to take the Account on the other side it was said there was no Joynture in Merchandize and that one Merchant shall have an Account against his Companion Quaere the Case was not Resolved Hill and Morses Case 320. It was Resolved in this Case That a Copyhold without a special Custome could not be entailed 321. An Enfant acknowledge a Fine before the Cheif Justice but the Conusee would not have the Fine ingrâ—ssed till his full age The Enfant came now with the Note of the Conusance and prayed a Wriâ— of Error and examination of his age which the Justice agreed unto and that an Entry be made thereof and by that save to him his advantage 322. A man sold his Land and Covenanted to save the Vendee harmlesse upon request It was said if the Land be extended by force of a Statute before the request the Covenant is not broken for that now the Covenant is become impossible by the negligence of the Covenantee himself but if he had made request before the extent there the Covenant should be broken for default of saving harmelesse Foreman and Bobâ—ams Case 323. Repâ—evin The Defendant avowed for a Rent charge of 3 s. 4 d. â—issâ—ing out of the place where c. which was one parcell of the Mannor of W. of whâ—ch Mannor I. S. was seised in Fee and 33 H. 6. made a Feoffment of the said Close rendering Rent with distresse and dyed seâ—sed and it discended to his Son who bargained and sold the Mannor with all Lands Rents Reversions services and herediraments which are parcell or had been deemed reputed or taken as part parcell or member of the Mannor and the Defendant as Bayliff of the Heir of the Bargainee made Conusans for the Rent and whether the Rent did passe as parcell of the Mannor was the Question by the bargain and sale It was said it did nâ—t passe by the word parcell but it passed by the words reputed parcell if it were so reputed parcell at the time of the grant Quaere the Case is not Resolved in this Book but vide Pasch 26 Eliz. in B. R. Leon. 1. part 13. there the Judgment was given against the Avowant Justice Windhâ—ms Case 324. A Lease was made reciting that whereas he had made a Lease of one Close to the Lessee for â—0 years rendring 8 s. Rent and another Lease of another Close to the same Lessee for 40 years now he demised to the same Lessee both the said Closes for 40. year from and after the determination of the several demises It was a question if the last Lease was good because there is not any certain time of the begining of it Resolved the Lease was good and the Law shall make an Interpretation of the demise reddendâ— singula singulis how the Terme shall begin Vide Cook 5. part the same Case Dolman and Vavasors Case 325. A. seised in Fee of Lands 15 Eliz. suffered a Common Recovery to B. which Recovery was executed by Habere facias seisinam After the Recovery had it was declared by Indenture between the parties that the Recovery should be to the use of the said A for life without impeachment of Waste the remainder to the first begotten Child of his body and the Heirs male of such first begotten Child and so to his 9. Issues and for want of such Issue to V. the Tenant or Defendant and the Heirs male of his body and if these Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the Recovery was the Question It was Resolved that these Subsequent Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the said Recovery for so was the Intent of the parties as appeareth by the Indentures and it was adjudged that the declaration by the subsequent Indentures should stand good because there was not any other declaration of any other use Scroggs and Lady Greshams Case 326. Debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant Executrix of Sir Thomas Gresham The Defendant pleaded several Obligations made by the Testator to the Queen amounting to 8000 l. solvendum eidem Doâ—inae Reginae quando requisitus â—uisset ultra quam non habet upon which the Plaintiff demurred because the Obligation not being upon Record but taken in paâ—s was not good for that the Queen could not take but by matter of Record and also the solvendum is not to the Queen and Successors and the Queen is not to have the preferment of payment of her debts unlesse they be debts upon Record But yet in such Case if the Queen first sue she shall be preferred although she hath Judgement after another who sueth The Lord Pagetts Case 327. The Case was the Lord Pageâ—t seised of divers Mannors by deed Indented Covenanted with I. S. and others that in consideration of discharge of his Funerals payments of his Debts and Legacies and advancement of his Son and others of his blood to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of the said I. S. and others for the Life of the Lord Pagett and after to the use of C. P. and other for 24. years and after the expiration of the said Term of 24. years to the use of William Pagett his Son in tail Afterwards the Lord Pagett
was attainted of Treason The first Question was If the Uses limited to I. S. and others were good or not Resolved they were void because they wanted a good consideration but if he had made them Executors and chargeable to the payment of his debts then the same had been good Second point If the use limited to William Pagett should begin presently after the death of the Lord Pagett or should expect untill the 24. years were incurred after the death of the Lord Pagett or not at all Resolved That the use should be in William Pagett presently before the 24. years were expired Wiseman and Barnards Case 328. The case was Tenant in tail for the advancement of his Blood Name and Issue covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself in tail the remainder to the Plaintiff in tail the remainder to the Queen in see and died his issue entred and suffered a common Recovery and died without issue he in the remainder entred Resolved That the consideration that the Land should continue in his Name and Blood was no consideration to raise the use to the Queen 2. Resolved that he in the Remainder was barred by the common Recoverie and the Remainder not preserved by the Statute of 34. H. 8. because it was not of the Provision of the Queen but of a common person Chenyes Case 329. A seized of Lands made a Lease for years thereof to B. and C. upon confidence for the preferment of the wife of A. and afterwards he made a Feoffment to B. and others to certaine uses of the same Lands the point was If the Lease for years were extinguished by the Feoffment Resolved That the Terme was not extinct but was saved by the Proviso in the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses which preserved all Interest which the Feoffees had in the Lands to their own uses and here B. had the Term to his own use and therefore not extinguished Pimbs Case 330. A committed Treason 18. Eliz. and was attainted 26. Eliz. In the interim he was Conusee of a Fine levied by I. S. which fine was to the use of the said I. S. and his wife Afterwards I. S. and his wife bargained and sold the Land for money to Pimb It was conceived that the Land was in the Queen upon the discovery of the Treason and Attainder which intitles the Queen to all the Lands which Traitors had at the time of the Treason or after so as the estate of I. S. and his wife was thereby destroyed by the Relation of the Attainder Wherefore Pimb sued to the Queen and she granted him the Land by her Letters Patent Beckwiths Case 331. Husband and Wife seized of Lands in the right of the Wife levied a Fine The husband detained the uses solie one way and the Wife detained the uses upon the Fine another way It was resolved that both the Declaration of the uses were void and so by consequence the uses upon the Fine should be to the use of the Wâ—te and her Heirs The Lord Mountjoys Case 332. The Case was this A Mannor which did consist of Free Rents of 7. l. copyhold Rents of 3. l. and of domaines which had used to be devised for several Rents and Farmes to which Mannor an Acre of waste parcel of the Mannor of the yearly value of 12. d. Heriotts Court Baron Leet and perquisits of Court which never were devised for Life years or otherwise did appertain and were incident was by a private Act of Parliament given to A. and B. in tail with diverse remainders over and the Donees were restrained Quod non facerent aliquid ad Nocumentum or disinheritance of the Tenant in tail or them in remainder and that they should have power to make a Lease for Life Years or at Will rendring the true and ancient Rent of the said Tenements to be demised and that all other acts should be void Tenant in tail accepted of a fine from a stranger of the Mannor by which they granted and rendred the Mannor for 300. years rendring rent yearly amounting to the free Rents Copy rents and Farme Rents and 18. d. more and 12. d. for the waste to be paid at two Feasts whereas the ancient Rent was paid at four Feasts Tenant in tail died and if the Lease for 300. years was to be avoided by the clause of Restraint was the Question It was Resolved 1. That although by the purview of the Act That all Estates restrained by the Act should be void yet the same should not avoid the Lease as to the Tenant in tail himself but it should be avoided by the Issues in tail 2. Resolved That in respect the Acre of waste was never devised before that the Rent which is entire reserved out of the whole cannot be said the true and antient Rent 3. Resolved That the reservation of the Rent at two Feasts where the antient Rent was payable at four Feasts made the Grant and Render void for that was to the hurt of the Issues in tail for it was more beneficial to have the Rent at four Feasts then at two Feasts and all beneficial Qualities of the Rent ought to be observed and for these causes and others the Lease for years was to be avoided by the Issue in tail Knights Case 333. The Case was a Prior seised of divers houses with the consent of his Covent made a lease of them for years rendring rent of 5. l. 10. s. 11. d. at four usual Feasts upon condition that if the Rent was behind in part or in all at any of the said Feasts he and his Successors to reenter The Priory came to the King by surrender the King by his Letters Pattents under the Great Seal granted one of the houses to the Lessee and another in Fee and afterwards it was found by Commission under the Exchequer Seal that parcel of the said Rent was behind at one of the said Feasts the King before the Commission returned granted the residue of the houses to I. S. in Fee It was resolved in this case amongst other things That although without Office found the Lease was not void and although the Office was not returned before the date of the Letters Pattents made to I. S. yet forasmuch as the Office was found before the Grant and afterwards it was returned of Record that the grant was good and that in this case of Reentry without seisure the Lease was void Owens Case 334. Upon a Fine levyed the Lands were rendred to A. and to his wife and to the Heirs of the body of A. A. suffered a Recovery with Voucher in the life of his wife and afterwards died the wife died It was resolved in this case that the Recovery suffered by the Husband only did not bind him who was in the Remainder for betwixt husband and wife there are no moyeties and the joynt estate was not severed by the Recovery against the Husband only and the husband was not the only Tenant to the
levyed another Fine to all the said uses but only the Estate for 20. years to his Executors and made his wife his Executrix the wife married Sir Robert Remington It was adjudged in this case that by the second Fine the Lease for 20 years to his Executors was extinct Littletons Case 971. A seised of Lands holden in copite in consideration of a Marriage of M. his Daughter with W. L. Son of Sir John and of 1300 l paid by Sir John the Father of W. levyed a Fine of part of the Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to W. and M. and the Heirs of the Body of W. upon the Body of M. the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. and the residue to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his first Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. with power to make a Joynture â—o his second Wife and to make Leases for Twenty one years or three Lives The marriage took effect A. took a wife and had Issue by her I. and died I. his Son and Heir within age W. died without Issue G. L. being his Brother and Heir the second wife of A. living and also M living It was upon â— Melius Inquirend found that M. was the Daughter of A. It was Resolved in this case that the Queen should have the Wardship of the third part of the whole Land during the minority of I. the Son of A. Also it was Resolved by them that although money was paid and so the consideration of the Marriage was a mixt consideration yet â—hat should not alter the Law for the duty to the Crown 1. and one Ciffias case was cited to have been so adjudged The Lord Ross and the Earl of Rutlands Case 972. H. Earl of Rutland 2 Elâ—z levyed a Fine with Proclamation to the use of himself and B. his Wife and the Heirs of his own Body and died B. married the Earl of Bedford they covenanted with Edward Earl of Rutland Son of H. Earl of Rutland to levy a Fine which Fine was levyed with Proclamation sur concâ—ssit of the said Mannors and Lands by the said Edward Earl to the said B. for Life Afterward Edward Earl of Rutland 29 Eliz. covenanted with the Lord Burâ—eigh and others to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of Thomas Earl of Rutland his Grandfather Edward Earl 29 Eliz. died without Issue Male having a Daughter which was the Lady Roâ—s the Mother of the Lord Ross the plaintiff B. died the entail made by the Earl of Rutland and the discent to the Lord Ross the Plaintiff was found by Office It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That the Mannors did belong to the Plaintiff the Lord Ross as Issue in tail of Henry Earl of Rutland notwithstanding the Fine levyed by Edward Earl of Rutland because the Fine being sur concessit the same remained a Bar no longer then during the Life of B. Also they held the taking of the Fine by B. to be a surrender of her Estate but to be no discontinuance because not seised of the Tail at the time 3. Resolved the Lands should be in the King during the Minority of the Lord Ross Anno 1. Jacobi 973. It was Resolved by the Justices that Informations for the Queen alone in any Latin Court should not abate by the Demise of the Queen and so like of Informations tam pro the party quam for the Queen and so also it was of Informations in English Courts they were not discontinued by the Demise of the Queen Handall and his Wife and Browns Case in Chancery 974. The case was A. possessed of a Term for years had Issue a Son and two Daughters and by Will he devised his Term to John his Son and if he died to his two Daughters and if they died to his Wife he made his Son his whole Executor who entred claiming by the Will and after Probate he died Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and for mony sold the Term to Brown the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices that the Assignee of the Administrator should have the Term and not the two Daughters and Decreed in Chancery accordingly 975. Upon the cases of claims at the Coronation of the King these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. That where a Barony or a Mannor or Land holden by grand Serjeanty to do special Service at the Coronation is come to many hands by purchase there each Tenant is chargable with the whole Service but the King may appoint which of them shall do the Service and he which doth the Service shall alone have the Fee but if the Division be by Copartners there the eldest is only to do the Service and the other shall contribute to the charge and the eldâ—st shall have the Fees but if each Sister sell her part the Feoffee of the eldest shall not have the preheminence 2. Resolved where Grand Serjeanty is to be done at the Coronation by Tenure and the Lands come to an ignoble person who is unmeet to do the Service the Lord Steward may appoint a Noble or meet person to do the Service as Deputy to the Tenant of the Land 3. Resolved where Land is given to hold as to be Hostiarius Câ—merae Regis or the like In such Case the Tenants are to make their claims yet they are not to be admitted to the said Services by the Commissioners for claims or the Lord Steward but they are to be referred to the King himself their Tenure being perpetual and continuing Leigh and Helyers Case 976. A man supposing he had Title to certain Lands which were in the possession of I. S. contracted to sell them to I. D. and sealed a Lease for years to a third person to the use of I. D. with whom the contract made and the year and day long before expired Resolved it was maintenance by the Common Law but not within the Statute of 32. H. 8. Foster and Kings Case 977. A man made his Will and gave diverse Legacies and devised that the rest and residue of his Goods after his Debts and Legacies paid to his wife and after in the same Will he devised that his Overseers should enter into the Lands and cut down so much of the Woods as would suffice to pay his Debts Quere in this case if the Debts and Legacies shall be paid of the Woods if the Goods be not sufficient to pay them Skipwiths Case 978. Tenant in tail and he in the Reversion bargaineth and sells the Lands to the King and before enrollment Tenant in tail suffers a common Recovery Quere if the Issue in tail be barred by the Recovery not Resolved Lucas Case 979 Resolved in this case that before the Statute of 13 R. 2â— Murder was pardonable by the name of Felony but since that Statute the