Canons of Windsors case 550 Harris and Vandergies case 503 Huntbage and Shepherds case 537 Hilliard and Constablâ—s case 551 Hinson and Boradgis case 563 Hollman and Collins case 565 Hobbs and Tedcastles case 584 Hollins and Connards case 595 Harvey and Oswalds case 599 Harrington and â—â—yes case 608 Holcome and Rawlins case 613 Halliwel and Jervoise case 622 Hoe and Beltons case 640 Hoe aâ—d Marshals case 641 Heddy and Welhouses case 649 Holcrofts case 655 Holliday and Lees case 684 Hewley and Brices case 697 Helgor and Whiteacres case 710 The Lord Hunsdens case 713 Holford and Andrews case 748 Hugbâ—on and Princes case 780 Hall and Vaughns case 783 Holland and Jacksons case 80â— Higgins and Spicers case 808 Hall and Jones case 809 Hungate Mease and Smiths case 837 Hainsworth and Prettyes case 841 Heydon and Smiths case 857 Sir George Henâ—ge and Curtis case 896 Holt and Tilcocks case 897 Hog and Blocks case 898 Hâ—ason and Burridges case 925 Hâ—â—ey and Riggs case 945 Handal and Browns case 974 Hall and Trussels case 982 Holder and Farleys case 992 Hall and Fettiplaces case 993 Holloway and Pollards case 999 Heywards case 1001 Hussies case 1029 Heydon and Shepherds case 1057 Hill and Hawkâ—s case 1059 Herbert and Binghams case 1082 Harvyes case 1083 Harrison and Haxâ—eyâ— case 1095 Harecote and Wrenhams case 1112 Harringâ—n and Deans case 1118 Henningham and Burâ—owes case 1137 Hill and Hilâ—s case 1159 Hansons case 1170 Hall and VVingfields case 1173 Heard and Baskervills case 1167 Harbin and Greâ—rs case 1180 I. JOslin and Chelstons case 49 Jackson and Darcyes case 246 Ivors and Keales case 271 Ive and Tracies case 281 James case 308 Johnson and Smiths case 318 Isams case 480 Jenkinson and Wrays case 506 James and Rudgâ—leys case 746 Johnson and Clerks case 750 Joyner and Ognels case 921 Jepps and Tunbridges case 1042 Jesson and Bruns case 1063 Isaack and Clerks 1070 K. KNowles and Lines case 241 Kenrick and Bâ—rges case 258 Knights case 333 Knowles and Powells case 355 Keraes case 360 Keale and Carters case 416 King and Hunts case 484 Kelsick and Nicholsons case 566 Kirton and Hoptons case 601 Sir VVilliam Knowles case 964 Keckâ—iths case 1073 The King and Bishop of Lincola and Kings case 1155 Kingswel and Crawleys case 1171 Kellâ—y and VValkâ—rs case 1223 L. LEvet and Lewkâ—ors case 13 Lucas and Cottons case 200 Lukin and Eves case 211 Lane and Coopers case 238 Leeke and Grivels case 249 Lacyes case 251 Linsics case 309 Leversage and Cabbells case 400 Lee and Lees case 402 Langley and Harâ—s case 430 Lassel and Lassells case 505 Laughton and Gardiners case 573 Lutterells case 578 Linch and Spencers case 597 Lewis and Bennets case 633 Lloyd and Welkingsons case 653 Levor and Hayes case 707 Lewes case 720 Lewen and Coxes case 725 Loveden and Windsors case 726 Layton and Garnonces case 732 Lovegraves case 797 Ludd and Wrights case 812 Lamnots case 968 Littleton case 971 Lrigh and Helliers case 976 Lucas case 979 Lovice and Goddards case 1009 Lambs case 1038 Lukâ— and Clerks case 1079 Linghil and Broughtons case 1101 Lampleigh and Braithways case 1132 Lea and Pains case 1175 Lee and Arrowsmiths case 1188 Loder and Samuels case 1189 Libb and Watts case 1207 Leigh and VVoods case 1219 Sir Robert Lane and Pigotts case 1228 Lanes case 1233 Lloyd and Maddoxs case 1236 M. SIr Robert Mansfields case 207 Moreton and Hopkins case 209 Muttons case 230 Manwoods case 236 Midmay and Standishes case 272 Morris and Franklyns case 278 Mollinuâ—s case 301 Manxells case 311 Lord Mountjoyâ—s case 332 Martin and Wilkâ—s case 335 Mounsons case 339 Moor and Williams case 341 Morris and Webbers case 350 Mascalls case 363 Moâ—e and Hales case 404 Meade and Chenyes case 424 Jsahell Mordants case 436 Mosse and Parkâ—s case 450 Morgan and Wyâ—s case 459 Morgan and Williams case 482 Marshall and Vincents case 501 Meggs and Griffiâ—s case 520 Matthew and Woods case 549 Marsh and Curties case 571 Mountague and Jefferies case 576 Mounson and Wests case 581 Mayne and Scotts case 593 Munday and Levices case 596 Mortimer and Wingates case 623 Mitchel and Longs case 672 Mosley and Fossetâ—s case 688 Marsh and Edmunds case 693 Markham and Gomastons case 698 Mills and Parsons case 700 Medcalfs case 70â— May and Middletons case 778 Marrow and Turpius case 787 Marshal and Marshals case 790 Sir Anthony Mildmay and Mildmays case 822 Mellow and Mays case 829 Menviles case 831 More and Morecombs case 844 Mouse and Weavers case 850 Morgan and Slades case 867 Milliner and Robinsons case 890 The Lord Mordant and Bridges case 900 Mayaard and Bassets case 906 Marroner and Cottons case 916 Matthew and Matthews case 927 Morse and Rosses case 935 Maylard and Kesters case 946 Mansfields case 1062 Moody and Garnons case 1085 Moyslyn and Piercies case 1092 May and the Sheriffs of Londons case 1096 Marshal and Stewards case 1139 Middleton and Lawtes case 1168 Sir Thomas Middletons case 1184 Morrice and Smiths case 1195 Manns case 1198 N. NEwdegates case 187 Newton and Barnardines case 260 The Lord Norths case 470 Necton and the Wardens of VVexchandâ—ers case 545 Nevil and Barringtons case 560 Lord Norris and Bartletts case 572 Nicholas and Badgers case 574 Nevil and Sydenhams case 758 Norton and Syms case 1109 Norris and the Hundred of Gawtrys case 1166 O. Owens case 334 Owens case 343 Osborn and Cameonâ—s case 410 Ogael and Pastons case 411 Oland and Burdwicks case 489 Odâ—ham and Smiths case 681 Oldbery and Gregories case 729 Only and Font Le Roys case 909 Ody and Yates case 914 Oldcot and Levells case 983 P. PRice and Jones case 198 Playn and Gowchâ—s case 213 Pledal and Pledals case 228 Plawstow and Batchellors case 235 Lord Pagetts case 327 Pimbs case 330 Purfâ—eys case 365 Pigot and Palmers case 381 Page and Griffiths case 406 Paramour and Verralds case 446 Pannell and Feâ—s case 44â— Portman and VVillis case 451 Preston and Hinds case 455 Sir John Perrots case 483 Pen and Glovers case 510 Perin and Corbets case 523 Penniman and Rawbanks case 535 Paramour and Darings case 555 Palmer and Porters case 583 Partridge and Naylors case 594 Parlor and Butlers case 609 Perries case 615 Popworth and Arches case 639 Prat and Phanners case 652 Pigot and Hearnes case 954 Parry and Woodwards case 670 Penner and Cromptons case 716 Powle and Veriâ—s case 717 Parker and Sir Edward Cleves case 733 Plain and Binds case 770 Paramour and Veralls case 792 Peck and Channells case 823 Parhan and Nortons case 839 Pollard and Mortons case 851 Prine and Allingtons case 872 Penny and Cores case 874 Pudsey and Neusons case 889 Palmer and Sherwoods case 907 Partridge and Turks case 911 Palmer ond Humfreys case 926 Plaine and Bagshaws case 930 Penruddock and Erringtons case 933 Sir Thomas Palmers case 1041 Price and Almories case 1053 Poole and Godfreys case 1061 Phelps and
the use of himself and his wife for their lives the Remainder to the use of the eldest Child of the said W. H. and the Heirs of the body of such eldest Child the Remainder over A Fine was levyed accordingly and after his wife died without issue and W. H. married another woman and by her had issue a Daughter his eldest Childe and a Sonne his younger It was a Question which of them should have the Remainder It was the opinion of the Justices That the Daughter should have the Remainder and not the Sonne for that was the intent of the Ancestour as they conceived though puero in Latine is intendable rather to an Issue Male than Female and yet they said That many Authors have taken the word indifferently to extend to both Sexes Mich. 17 18 Eliz. Andrews Case 239. Q. Imp. The Case was A Tenant in Tayle the Remainder to the Lord Mountjoy in fee of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant bargained and sold the same by Indenture not enrolled to I. S. and his Heirs rendring 42 l. rent with Clause of Distress and Nomine pene and covenanted for further assurance to levy a Fine to the Bargainee Proviso that the Bargainee grant the next Avoydance to A. for life and if it happen not void then one life to his Executors A and I. S. afterwards levyed a Fine with the render of a Rent of 42 l. to A. in tayle the remainder to I. S. in fee B. in his life did not grant the Advowson to A. and dyed the Church became void A. entred for the Condition broken It was in this Case resolved 1. That the Proviso made a Condition 2ly That the Fine levyed had not extinguished the Condition 3ly That no time being limited for the regrant the Bargainee was bound to regrant it without request at his peril during the life of the Bargainor if he were requested in the life of the Bargainor and because the Bargainor dyed the Condition was broken Fox and Colliers Case 240. Ejectione firme the Case was E. G. Bishop of York 6. Nov. 18. had made a Lease from the date of the Indenture of Lands for 21. years to the Plaintiff which Lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter at which time there was unexpired 4. years of an antient Lease made for 40. years Afterwards E. G. was removed to Canterbury and S. elected Bishop of York the 4. years expired the Plaintiff entred The Defendant upon a Lease made to him by S. after the 4. years ended put him out It was resolved by all the Justices and Barons in the Exchequer Chamber That the Lease made to the Plaintiff was good yet they agreed it should be void if it was not for the Confirmation 2ly They held that the Lease now in Question being to commence presently in Estoppel but not in Interest was not void by the Statute of 1 Eliz. neither within the letter nor the intent of the Statute not within the letter because it is not prejudicial to the Successor and the Statute is satisfied in the intent it not being a Lease longer than 21. years and having the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter it is now good although it was not good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. Knowles and Lines Case 241. Ejectione firme The Case was Sir Francis Englesfield was seised in the right of K his wife of the Mannor of S. whereof a Messuage and Lands in question were Copyhold demiseable for 3. lives 1 Eliz. Sir Francis Englefield went beyond Sea with license for 3. years after his Licence expired the Queen sent a Privy Seal to him commanding him upon his Allegiance to return he spretis Mandatis of the Queen continued there and adhered to the Queens Enemies This being retorned a Commission issued to seize his Lands upon which the said Mannor of S. was seized The Queen at the Suit of K. his Wife for her Releif granted the Mannor to St. John and Fetiplace the Friends of K. for her Releife quamdiu in manibus nostris fore contigerit who entred and were thereof possessed accordingly and then the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives was made After which the Defendant procured a Warrant from the Lord Treasurer to C. and F. joynt Stewards for the Queen to hold Court within all the Lands of Sir Francis Englefield and to grant Copyes according to the Custom of the Mannor C. alone executed the Grant and granted the Messuage and Lands to the Defendant's being Copyhold In the Case was two points 1. If the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives had taken away the Estate of St. John Fetiplace and reduced the Mannor again to the Queen 2ly If the Court holden by C. only being a joynt Grant of Stewardship was good Resolved 1. That the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives was made in affirmance of the Common law and did not give the Queen any new thing but added only some Circumstances to it and therefore the Grant made to St. John and Fetiplace stood good so as the Queen could not oust the Patentees and so by consequence the Grant of the Copyhold to Lines the Defendant was not good 2ly They held that the Court holden by C. only was good For it was said a Disseasor c. might hold Courts and make admittance and take surrenders and the like because he is but an Instrument of Conveyance but he could not grant Copyhold estates 242. Note by the Justices If a man be to make sufficient proof it may be made by Witnesses produced as by Jury 243. A man seised of Lands parcell Copyhold and of Lands at the Comon Law and by Licence of the Lord makes a Lease of them for 21. years Provided if the Lessor or his Wife or his Heirs or Assignes or any of them give warning to the Lessee that the Husband or Wife or their Heirs will dwell there that then the Lessee should avoid Except that the Lessor or his Heirs shall pay to the Lessee then 20 l. The Lessor and his Wife dyes and the Reversion of one part discendeth to the eldest Son and the Reversion of the other to the youngest and the youngest purchaseth the Reversion of the eldest and then the youngest gives warning to the Lessee It was the opinion of the Justices that the warning given by him was good and that the Law which hath severed the Reversion hath severed also the Condition although at the begining they were entire and so for one part as Heir and for the other part as Assignee he shall take advantage of the Cndition 244. A man makes a Lease of Land and of an House for years reserving one Rent for all and afterwards the Lessor grants the Reversion of all the Lands saving the Reversion of the House to himself Resolved that by agreement betwixt the Lessor and grantee in the Reversion in pays the Rent may be apportioned if it be according to the quantity and quality of the Land
630 Coles case 631 Collins and Willies case 637 Canes case 645 The Lord Cromwel and Andrews case 648 Clark and Hardwicks case 662 Coulter and Irelands case 664 Chambers Hanbâ—â—ges case 665 Cartwright and Dalesworths case 685 Corbens case 690 Collins and Hardings case 691 Cooper and Langworths case 692 The Countess of Warwicks case 735 Creswel and Holmes case 759 Chowley and Humbles case 757 Carter and Cleypales case 760 Clerk and Dayes case 761 Corbet and Corbets case 789 Costard and Wingates case 794 Crowther and Fryâ—rs case 800 The Countess of Warwick and Atwoods case 810 Sir Gervase Clifton and the Chancellors case 811 Carews case 819 Cotton and Wales case 828 Chard and Wyalis case 830 Cornwalls case 869 Callard and Callards case 901 Chamberlain Nichols case 908 Cundey and Edgcomoâ— case 919 Creswells case 962 Combes case 996 The Countess of Rutlands case 1006 Clerks case 1008 Carpenter and Collins case 1010 Closes case 1018 Croft and Evets case 1024 Cole and Moors case 1031 The Counâ—ess of Cumberlands case 137 Crew and Vernons case 1044 Case of the King and Howard 1049 Case of the Sheriffs of Bristol 1058 Curtys case 1081 Caries and Franklyns case 1086 Calimore and Johasons case 1103 Cowaden and Clerks case 1115 Cooper and Andrews case 1120 Cuddington and â—iâ—kings case 1121 Coxes case 1135 Chancellor and Schollars of Oxon B. of Norw case 1148 Comyn and Brandlyns case 1150 Case of the Coheirs of Sir William Rider 1156 Chaworth and Phillips case 1162 Colt and the Bishop of Coventry and Litchfields case 1194 Collier and Colliers case 1197 Sir Rich. Champernoâ— and Hills case 1224 D. LOrd Darcys case 206 Duland and Clâ—ypoles case 248 Dolman and Bishop of Salisburies case 250 Diggs case 264 Dorrel and Tyns case 280 Dawbney and Goorâ—s case 319 Dolman and Vavasors case 325 Sir Wolstan Dixies case 336 Margery Davies case 368 Degoze and Rowes case 426 Dean and Canons of St. Pauls case 454 Downbal and Catesâ—yes case 460 Dell and Higdens case 465 Dorley and Woods case 467 Dudley and Knights case 504 The Lord de la Ware and Palmers case 531 Doggerell and Pâ—kâ—s case 539 The L. Darcies case 548 Dover and Stratfields case 634 Davy Matthew and Binfields case 663 Digby and Vernons case 678 Dâ—ove and Shores case 606 Druries case 728 Davenant and Hâ—dris case 755 Deacon and Marshes case 762 Diggs case 793 Dalaoâ— and Hamonds case 803 Derick and Keâ—ys case 832 Dogett and Vowells case 838 Darcy and Allens case 870 Dâ—nny and Cores case 874 Dâ—kâ—â—â—on and Shâ—res case 942 Dâ—owâ—s case 960 Dâ—gbiâ—s case 961 Day and Peakâ—vels case 1007 Doyly and Drâ—kes case 1013 Dean and Chapter of Windsor and Pâ—nvins case 10â—8 Sir Tho. Dawbridgcourt and Sir Anthony Ashleys case 1043 Damus's case 1048 Dâ—ytons case 1068 Don Diego Serviente de Acune and Giffords case 1090 Dâ—gby and Fitzherberts case 1142 Day and Savages case 1144 Dawks and Hills case 1167 Davison and Bâ—â—kers case 1178 Dembyn and Bâ—awns câ—se 1181 Dibley and Dâ—ares case 1193 Day and Peckvells case 1225 Dorringtons case 1231 E. EAton Câ—lledge case 50 Earl of Worcest case 79 Eyres case 146 Evans case 229 Earl of Huntingdon and Lord Mouâ—tjoys case 293 Elmer and Gâ—alâ—s case 383 Ewer and â—shâ—oâ—s case 408 Sir Fran Engâ—efields case 433 Earl of Northumberlands case 434 Evingâ—on Brimstons case 461 Eatons case 462 Ewâ—r and Hâ—ydons case 468 Evesque of â—orcest case 469 East and Hardings case 485 Easton and Newmans case 598 Earl of Lâ—ncoln and Fishâ—â—s case 644 Eâ—ston and Bâ—eâ—s case 699 Egertons case 708 Evesque of Norwiches case 709 Evans and Williams case 834 Ewer and Moiles case 859 Edmunds and Bufkâ—ns case 928 English and Bowyers case 944 The Earl of Bedfords case 954 The Earl of Rutlands case 958 Ellis and Warnes case 981 Evesque of Sarums case 1032 Edwards and Dentons case 1054 Eman and Mouldsworths case 1105 The Earl of Cumberland and the Countess of Cumberlands case 1119 Eyre and Banisters case 1191 F. FRances case 12 Sir Godfrey Fuliambs case 14 Felton and Capells case 170 Fox and Colliers case 240 Foreman and Bobhams case 323 Fanshaws case 351 Fisher and Boys case 398 Fenwick and Mâ—tfords case 417 Sir Moile Finch and Throgmortons case 418 Fulwood and Wards case 428 Sir Moile Finch and Hen. Finches case 437 Fitzherberts case 439 Fuller and Fullers case 453 Fennor and Plasketts case 561 Ford and Glanvils case 618 Fisher and Smiths case 737 Foxley and Ansleys case 745 Ford and Holâ—orns case 773 Fort and Wards case 866 Fitzwilliams case 887 Freshwater and Rois case 891 Falsowe and Thornies case 918 Fishers case 949 Forsters case 951 Framptons case 966 Forster and Kings case 977 Forster and Browns case 994 Ford and Hoskins case 1071 Fryer and Gildrings case 1108 Forster and Jacksons case 1111 Fryer and Bestneys case 1200 Forster and Peacocks case 1202 G. GOwer and Andrews case 55 Gascon and Whatleys case 129 Griffiths case 178 Stephens and Clerks case 112 Grocooke and Whites case 294 Griffiths case 374 Sir Tho. Gorges case 377 Gorges case 393 Lady Greshams case 395 Green and Edwards case 419 Germin and Ascotts case 472 Goodwin and Ishams case 474 Grammiuham and Ewres case 492 Gawen and Ludlows case 514 Gregory and Blasfields case 542 Green and Bufkyns case 556 The Lady Greshams case 577 Gybon and Bowyers case 590 Gooses case 614 Grey and Willoughbies case 626 Griffin and Lawrences case 642 Garraway and Brabridges case 943 Gage and Topers case 741 Gibbons and Marltiwards case 764 Gooles and Granâ—s case 772 Gregory and Blâ—shfields case 785 Gambleton and Grastons case 807 Gawen and Rants case 813 Gellâ—brand and Habards case 820 Guy and Browns case 841 Grâ—â—ts and Rigeways case 853 Garrard and the Dean and Chapter of Rochesters case 871 Gregory and Harrisons case 878 Giddy and Heales case 915 Gomersal and Watkâ—nsons case 922 Godall and Wyatts case 939 Gervoys case 950 Georges and Stanfields case 952 Sir Arthur Gorges case 967 Griffith and Smiths case 98â— The Lord Greys case 1027 Goodricks case 1047 Goodson and Duffields case 105â— Glanviles case 1066 Gold and Deaths case 1074 Gresly and Luthers case 1110 Girryes case 1151 Guy and Sedgwâ—cks case 1154 Green and Handlies case 1213 Gresham and Lucas case 1215 H. HElior and Okâ—dens case 52 Hawâ—e and Kirkbyâ—â— case 107 Hawtree and Anger 's case 194 Howse and the Bishop of Elyes case 210 Honâ—ks and Alboroughs case 232 Harwell and Lucas case 233 Heydons case 261 Hunt and Gateleys case 283 Sir William Herberts case 287 Hyde and Newports case 315 Hill and Morses case 320 Higham and Harwoods case 344 Heyward and Bettesworths case 380 Henage and Curles case 386 Hudson and Lees case 402 Hice and Pallingtons case 420 Hulme and Jees case 427 Hunger and Freys case 440 Hoe and Tayâ—ors case 457 Hawle and Vaughns case 488 Harbin and Bartons case 491 Hide and the Dean and
Winscombs case 1075 Powel and Harmans case 1089 Philpot and Ballards case 1104 Pease and Meades case 1106 Pope and Skinners case 1122 Pye and Cooks case 1127 Pits and James case 1128 Pym and Gorwyns case 1165 Pauton and Chowles case 1192 Q. QUeen and Dewes case 47 Queen and Coxheads case 259 Queen and Bishop of Lincolns case 389 Queen and Palmors case 396 Queen and Bishop of Lincoln and Skiffings case 413 Queen and Vaughns case 421 Queen and Hussies case 559 Queen and Cottons case 587 Queen and Doddingtons case 650 Queen and Bishop of Peterboroughs case 875 Queen and Savages case 948 Quarles and Spartings case 1222 Queen and Blanches case 1226 R. RUssels case 274 Roberts case 295 Rudhal and Milwards case 337 Rouse and Artoise case 353 Rolls and Osborns case 477 Richardson and Yardleys case 496 Roos and Awdwicks case 498 Reyneld and Purchowes case 541 Robins Gerrard and Princes case 586 Randals case 611 Roberts and Agmondishams case 619 Rogers and Jacksons case 624 Revâ—ra and Baptistas case 646 Rosse and Mâ—ores case 675 Reyner and Paâ—kâ—s case 682 Robes Bent and Cocks case 712 Lady Russel and Gulwells case 714 Rosses case 721 Sir Charlâ—s Rawleighs case 815 Rayman and Golds case 824 Robins case 827 Rye and Fuliambs case 893 Rotheram and Stibbings case 905 Reymor and Grimstons case 938 Sir Robert Remington and Savagâ—s case 970 Lord Rosse and Earl of Rutlands case 972 Reynolds case 1003 Richards case 1005 Rastall and Drapers case 1012 Lady Russell and Earl of Nottinghams case 1025 Roe and Woods case 1078 Roe and Ledshams case 1091 Sir Hen. Rolls and Lisborns case 1114 Rowth and Bishop of Chesters case 1116 Robbins and Barns case 1129 Rynes and Mophams case 1179 Roberts case 1183 Rivâ—rs case 1185 Ram and Patisons case 1204 Reynolds case 1230 S. STapleton and Truelocks case 43 Stokes and Porters case 51 Skerns case 83 Lord Sands and Brags case 109 Satton and Robertsons case 153 Squire and Reades case 173 Swan and Searles case 195 Stukelâ—y and Thynns case 199 Slifield and Sibles case 201 Stevens and Clarks case 212 Symonds case 218 Stantons case 265 Shelleys case 267 Scroggs and the Lady Gresham case 326 Stanley and Bakers case 342 Saunders case 349 Stamp and Hutchins case 392 Slywright and Pages case 396 Spitle and Davies case 407 Smith and Vowes case 422 Shorrot and Hollowayes case 423 Sams and Pitts case 466 St. Johns case 473 Sheffield and Rises case 482 Short and Tuckers case 490 Sawyer and Hardis case 502 Strowd and VVâ—lâ—s case 521 Shaw and Tompsons case 536 Stile and Butts case 538 Sewell and Garrets case 567 Slade and Morleys case 585 Sharp and Swaines case 603 Shepherd and Metcalfes case 612 Smith and Bowsalls case 624 Stowells case 629 Saundleys and Oliffs case 632 Salliard and Stamps case 638 Sherburne and Lewes case 674 Stoner and Gibsons case 677 Shorrington and Minors case 689 Stebbing and Gosnolls case 695 Seroggs and Sponcers case 702 Strangwayes and Hicks case 719 Sydnam and Courtneys case 734 Sprak's case 736 Scrogs and Stevensons case 749 Smith and Shepherds case 751 Smith and Mâ—lls case 763 Savage and Brokâ—s case 767 Staffords case 769 Savage and Bechams case 774 Sharington and Fleetwoods case 782 Smith and Johnsons case 788 Swan and Gaterlands case 825 Specket and Shores case 826 Salway and VVales case 849 Salter and Boâ—elers case 858 Stephen and Tots case 861 Sparkâ— and Sparks case 862 Shaw and Norwoods case 865 Seymayne and Greshams case 868 Scarles case 877 Swelman and Cutts case 883 Short and Hellyars case 895 Sacksord and Phillips case 903 Smithwick and Bâ—nghams case 910 Stanton and Sulliards case 923 Stafford and Powlers case 931 Strangways and Sir Henry Newton case 965 Skipwiths case 978 Sheldon and Handburges case 991 Stockwe'ls case 997 Springs case 1000 Lord Sturton and Lord Mordants case 1020 Stockwith and Norths case 1021 Sydnam and Caps case 1023 Shute and Mallorys case 1030 Swayne and Bâ—ckâ—ts case 1036 Stone and VValters case 1039 The Spanish Ambassador and Plages case 1040 Smith and Bulls case 1076 Simonds case 1094 The Sheriffs of Londons and Mitchells case 1100 Selby and Chutes case 1113 Spark and Parnells case 1124 Slawney and Elbridges case 1125 Small and Dales case 1135 Skâ—ifes and Nelsons case 1141 Stoner and Gibsons case 1145 Sceal and Oxenbridges case 1146 Sir Tho. Simonds case 1153 Stewkâ—ey and Bâ—ilers case 1163 Speak and Richarâ—s case 1177 Sir George Shirley and Under-Sherburn and Clerks case 1199 Savel and VVoods case 1026 Seerrington and Fleetwoods case 1210 Stebs and Goodlacks case 1221 Smith and Sherborns cose 1229 Saccars case 1232 T. TUck and Frenchmans case 48 Thorn and Rolfes case 53 The Lord Treasurer and Bartons case 222 Twineos case 275 Thorowgood and Turners case 279 Trâ—shams case 290 Townsend and Walleys case 441 Thyn and Cholmlys case 463 Tasking and Edmonds case 527 Thimblethorps case 550 Turner and Oldfields case 588 Thorp and Swaines case 603 Tipping and Bunnings case 627 Tarrants case 647 Thompson and Butlers case 658 Thompson and Gardiners case 673 Tyrrel and Darcyes case 701 Terrey and Redmans case 718 Townsend and Kâ—ngâ—mills case 723 Talbots case 796 Turges and Beachers case 913 Tâ—lemire and Dentons case 1019 Turtâ—n and Sir Rich. Mollinâ—â—x case 1033 Trot and Spurlings case 1035 Tisidale and Sir William Essex case 1117 Taskâ—r and Salters case 1133 V. VAughan and Lord Burghs case 17 Veere and Jeofres case 273 Vincent and Lees case 276 Viscountesse Bâ—ndons case 338 Vdeson and the Mayor of Nottinghams case 373 Vicary and Farthings case 591 Vrrey Carew and Gibsons case 668 Vaughans case 671 Vavisors case 711 Varrel and Wilsons case 786 Vanvive Levine and Michael Vanvies case 899 Vernons case 969 Vochel and Dancastles case 1186 W. VVIlson and Wises case 56 Lord VVindsors case 73 VVatson and the Bishop of Canterburys case 204 VVests case 299 Justâ—ce VVâ—ndhams case 324 VViseman and Barnards case 328 VVatkins and Ashwells case 345 VVarraâ—s case 358 Lord VVenworths case 367 Wray Streeâ—s Coopers case 388 VVeldâ—n and Bridgwaters case 431 VVaâ—ker and Harris case 449 VVoodlife and Vaughans case 475 VVelcomls case 478 VVâ—lson and Patemans case 494 VVatsons case 495 VVrâ—ghts case 499 VVilford and Mashams case 515 VVill and Copemans case 516 VVeeks and Taylors case 532 VValter and Dawes case 544 VVright and the Mayor and commonaâ—ty of VVickâ—ams case 546 VVeâ—shâ—s case 547 VVhâ—eler and Colliers case 552 VVrights case 570 VVaâ—foâ—d Mâ—shaâ—s case 582 VVen worth and Russels case 592 VVoodlifes case 620 VVorm and VVebsters case 6â—1 Lady VVilloughbies case 661 VVild and Cooomans case 669 VVeston and Ridges case 679 VVinters case 705 VVorsley and Charnocks case 738 VVashington and Burgons case 740 VVhitcalf and Jones case 751 VVarner Babingtons case 753 White and Gerishes â—ase 754 West and Blackwells case 775 Williams and Bentleys case 776 Welâ—s and Dennyes case 777 Web and Webs case 814 Wants case
aliened that the Donor might enter the Donee aliened and afterwards dyed without Issue If the Donor might enter or was put to his Formidon in Reverter Quaere for the Justices were divided in opinion and it was not Resolved 122. The reversion of a Lease for years was granted one moyety to one man and another moyety to another The Lessee committed Wast and then the Lease determined They brought actions of Wast in the Tenant It was the better opinion that they might well joyn in the action because they are not now to recover in the realty which is the Land Wasted but only damages but if the Term had continued it had been otherwise because then the Land was to be recovered 123. An Indenture of Bargain and Sale was Enrolled the last day of the 6. Moneths not accounting the day of the date of the Indenture for part of the 6. Moneths It was Resolved that the Enâ—olment was good for the day of the date shall not be accounted part of the 6. Months limitted by the Statute for the date and the day of the date is all one for the date is all the day And it was said It was not like the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Leases where it is said A Lease made by Tenant in Tail shall be good for 21. years after the making of the Lease for the making may be at one hour of the day and is prefect by the delivery at that time and therefore the Lease shall begin presently And in this Case it was agreed for Law That if a man by Deed Indented Bargaines and Sells his Lands unto another and before the enrollment of the deed he Bargains and Sells to another and the last Deed is first Enrolled and after the first Indenture is Enrolled within the 6. Moneths the first Indenture is the best and shall be preferred before the latter although it was first Enrolled 124. By a Statute made 3. Ma. Cap. 4. Authority was given to Cardinal Poole to dispose order imploy and convert the Benefices appropriate to the increase and augmentation of the Living of the Incumbent He made a Lease for years of a Parsonage appropriate It was holden the Lease was void for he had authority but to the Intents specified in the Statute and he had not the Fee simple given him by any words of the Statute Quaere in whom the Free simple was if in the Queen or it was in Abeyance not Resolved 125. A Fine was Levyed in the time of King John by which the Conusor granted to the Conusee in Tail a Mannor rendring to him a pair of guilt Spurs for all services salvo sorinseco servitio Domino Regi The Mannor was holden of the Lord Stafford The Justices held it was but a Tenure in Socage for the words salvo sorinseco servitio were void to all purposes but to reserve such services by which he himself held of his Lord next paramount him and not such services which any of the Lords paramount him held over by Knights service 126. It was holden by the Justices If a man find sureties for the Peace before Justices of the Peace in the County yet if the same party come in B. R. and there make Oath that he was afraid he shall be hurt by the said party he may have surety of the Peace there against the party and a Supersedeas to the justices to discharge the bond taken before them for the Peace and behaviour 127. Note for a Rule by the Court That in every case where the Defendent once confesseth a Deed and after would avoid it by matter which makes the Deed defeisible and not void That in such Case he shall not plead Non est factum to it but show the special matter and conclude Judgment of action as if Debt be upon an Obligation against one who was within age He shall not plead Non est factum to it but shew the special matter that he was within age 128. A Lease was made to the Husband and Wife and to a 3d. person to have and hold to the Husband for 80 years if he should so long live and if he dye within the Terme the remainder of the said Term to the Wife and to the 3d. person if he should live so long It was Resolved a good Habendum and that all the Interest was in the Husband and nothing in the others till after his death But it was holden if a Lease be made to 3. of 3. acres Habendum one acre to one for 20. years of another to another for 40. years and of the 3. to the 3d. person for 60. years the limitation is void for he cannot by the Habendum divide the estate in such manner which was joynt before Gascon and Whatleys Case 129. A man seised of Lands in Fee is bound in a Recognizance and afterwards enfeoffes the Recognizee of parcel of the Lands yet the Recognizor is chargeable for the Residue of the Lands to the Executor of the Recognizee and for his body and goods but if the Recognizor dye hâ—s Heirs shall not be charged 130. Cessavit The Tenant said That the demandant nor his Ancestors were never seised of the services within 40. years It was holden by the Justices to be no plea because this Writ is not within the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 2. of Limitation and also because the seisin of the services is not materiall nor traversable in a Cessavit Mich. 5. Eliz. 131. Lessee for years Covenants for him and his assignes that he will not lop nor top the Trees during the Terme he dyes Intestate his Adminstrators lopâ— the Trees he is chargeable to the Covenant because he hath the Terme to the use of the Testator The Words in the Lease were Provided It shall not be Lawfull to the Lessee to top the Trees If these words are a Condition or a Restraint only no penalty ensuing upon it Quaere It was not Resolved 132. The Queen by Letters Patents ex câ—rta scientia mero motâ— granted to I. S. the Mannor of D. which she had by the Attainder of Sir Thomas Wyat and in truth she was seised of the Mannor by discent Resolved That the grant was void because the Queen was deceived in her grant Quaere if the same be not helped by the Statute of misrecitalls for when the substance of the thing granted appears certain the Statute helps all other defects but when the certainty of the thing granted doth not appear then perhaps it is not helped by the Statute 133. A Fine was Levyed by Husband and Wife and the Conusee rendred back the same Lands to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Wife and an Indenture was by which it was recited that the Remainder should be to the use of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Husband The Justices conceived there is not any use implyed upon a Fine no more than upon a Feoffment wherefore they conceived that the
Error but is without remedy Hawtree and Anger 's Case 194. Debt against A. B. and E. the daughter of C. Coheirs in Gavelkind upon an Obligation of their Father A. and B. were Outlawed and had their pardon E. the daughter of C. who was dead was waive The Plaintiff declared against A. and B. simul cum E. who was waive The Defendants pleaded that E. now one of the Heirs in Gavelkind was within age It was Resolved that the Heir of an Heir should be chargeable with an Obligation simul cum the immediate Heirs and that such Heir should have his age and if he was within age the parol should demur for them all Mich. 7. Eliz. Swann and Searles Case 195. Covenant against A. and B. Executors of I. D. I. D. was Tenant for life the remainder to A. I. D. by Indenture demised the Land to the Plaintiff for years rendering rent by the word dimisit Concessit I. D. dyed A. who was in the remainder entred and avoided the Terme and thereupon the Plaintiff the Lessee for years brought the Action against the Executors of I. D. and it was adjudged that the Action did not lye Mich. 7. Eliz. Worleyes Case 196. An Enfant was bound in a Statute of 600 l. and afterwards was taken in Execution upon it and at full age he brought an Audita Querela to avoid the Execution The Case was argued by the Judges and at length Resolved That the Audita Querela should abate For it was Resolved that if any Enfant acknowledge a Statute or Recognizance or Levyeth a Fine of his Land he shall not reverse it by Error or otherwayes when he is of full age it being matter of Record but if he will avoid it it must be during his Minority 197. One came to an Inn and brought goods with him The Inkeeper said to him There are many resort to this House and I do not know their behaviour therefore here take the Key of such a Chamber and put your goods there for I will not take Charge of them and afterwards the goods were stolen It was the opinion of Wrey Justice that an Action did lye against the Inkeeper for he is by the Law chargeable with all things which come into his Inn and by Law he cannot discharge himself by such words as are in this Case Price and Jones Case 198. Error by A. and B. against I. S. of a Judgment in an Assise of Novel Disseisin given by the Justices of Assise at Monmouth It was demurred unto and Adjudged here in C. B. That a Writ of Error here upon that Judgement did not lye Stakely and Thynns Case 199. In Debt the Plantiff and Defendant both appeared by their Attorneys and day was given to the parties in statu quo tune till 8. Hill at which time the Defendant made defaust Holden the Plantiff should not have Judgment because Dies Datus is as strong as an Imparlance Lucas and Cottons Case 200. Words viz. George Lucas is a false Knave and worthy to stand upon the Pillory The Defendant Justified because the Plantiff swore his debt falsely to be true upon an Attachment according to the Custome of the City of London which by the Court was holden to be a good justification wherefore adjudged against the Plantiff Slisield and Sibills Case 201. Debt by Husband and Wife upon a Lease for years the Defendants said that they had not any thing in the Land at the time of the Lease as to part It was found that they had and did demyse and as to other parts that they did not demyse It was holden the Plantiffs could not have Judgement for any party Arden and Mischells Case 202. Replevin The Defendant avowed as Bayliff to the Countesse of Rutland for Rent The Defendant said that the Abbot of C. 29 H. 8. was feised and made a Lease to I. S. for 60. years rendering Rent viz. 22 s. and expressed the same by such figures viz. 22 s. and that after the making and delivery of the Indenture the Plantiff caused the said 22 s. to be rased into the forme of 5. and after the said 5. caused to be adjoyned the Letter m by which the Indenture was void It was the opinion of the Justices that by such rasure the deed was void Bâ—lfield and Rouse Case 203. Dower The Defendant pleads as to part in abatement that he was not Tenant and as to the Rest he pleads a gift in Fee to the Husband by which he claimed the Land as Brother to the Husband and also pleads a Will by which he was entitled to other parts both which the Plaintiff did Detain Upon Non Detinet it was found for the Plaintiff and she had Judgment for damages from the death of the Husband Watson and Bishop of Cant. Case 104. In a Quare Impedit the Defendants at the Distresse made default and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff against all the Defendants to recover damages because they were supposed all disturbers by their default but the Plaintiff was compelled to make Title Bullock and Bardetts Case 205. The Case was the Bishop of Salesbury in temps R. 2. made a Feoffment in Fee of a Messuage and 3. Roodes of Land in Erbonfield parcel of the Mannor of S. nec non of 17. Acers of Wood in a great Wood containing a 1000. Acres to Bullock and his Heirs and after 5. discents the Land came to the Plaintiff who 6. of the Queen entred into the great Wood and made election of the 17. Acres in a place called Saltors Hill parcel of the said great Wood and distinguished them by Metes and Bounds The Question was if the 17. Acres passed to G. Bullock and whether the election of them by R. Bullock his Heirs in the 5th discent was good or not It was the opinion of the Justices that nothing thereof was vested in G. Bullock the Ancestor and the Election to have the 17. Acers was not given to the Plantiff the Heir for that nothing was in the Ancestors which might discend to him and as a purchasor he could not take for that nothing was given to him Pasc 10 Eliz. The Lord Dacres Case 206. The Lord Dacres and others agreed to enter into a Park and hunt there and to kill those who should resist them They entred and I. S came to one of them and asked one of them what he had to do there and the other killed him the Lord being a quater of a myle distant from the place and knew not of it It was adjuged Murder in him and all his Companions Sir Rich. Mansfields Case 207. Difference being betwixt Sir Rich. and one Herbert for Wreck of the Sea they appointed a Duell Herbert with his Servants came to Sir Richards house to fight with him a Friend to them both perswaded with them to take up the matter One of the Servants of Sir Richard cast a Stone at Herbert and his Servants and perchance therewith killed their Friend It
not avoid it and therefore Resolved that it was a joynt Estate and that the Proviso should not sever it Hudson and Lees Case 402. In Appeal of Maihem The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had brought an Action of Battery and recovered therein for the same Battery and Wounding upon which the Appeal was brought and it was adjudged a good and sufficient Plea in Bar. Lee and Lees Case 403. A. had three Sons F. I. and G. he devised his Land to I. for 21. years to the intent to perform his Will and pay his Debts and he made him his Executor and if I dyed within the Term then G. to have the like Term as I. had and G. then also should be his Executor and devised the Land to F. in tail the remainder to I. in tail the remainder to G. I. entred F. died without Issue I. had â—ssue P. the Defendant and died within the Term It was the opinion of the Court That if Land be devised for years to one and if he die within the Term that another shall have the residue of the years that no Act of the first can prejudice the Remainder of the second but otherwise if one who hath a Term deviseth his Term with such a Remainder and a difference taken between a devise of the Term and a devise of the Land Beverley and Cornwell 's Case 404. Note in this Case which Case vide before That if any Advowson comes to the Queen for forfeiture by Outlawry and the Church becomes void and the Queen presents and then the Outlawry is reversed for Error yet the Queen shall enjoy the Presentment because it came to the Queen as a profit of the Advowson but if the Church be void at the time of the Outlawry and the Presentment is forfeited as a Chattel principal and distinct and then the Outlawrie is reversed the party shall have restitution of the presentment More and Hales Case 405. The Case was A Vicar let his Viccarage and all his Glebes and Tythes to I. S. for 21. years rendring 22. l. rent to him and his Successors which Lease was confirmed by the Patron Dean and Chapter the Lessee assigned over his Term to the Plaintiff and averred the Rent was the usual Rent The Plaintiff devised the Viccarage to the Defendant rendring 30. l. per an and for not payment of 15. l. half a years Rent brought debt The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 13 Eliz that no Lease of a Benefice with Cure should continue longer then the Lessor should be resident serving the Cure without absence 80. days and averred the Viccarage was a Benefice with Cure and that before the Rent day the Lessor died and that I. R. was made Vicar Whether the Lease was void the Court was now divided in opinion But vide in Cro. 3. part 131. It was Resolved that in this Case the Lease was void by the death of the Lessor Page and Griffiths Case 406. Ejectione firme the Case was Lessee for Life bargained and sold the Land to one and his Heirs and afterwards 14. Eliz he suffered a Recovery thereof to the use of the Bargainer It was adjudged that the suffering of the Recovery was a forfeiture Spitle and Davies Case 407. A man devised Lands to his youngest Sons Proviso If his Sons oâ— any of their Issues devise any of the Lands before their age of 30. years then the others shall have the Estate the eldest Son made a Lease thereof before his age of 30 years the youngest Son entred and before â—he 30. years ended aliened the Land the eldest Son entred Resolved 1. It was a Limitation 2. That when the younger Brother hath once entred for the Alienation then the Land is discharged of the Limitation Vide Owens Rep. 8. the same Case Ever and Asâ—ons Case 408. The Custom of a Mannor was That if any man had a Wife who was a Copyholder in the Fee of the Mannor and had Issue by her that he should be Tenant by the Curtesie of the Land It was found that A. a Copyhold was seised and had â—ssue a Daughter who was married to I. S. who had Issue A. died his Wife entred the Wife died before admittance The points were 1. If Ejectione firme did lie upon a Lease made by Copyholder 2. If by the entry of the Husband without admittance of the Wife he should be Tenant by the Curtesie The Court doubted of the first point but for the second were of opinion that the Husband was well entituled to be Tenant by the Curtesie before admittance of the Wife and the delay of the admittance by the Lord should not prejudice the husband being a third person Bewacorn and Caters Case 409. Sir Ralpâ— Rowlet possessed of a Term of years devised the same to Sir Robert Cutlin Lord Chief Justice during his Life and after to a strarger and made the said Sir Robert with the Lord Keeper and others his Executors and died The Executors writ their Letter and annexed the Will unto it to Doctor Dlae praying that because they could not attend the Execution of the Will that he would condition the Administration to I. S. which he did so reciting in his Register Quia Executores distulerunt adhuc differunt executionem Testamenti Afterwards Sir Robert without assent of the Administration entred into the Term and devised it The point was if the Letters so written was a Refusal of the Executorship It was Resolved by the Justices after the Case had been argued by the Civilians in Court that it was a Refusal of the Executorship Osborn and Gameones Case 410. The Case was I. levyed a Fine of 48 â— 8. d. Rent charged in W. to I. S. and his Heirs and the use was to such persons as I. S. should declare who afterwards declared the use to I. D. and his Heirs and the Defendant in a Replevin avowed as Bayliff of I. D. It was demurred unto because he did not shew any Attornment The Question was If Cestuy que use of a Rent in esse grant a Rent by Fine after 27. H. 8. might avow without attornment Quaere not Resolved Ognell and Pastons Case 411. In Debt in the Exchequer The Case was W. and F. acknowledged a Recognisance of 200. l. in the Chancery to the Plaintiff for payment of mony at a day to come they failing upon two Scire facias issued and nibil returned a Levari fac issued to the Sheriff of N. and afterwards a Capias ad satisfaciendum to the Defendant the Sheriff who arrested W. the said W. being then in his Custody upon an Indictment of Felony who after upon his arraignment was found Guilty of the Felony and afterwards he escaped being let at large The points were First if a Capias did lie upon a Recognisance in Chancery Second if it did not lie yet if it was void or voidable Third if the Conviction of Felony had discharged the Execution Resolved That if the Chancery had consideration of
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
and after to the use of C. in tail and after to D. in tail and after to the right Heirs of A. and of the Mannor of B. immediately after he the said A. should die without Issue of his Body to the use of E. daughter of I. for her Life and afterwards to D in tail and afterwards to C. in tail and to the right Heirs of A. And of the moiety of the Mannor of W. and other the Premises of which no use was before declared to the use of the said A. and such Heirs of his Body and after to the use of the said E for Life the remainder to D. in tail the remainder to C. in tail the Remainder to his right Heirs Provided That if at any time after he should be minded to revoke the said Indenture or any use or estates therein contained or to raise and create any other use or Estate and should declare the same to any person c. in the presence of two Witnesses then the Remainders and all other Estates in the said Indenture to be void and the Conusees of the Fine to stand seised to the use of the said A. and his Heirs Afterwards A. reciting the former Indenture and the Proviso in consideration of a Marâ—iage between I. D. and the said E. did declare to I. N. in the presence of two Witnesses that he did revoke and make void the former Deed and every Article therein concerning the Mannor of B. but as touching the Mannor of M that the same should stand in force and by the last Indenture did covenant with I. D. and E. his Wife that the Conusees of the Fine c. should stand seised of the Mannor of B. and the moiety of the Mannor of V. to the use of the said I. D. and E. his Wife for their Lives and after to the Issue of the Body of the said I. D. and E. as should be then eldest living at the death of the Survivors of them for the Life of such Issue and after to the use of the said A. and of such the Heirs of his Body as he should after beget on the body of I. his Wife or on the Body of any other woman which he should marry and after to â— in tail and after to C. in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. It was found that E. was the Daughter of I. but born before her marriage with A. A and I. his Wife died and found he married no other woman and that F. was Son and Heir of A. and was of full age The Questions in this long case were these 1. Whether all the use and agreements in the first Indenture as to the Mannors of B. and V. were revoked by the second Indenture 2. Whether the new uses limited by the second Indenture and such Revocation of the former uses were effectual to convey any Estate to I. D. and E his Wiâ—e with the Remainder over to take away the immediate discent from the Heir at Law The case was argued in B. R. and the Justices were divided in their opinions and afterwards it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber but whether there Resolved or not Quaere Sir Arthur Goâ—ges Case 967. The case was the Lord Viscount Brindon was seised of Lands holden of the Queen in capite he had Issue Douglasse his Daughter and Heir who was married to Sir Arthur Gorge and she by him had Issue Ambrosia Gorge Sir Arthur married his Daughter Ambrosia when she was above the age of eight years and before she was of the age of nine years to Francis Gorge Son and Heir of Sir Thomas Gorge who died before Ambrosia accomplished her age of eleven years The Question upon the whole matter was if the Wardship of the body of Ambâ—osia did belong to the Queen or not It was Resolved in this case amongst other points that the Queen should have the Wardship in regard the Marriage was not a compleat Marriage because the Husband died before the years of consent of Ambrosia Bartons Case 968. A seised of the Mannâ—rs of O. and R. and of Lands called F. in the counry of Lanc. holden in capite 16 Octob. 19 Eliz made a Writing purporting that he did give the said Mannors and Lands to B. C. D. and E. and their Heirs to the several uses and under the agreements contained in a Schedule to the said Deed annexed and by the Schedule he declared the uses to be to himself for Life without Impeachment of wast and afterwards of part of the Lands to M. his Wife for her life and then to the â—ight Heirs of A. with a Proviso that if at any time after his Life during the Life of the said M. the Heirs of â—he said A. or any claiming under his Heirs trouble or disturb the said M. that then the said B. and other the parties should stand seised of the Lands in which she should be disturbed to the use of the said M. and her Heirs for ever Afterwards the said A. made a Lease of the said Mannors and Lands to I. S. for 100 years to begin after the death of M. A. died M entred The Heir of A after his death entred and disturbed M. contrary to the Pâ—oviso it was Resolved by the Justices in this case that the future use was checked by the Lease although it was but interesse termini and that the use to M. and her Heirs could not rise upon her dusturbance but that it was destroyed for ever Vernons Case 969. Margaret Winter Widow the late wife of Henry Vernon seised of Lands in Fee holden in capite enfeoffed thereof I. S. and others to the use of herself for Life and after to B. her younger Son and the Heirs of his body with divers Remainders over with a Proviso if she should be minded to alter the uses and signâ—fie the same under her hand and Seal to her Feoffâ—es and tender to them 10 l. that then all the uses in the Indenture should be voâ—d and hâ—r Feâ—ffees should stand seâ—sed to sâ—ch new uses as should be limited by the said M. M. according â—o the Proviso signified her intent and tendred 10 l. to her Feoffees and then declared that her said Feoffees should stand seised thereof to the use of G. W. for Life the Remainder to the said M. for Life the Remainder to H. Vernon her Son and the Heirs of his Body Henry Vernon died having Issue a Daughter within age and after M. W. died It was holden clearly in the Court of Wards that because there is no mention of any entry by the eldest Son and Heir that the Estate which Henry Vernon had in Tail was not avoided and so by consequence the Daughter of Heary Vernon should be in Ward Sir Robert Remington and Savages Case 970. A levyed a Fine of Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his Executors for 20. years the Remainder to his Son in tail with diverse Remainders over Afterwards he
The Spanish Ambassador and Plages Case 1040. Plage was pressed with his Ship at Lisbone to carry the King of Spains Soldiers to such a Port and had their Letters from the Vice-Roy of Portugal to trade to Brasil he performed the Service of Transportation and 14 months after traded at Brasil and freighted his Ship there for the transportation of Goods to Hamborough and was bound with Sureâ—ies in the Custom-house of Brasil to pay the customes due to the King of Spain at St. Michaels the Ship by tempest was forced into England and did not touch at St. Michaels The Spanish Ambassador pretending the Goods to be forfeit to the King of Spain sued for them in the Admiralty here and a Sentence was there for the King of Spain to have the Goods Plage sued to the Lord Chancellor here to have an Appeal from that Sentence and an Appeal was granted him Sir Thomas Palmers Case 1041. Sir Thomas Palmer who was attainted of Treason in the time of Ed 6. for natural affection 7 Ed 6 by Indenture covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life the remainder to I. S. for Life the remainder to the first Son of the said I. S. in tail the remainder to his eighth Son he was attainted before I. S. had any Son It was Resolved that by the Attainder the Son of I. S. was barred which was afterwards born and the Fee-simple was in the Crown discharged of all the Remainders Jepps and Tunbridges Case 1042. The Defendant delivered a brief of the cause to some of the Jâ—rors impannelled before they appeared for their Instructions This was adjudged an offence for which he was Sentenced in the Star-chamber And in this case it was Resolved that the Plaintiff and Defendant himself may labor the Jurors to appear but a stranger cannot so do 2. That the writing of a Letter or a request by wordâ— by one not a party to the Suit to the Jurors to appear is Maintenance 3. It is not lawful for the party himself to instruct the Jurors either by writing or by word nor to promise them any Reward for their appearance for it is Embracery in them aswell as in a stranger Sis Tho. Dâ—wbridgecourt and Sir Anthony Ashleys Case 1043. The Defendant was decreed â—n Chanceâ—y to pay 1000 l. to the Plaintiff after the Decree the Defendant procured the Son of Sir Thomas by a Letter of Attorney which he had from his Father to agree only the Suit for 200 l. whereof 100 l. was paid in hand and the rest to be paid at a day certain to make a Release which the Son did in his own name but not in the name of his Father It was the opinion of the Justices and also of the Lord Chancellor that this Release was void Crew and Vernons Case in the Star-chamber 1644 Sir Randolph Crew and all those whose Estate c. he had in the Mannor of Crew time out of mind c. had had Turf to born in the House of Crew-hall in a great Waste called Okehanger Moor being interâ—upted he sued in the Exchequer at Chester whereupon Affidavit of the possession 60. years his possession was established After the hearing of the Cause there Vernon interrupted the servants of Crew and with Harrows tore the Turffs for which cause a Bill was exhibited in the Star-chamber against the said Vernon and others they put in a scandalous Answer saying that the Judge at Chester ought not in Justice have made such an Order and called the Affidavit an equivocating Affidavit and affirmed the owners of the Mannor of Crew had taken the Turff but by License and Vernon affirmed to the Court that he had a Release to shew for the discharging of the Prescription but no such Prescription could be shewed nor was but a Grant of Turff to be there taken In this case it was Resolved by the Court the Prescription was not determined by the new Grant but the Grant enured as a confirmation and so the title of Prescription remained 2. Resolved that the words spoken of the Court of Chester were very scandalous and the Affidavit which he called an equivocating Affidavit was approved by the whole wherefore the Defendants were sentenced and fined by the Court and the defendants were to acknowledge their offence to the Court of Chester Sir Anthony Barkers Case 1046. I. S. exhiâ—ited a Bill in the Star Chamber against Sir Anthony Barker and divers other Gentry of Credit and charged the Defendants with the forging of the Will of M. P. and with many undue practices in drawing the said M. P. to make such a Will At the hearing of the Cause the Plaintiff relinquished the Forgery confessing it was no Forgery but would have insisted upon the practices of the Defendants for drawing the said M. P. to make the Will The Court refused to permit the Plaintiff to insist upon the practices for if he would have insisted upon the practices he ought to have confessed the Will and then have shewed the undue practises used to draw her to make such Will Wherefore the Plaintiff was fined 200 l. to the King and the Court gave Damages to each of the Defendants and the reason why they gave damages they declared to be because the Bill being scandalous no action lay for the Defendants at Law because the Bill was prefered before competent Judges to punish the Offences if there had been any and therefore it was reason by reason of such defect of the Common Law in giving damages the Court having Jurisdiction of the Cause supplied the said defect Goodricks Case 1047. Goodrick at a Tavero said to D. being a Master of Arts at Cambridge That there was late a great Contestation befor the King betwixt the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Northampton Lord Privy Seal because the Archbishop enformed that since the said Lord had been Warden of the Cinque Ports there were more Jesuites and Seminary Priests come into the Realm then before which he said was the Newes of the Court Another offence was That Ingram a Merchant had heard at Ligorne in Florence by two Students out of the Colledge at Rome that the Earl of Northampton writ a Letter to Cardinal Bellaâ—ine to pray him that no answer should be made to his book which he had Written upon the Treason of Garnet the Jesuite because he writ it only ad placandum Regem faciendum populum The Defendants were found Guilty upon their Confessions It was Resolved by the Justices it was a slander within the Statute of Z. R. 2. which moved sedition betwixt the King and his Nobles and that although the publisher did produce his author of such false newes yet he himself was punishable and if one saith there is common Rumor that such a one hath done such an act an action upon the Case lyeth although he doth produce his Author And in this Case it was agreed that if one sayes to another the effect of