words in Latin and this pursuant to the Statute of E. 3. which requires that their legal Proceedings should be in Latin and if the words were not so Elegant yet they would serve in an Information c. where 't is rather chosen to put in words agreeable to the phrase of the Law than to Tully's Orations And so the Court Wild being absent delivered their Opinions for the King but took time to set the Fine and immediately Committed the Defendant who before was upon Bail as the course is when Judgment is given altho' no Fine was set Anonymus IT was said by the Court upon an Indictment against one for Refusing to take an Apprentice bound by the Churchwardens and a Justice of Peace according to 43 Eliz. that in such case a man cannot be Compelled to accept an Apprentice Pagett versus Dr. Vossius TRin. 26 Car. 2. Rot. 583. In an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be thus Dr. Brown by Will Devised certain Lands to Dr. Vossius the Defendant a Dutchman during his Exile from his Country and if it should please God to restore him to his Country or that he should dye that then the Lands should go to the Lady Mary Heveningham in Fee who was the Lessor of the Plaintiff It was found that at the time of making the Will and the Death of Dr. Brown there was War between England and the States General and that the Doctor was fallen into Displeasure with the States and that they had taken a Pension from him of 140 l per annum and that by reason thereof he came over But did not find that he was Exiled by any Act of State and that the War was now ceased and that the Doctor might Return if he pleased but it did not find that they had restored him to his Pension c. After divers Arguments on both Sides this Term Judgment was given for the Defendant by the whole Court For they said there was a Voluntary and Compulsary Exile and in regard he was not Exiled by any Publick Edict the Will must be understood of a voluntary absence from his Country And the Jury found that those Matters which drove him away did still continue viz. The depriving him of his Pension Nota Exilium is a word known in our Law viz. When Villains by hard Usage are constrained to depart from the Mannor And if it be Objected That this durante Exilio is a void Limitation as being of unknown sense in our Law 't is still against the Lessor of the Plaintiff and then she cannot claim until the Doctor 's death and in the mean time the Discent must be to the Heir at Law Exilium quasi ex solo that is as if it had been said During his absence from his Country The King versus Plume HE was Indicted upon the Statute of the 5th of the Queen for that he had set up used and exercised Artem Mysterium sive Manual occupationem Pomarii Anglicè of a Fruiterer being a Trade Mystery or Manual occupation used in this Kingdom the 12th day of January Anno Eliz. 5. in which Trade the said Plume was not brought up by the space of Seven years c. And to this the Defendant Demurred For that it hath been held that the Statute extends not to every Trade but to such an one as requires Art and Skill and therefore not to a Hemp-dresser as in the 1 Cro. so in 2 Bulstrode 188. nor to a Pippinmonger as in 1 Roll's Rep. 10. And so a Gardiner hath been Resolved not to be within the Act in the 14th of this King The Indictment was for the Trade of a Barber but no Judgment given but others said That in that Case Judgment was for the King On the other side it was said That the Question here is not of those which sell Apples in Stalls but the Trade of a Fruiterer is well known and they are Incorporated in London and there requires much Skill in Sorting of Fruit and in judging the durableness thereof But the Court inclined for the Defendant But being informed by the Counsel for the King that there were many Presidents it was adjourned Postea Harrington's Case HArrington was again brought up and the Court fined him a Thousand pounds and awarded that he should recant the words in such words as the Court should direct and to find Sureties for his Good behaviour for seven years after which he produced a Writ of Error returnable before the Lords then Sitting in Parliament and prayed that it might be allowed and that he might be admitted to Bayl. The Court said that they allowed the Writ but would advise whether they should Bayl him or no and so remanded him to Prison Anonymus IN an Assault Battery and Wounding the Plaintiff after Verdict moved the Court for an encrease of Damages the Court said they could not do it if the word Maihemavit was not in the Declaration Clarkes Case UPon an Habeas Corpus to the Mayor c. of London a Custom was returned to Disfranchise and commit a Freeman for speaking opprobrions words of an Alderman The Court said they might Fine in such Case but the other Custom would not hold notwithstanding the Act of Confirmation of their Customs Termino Paschae Anno 30 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Trespass of Battery by Baron and Feme for beating of them both Vpon Not guilty the Verdict was for so much Damage for beating the Husband and so much for beating of the Wife The Court said upon a motion to Arrest the Judgment that the Plaintiff might release the Damages for beating of himself and take Judgment for the other The King versus Mead. AN Information was brought against him upon the Statute of 17 Car. 2. which restrains Non conformist Ministers from Inhabiting within five miles of any City Town Corporate or Burrough that sends Burgesses to Parliament c. After Verdict for the King it was moved in Arrest of Judgment First That the place of his Habitation was alledged to be within five miles of London but it was said that London sent Burgesses to Parliament which not being in the Record the Judges were not to take knowledg of Sed non allocatur For the last words of sending Burgesses to Parliament shall be referred only to Burroughs and therefore the Act restrains them from dwelling in Corporations c. tho' such Corporations as send no Burgesses Secondly It is alledged that the Town where the Defendant dwells is within five miles but not that the place of his Habitation in that Town was so and therefore may he intended to be more remote Thirdly There wants vi Armis Sed non allocatur Sed Judicium pro Rege Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 30 Car. II. In Banco Regis MEmorandum This Term Sir Richard Rainsford was removed and Sir William Scroggs one of the Justices of the Common Pleas was made Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench.
Discretion tion of the Court to grant Restitution even after a Traverse put in yet now since the Statute of Eliz. where such Plea is tendred the Court cannot grant a Restitution tho' they would in this Case if by Law they might for the party that made this Entry had lost the Land just before by Verdict in an Ejectment and by this means the effect of it should be disappointed Note The Indictment wanted Vi armis for it was pacifice intravit sine Judicio disseisivit à possessione expulit amovit But on the other side it was said First That the Entry being pacifice it was not the course to lay it Vi armis Secondly That 37 H. 8. cap. 8. supplied the defect of Vi armis in an Indictment But as to the latter the Court were of Opinion that the Statute supplied only the lack of the words gladiis baculis cultellis as are mentioned in the Statute Vid. the Stat. Anonymus A Suit for a Pension may be in Ecclesiastical Court tho' by Prescription but if it be denied to be time out of mind then a Prohibition is to go so that the Prescription may be tried at Law as in a Modus decimandi mutatis mutandis It was said by the Court that two might joyn in a Prohibition tho' the Gravamen was several but they must sever in their Declarations upon the Attachment Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 26 27 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Error the Writ was Teste the 30th of November last and Retornable in Parliament the 13th of April next the Day to which the Parliament was Prorogued The Defendants Counsel desired the Rule of the Court for the taking out of Execution supposing this Writ of Error was no Supersedeas and alledged that the late Rule made in the House of Lords did not extend to their Case for that was That all Causes there depending should not be discontinued by the intervening of a Prorogation but this Case will not be there depending before the Return of the Writ In 3 H. 7. 19. the Court of Kings-Bench would not allow a Writ of Error into the Parliament until some Error was shewn to them in the Record lest it should be brought on purpose to delay Execution In Bulstrode's Reports a Writ of Error Returnable the second Return of the Term was held to be no Supersedeas because it seemed an affected delay that it was not made Returnable the first Return Hale It has been taken that a Prorogation determined a Cause depending in Parliament by a Writ of Error but the Lords have lately Declared otherwise But that comes not to this Case the Writ not being Returned A Writ of Error Returnable ad proximum Parliamentum is not good but otherwise if they are summoned or prorogued to a Day certain If the Day of the Session had been a Year hence it would be hard a Writ of Error should stay Execution and the same Reason where the whole Term intervenes A Writ of Error did bear Teste 10 Nov. and was Returnable 1 Nov. proximè futur ' and the Record was sent into the Exchequer Chambet and a Mittimus Endorsed upon the Roll here And it was Resolved that Execution might be taken out because of the long Return Secondly That tho' there were Mittimus upon the Roll yet the Record remained here until the Return of the Writ to all purposes And the Opinion of the Court was that the Writ of Error was no Supersedeas But they would make no Rule in it because they said it was not Iudicially before them but the party might take out Execution if he thought fit And then if the other Side moved for a Supersedeas they should then Resolve the Point Note Hale said in an Assumpsit for Money upon the Sale of Goods upon non Assumpsit the Defendant might give in Evidence an Eviction of the Goods to mitigate the Damage and in all Assumpsits tho' upon certain Contracts the Jury may give less Damages than the Debt amounts unto as he said was done in a Case where a man promised to give a Straw for every Nail in every Horses Shoe doubling every time and they gave in Damage but the Value of the Horse tho' as the Bargain was made it would have come to above 100 l Lomax versus Armorer A Writ of Error was brought to Reverse a Judgment in Dower given in the Court of Newcastle The Error assigned was because the Proceeding was by Plaint and no Special Custom certified to maintain it As in London and Oxford they have Assizes of Fresh Force by Plaint The Court held it to be Erroneous for this Cause but would not determine whether it might not be good upon a Special Custom 1 Rolls 793. Pl. 11. Anonymus A Mandamus was granted to the Archdeacon of Norwich to Swear a Churchwarden upon surmize of a Custom That the Parishioners are to choose the Churchwardens and that the Archdeacon refused him notwithstanding that he was Elected according to the Custom The Archdeacon Return'd that non sibi constat that there is any such Custom which Form is not allowable for it ought to be positive whereupon an Action might be grounded and that by the Canon the Parson is to choose one c. The Court said that Custom would prevail against the Canon and a Churchwarden is a Lay Officer and his Power enlarged by sundry Acts of Parliament and that it has been Resolved that he may Execute his Office before he is Sworn tho' it is convenient he should be Sworn and if the Plaintiff here were Sworn by a Mandate from this Court they advised him to take heed of disturbing him Noy Rep. 139. Anonymus AN Assumpsit was brought against an Executor for that the Testator being Indebted to the Plaintiff he did ad requisitionem of the Defendant come to Account with him upon which there appeared to be so much due to the Plaintiff which he promised to pay After Verdict the Judgment was de bonis propriis and it was moved that it ought to have been de bonis testatoris For the Accounting with him is little more than telling him what is due and this might make an Executor afraid of Reckoning with any of his Testators Creditors The Court said that the Accounting upon the Defendants Request which was more than the Plaintiff was bound to have done was a Consideration and after a Verdict they must intend an express Promise But Hale said If upon the Evidence it had appeared that there was no Intention to alter the Nature of the Debt as in case an Executor should say stay a while until the Testators Estate was come in and I will pay you he should direct the Jury to find against the Plaintiff that would in such case charge an Executor in his own Right Termino Paschae Anno 27 Car. II. In Banco Regis NOte In an Indebitat ' Assumpsit a man Promises in Consideration that
But Hale said That he thought that in this Case inasmuch as the Mortgage to Lee was only of part of W. that therefore Marsh might bring Lee to an Account upon the extended value whereupon these two Mannors were extended upon the Statute and if Lee had received the Money due upon the Statute by receiving of the Profits according to the extended value or if she will pay down the residue of the Money due upon the Statute or if she will pay down so much as the proportion will come to for Monfield that then she may discharge the Mannor of Monfield But then my Lord Keeper asked him how he would have it appointed and how much should be laid upon Monfield and how much upon Wicksal for that part of W. is under that Extent To which Hale Answered That if Marsh did sue Lee for the discharge of this Statute from Monfield that Monfield should be Discharged by her paying down as much as the proportion comes to or when Lee shall have received so much according to the extended value and that he thought there might be a proportion found out by the Court. Nota Sir H. Fynch Counsel for Lee cited Primate and Jackson's Case Grove and Grove's Case and Mrs. Calamy's Case All which were Resolved in this Court That a Purchasor or Mortgagee coming in upon a valuable Consideration without Notice and purchasing in a precedent Incumbrance it shall protect his Estate against any person that hath a Mortgage subsequent to the first tho' before the last Mortgage tho' he purchased in the Incumbrance after he had Notice of the second Mortgage White versus Ewer AT a Re-hearing before my Lord Keeper assisted with Justice Vaughan and Turner concerning the Redemption of a Mortgage which had been made above 40 years since My Lord Keeper Declared That he would not relieve Mortgages after 20 years for that the Statute of 21 Jac. cap. 16. did adjudge it reasonable to limit the time of ones Entry to that number of years Vnless there are such particular Circumstances as may vary the ordinary Case as Infants Feme Coverts c. are provided for by the very Statute tho' these Matters in Equity are to be governed by the Course of the Court and that 't is best to square the Rules of Equity as near the Rules of Reason and Law as may be Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 22 Car. II. In Cancellaria Peter Pheasant versus Anne Pheasant The Lord Mayor of London and Sir Thomas Player Chamberlain of London c. THe Case was this Anne Hadly now Pheasant one of the Defendants being an Orphan of London and having an Estate of 3 or 4000 l in Money in the Court of Orphans there was married to W. Pheasant elder Brother to the Plaintiff W. Pheasant before he was at the Age of 21 years and not having taken out this Money dies having bequeathed this Money inter alia to his said Wife provided that she should not claim Dower c. Notwithstanding she brings Dower against the now Plaintiff Brother and Heir to her late Husband Whereupon he brings this Bill in Chancery to make Discovery of this Estate and to compel her to release her Dower or renounce this Devise and thereupon obtains an Injunction to stay Proceedings in the Writ of Dower The Point was Whether this Money in the Court of Orphans were Devisable or no Serjeant Goodfellow Argued That it was Devisable as a Chattel personal in the Testator's possession and vested in the Baron the Court of Orphans have but have the Custodiam Co. Entries 346. 1 Roll. 550. the Chamberlain of London is the Officer intrusted and a sole Corporation to this purpose so as to take Recognizance which shall go to his Executors and is the only Corporation of that nature in England His possession is the Testator's actual possession Latch 127. If the Servant be robbed the Master shall have the Action in the 1 Cro. 37. This is not a Debitum but a Depositum as in Custodia in gremio legis by the Custom of London as if Money had been brought into Court here by a Compulsory Order in which case it would have vested in the Husband Now in the Court of Orphans they compel People to bring in the Money or to give Security and they pay no Interest only allow Finding-Money that is for the Orphans Maintenance and no more Seeing the Feme is intituled to Dower immediately it were hard that the Baron should not have the Portion Debts he shall not have because of his Latches in not bringing an Action whereby to reduce them to Property but this cannot be had until the Wives full Age. Vpon the Marriage of Orphans the Custom is to appoint the Common Serjeant to Treat and take Security for the Orphan Serjeant Maynard contra This was a Chose en Action Debt lies for it and it cannot be recovered without an Action Interest is allowed for it according to the Custom tho' not Statute Interest and proportionable to the Sum. And the Case of Dr. Ent versus Adrian was by the Custom of London If a man dye leaving three Sons his Estate shall be equally divided amongst them and if either of them dye within Age his part shall survive to the other The Father taking notice of this Custom Devised That if any of his Sons dye within Age his part should not survive but that it should go to J.S. It was Resolved that the Father could not thus give the Childs Portion because but a possibility and a thing not vested in himself Wyld said That when he was Recorder he certified the Custom in that Case to be That the Father might Devise Curia viz Bridgman Lord Keeper Twisden and Wyld assisting We are clear of Opinion that this was a Chose en Action and not Devisable A Trover and Conversion lies not for it if it be refused to be paid It was the Latches of the Husband that he did not recover it for by the Custom it is to be paid at the full Age or Marriage of the Female Orphan The Chamberlain is not a Servant to the Orphan but to the Mayor If it were purely a Depositum it must be paid in specie without Interest but they pay Customary Interest And tho' whilst the Orphans are under Age and Vnmarried if Women they give them Finding Money only yet at the end of all when the Orphan comes at full Age or if a Female marries all is Cast up and the Interest is paid The word Custodia in Pleading imports an Interest as in the Case of Guardian in Soccage c. the Lord Mayor c. have a Special Interest in it and if it be lost or miscarry they are to Answer it Let the Injuction be Dissolved Nota This Case was referred by my Lord Keeper to Justice Wyld A man opens a Mine in his Land and digs until he comes under the Soil of another whether he can follow his Mine there And he certified
Sr Peyton Ventris Kn t. Late one of the Justices of the Court of Com̄on Pleas. I Royly pinx H White sculp THE REPORTS OF Sir Peyton Ventris Kt. Late One of the JUSTICES of the COMMON-PLEAS In Two Parts The First PART Containing Select CASES Adjudged in the Kings-Bench in the Reign of K. CHARLES II. WITH Three Learned ARGUMENTS One in the Kings-Bench by Sir Francis North when Attorney General and Two in the Exchequer by Sir Matthew Hale when Lord Chief Baron With Two TABLES One of the Cases the other of the Principal Matters The Second PART Containing choice CASES Adjudged in the Common-Pleas in the Reigns of K. CHARLES II. and K. JAMES II. and in the Three first years of the Reign of His now Majesty K. WILLIAM and the late Q MARY while he was a JUDGE in the said Court With the Pleadings to the same ALSO Several CASES and PLEADINGS thereupon in the Exchequer-Chamber upon Writs of ERROR from the Kings-Bench Together with many remarkable and curious Cases in the Court of Chancery Whereto are added Three exact TABLES One of the Cases the other of the Principal Matters and the third of the Pleadings With the Allowance and Approbation of the Lord Keeper and all the Judges LONDON Printed by the Assigns of Richard and Edward Atkyns Esquires for Charles Harper and the Flower-de-Luce and Iacob Tonson at the Judges-Head both over against St. Dunstan's Church in the Fleetstreet MDCXCVI WE all knowing the Great Learning and Judgment of the Author do for the Benefit of the Publick approve of and allow the Printing and Publishing of this Book Intituled The Reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt. Late One of the Justices of the Court of Common-Pleas J. Som̄ers C.S. J. Holt Geo Treby Ed Nevill Joh. Powell W. Gregory N. Lechmere Tho. Rokeby G Eyre Jo Turton John Powell Sam. Eyre April the 20 th 1695. THE FIRST PART OF THE REPORTS OF Sir Peyton Ventris Kt. LATE One of the Iustices OF THE COMMON-PLEAS CONTAINING Select CASES Adjudged in the COURT of Kings-Bench in the Reign of King CHARLES II. WITH THREE LEARNED ARGVMENTS One in the Kings-Bench by Sir FRANCIS NORTH when Attorney General And Two in the Exchequer by Sir MATTHEW HALE when Lord Chief Baron With Two exact TABLES One of the Cases the other of the Principal Matters With the Allowance and Approbation of the LORD KEEPER and all the JUDGES LONDON Printed by the Assigns of Richard and Edward Atkyns Esquires for Charles Harper at the Flower-de-Luce and Iacob Tonson at the Judges-Head both over against St. Dunstan's Church in the Fleetstreet MDCXCVI TO THE READER THE Name of the Reverend and Learned JUDGE who was the Compiler of these REPORTS will be a sufficient Invitation to the Understanding Reader not only to cast his Eye upon but seriously to peruse them And as my Lord Coke in his Commentary upon Littleton fol. 249. b. says That for the most part the latter Resolutions and Judgments are the surest and therefore best to Season Students with at the Beginning both for the settling of their Judgments and retaining of them in Memory and easier to be understood than the Ancient So it is to be hoped that these following REPORTS Collected with Care Diligence and Experience by the Learned Author thereof will fully answer these Directions given by that before-mentioned Famous Lawyer The Author of these REPORTS was so Eminent in his Profession of the LAWS that should I presume to give a Character of him it would come very short of His great Worth and therefore I shall only commend him to the Courteous Reader where he will find his own Character given by himself Vale. THE NAMES OF THE CASES IN THE FIRST PART A ABram v. Cunningham p. 303 Adams v Guy 109 Amhurst's Case of Grays-Inn 187 Anger v. Brewer 348 350 Anonymus's 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 17 18 20 21 24 26 28 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 48 49 51 53 54 55 59 60 61 63 65 69 71 74 75 87 89 92 93 98 100 105 107 108 109 111 114 115 117 120 126 127 132 133 135 142 143 146 165 166 191 211 212 213 214 222 233 234 236 239 247 248 249 252 253 256 257 258 259 261 262 264 265 266 267 268 272 274 276 292 293 295 296 298 306 308 309 310 315 323 325 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 335 336 337 338 343 344 345 346 348 349 350 352 353 355 356 357 359 361 362 366 367 369 Astree v. Ballard 315 Atkyns Sir Robert v. Holford Clare 399 Auberie v. James 70 Aubin St. v. Cox 180 Austin's Case 183 Austin's Katharine Case 189 B BAins versus Biggersdale 5 Baker v. Bulstrode 255 Baker v. Bakers 313 Baldway and Ouston 71 Baltinglasses Lady Case 64 Barber v. Fox 159 Barkly v. Paine 28 Barnard v. Mitchel 114 126 Barnes v. Bruddel 4 Barnes v. Hughes 8 Barrett v. Milward al' 75 Bateman 's Sir Anthony Case 166 Bates 's William Case 41 Batmore Vx ' v. Graves 260 Bayly v. Murin 244 Beasly 's Case 301 Bedniff Vx ' v. Popli Vx ' 220 Bell v. Thatcher 275 Bellew Monsieur Norman sen ' Norman jun ' 254 Bernard v. Bernard 72 Berry v. Bowes 360 Best v. Yates 268 Billingham and Vavasor 6 Biron 's Lord Case 100 Blackamore v. Mercer 221 Blackman 's Case 304 Blake v. 240 Bolton v. Cannon 271 Bosvile v. Coates 58 Bourne v. Mason al' 6 Bovye 's Sir Ralph Case 193 211 217 Bradnox 's Case 195 Braithwaite 's Case 19 Brell v. Richards 165 Brown 's John Case 243 Brown v. London 152 Brown v. Wait 299 Bulmer v. Charles Pawlet Lord St. John 160 Burfoot v. Peale 262 Burgen 's Thomas Case 13 Burrough 's Case 305 Burwell 's Case 48 Butcher v. Cowper 183 C CAptain C 's Case 250 Cabell and Vaughan 34 Calthorpe v. 108 Cartwright v. Pinkney 272 Castilian v. Platt 190 Catterel v. Marshal 99 Chester v. Wilson 78 Chesters Lady Case 207 Clarke v. Phillips al. 42 Clarke 's Case 327 Clayton v. Gillam 363 Clerke v. Cheney 13 Clipsham v. Morris 9 Clue v. Baily 240 Cole v. Levingston 224 Colepepper 's Case 349 Collet v. Padwel 93 Collingwood v. Pace 413 Cooke v. Fountain 347 Coriton Sir John and Harvey versus Lithby 167 Cotton Sir Robert v. Daintry 29 Cousin 's Case 69 Cox v. Matthews 237 239 Crawfoot v. Dale 263 Crispe and Jackson v. The Mayor and Commonalty of Berwick 58 90 Crosse v. Winter 22 Crossing v. Scudamore 137 Curtis al' v. Collingwood 297 Curtis v. Inman 364 Cuts v. Pickering 197 D DAcon 's Case 107 Dacres v. Duncomb 235 Davenant v. The Bishop of Salisbury 223 Davis v. Wright al' 120 Davis v. Price 317 Davison v. Hoslip 152 Day v. Pitts 10 Day v. Coppleston 356 Dean and Chapter of Durham v. The Lord Archbishop of York 225 Debt 233 Denison v. Ralphson 365 Dier v. East 42 146
he had a way over the place where it is not material to the justification whither it leads it being after a Verdict when the right of the case is tried And it is aided at last by the Statute of Oxford 16 Car. And so Twysden said it was the Opinion of all the Iudges at Serjeants Inn he putting the Case to them at Dinner Norris and Cuffuil IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in consideration of six pence paid in hand the 13 of Jan. 17 Car. and that the Plaintiff would pay him 20 s a Month he promised to serve him in his Glass-house after the first Iourny of Glass and sets forth quod primum iter vitrij tunc prox sequens aggreamentum praedictum fuit 21 Feb. 17 Car. which was the year before and that the Defendant did not come to serve him After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Plaintiff had not declared sufficiently of any Iourny of Glass after the Agreement but that alledged appears to be the year before Et Adjornatur This Case being moved again Twysden said he had put it to the Iudges at Serjeants Inn and they were all of Opinion that it was well enough after a Verdict Heath versus Pryn. IN an Ejectione Firmae of the Rectory of Westbourn in Chichester upon Not Guilty pleaded it appeared upon the Evidence that the Plaintiffs Title was as Presentee of the Grantee of the next Avoidance from the Lord Lumly and Letters of Institution under the Seal of the Ordinary were produced but by reason of the times the Ordinary Parson and Patron being Sequestred no Induction followed thereupon until the Kings Restauration this Institution was 1645. Soon after the Defendant was placed in this Church by an Ordinance of Parliament and hath enjoyed it ever since and there was an Act of Parliament made 12 Car. 2. which confirms Ministers in their Possessions of any Benefice with cure tho' they came not in by Admission Institution and Induction but according to a Form used in those times in which Act there is also a Clause of Restitution of sequestred Ministers to such Benefices as they had been seized of by taking the profits It was alledged on the Defendants side that the Plaintiff proving nothing of a Presentation the Institution could not be admitted as Evidence of it especially in this case where the Induction was so long after to which the Court did incline And then the Oath of the Grantee of the next Avoidance was offered which was not admitted altho' his Interest was executed by the Presentment And it was said that an Assignor might be sworn a Witness to the Assignment of a Lease where there were no Covenants It was also said that the Plaintiff was not within the clause of Restitution of the Act of 12 Car. because he was never seized by taking the Profits which cannot be until Induction according to Hare and Bicklers Case in the Commentaries quod suit concessum To which it was replied That neither was the Defendant within the clause of Confirmation because the Rectory in question was not a Benefice with cure for there is belonging to it a perpetual Vicaridge Endowed and the Vicar comes in by Admission Institution and Induction who performs Divine Service pays the Synodals and Procurations repairs the Chancel and therefore it hath been adjudged that such a Vicar shall have Arbores in Coemiterio And it was said that the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. against Pluralities doth not extend to Rectories where there are Vicaridges Endowed And Linwood describes a Benefice without cure cujus cura Vicariis perpetuo exercenda est Otherwise where the Vicar is Temporal and removeable And the difference is inter curam actualem habitualem And 't is the Cure that the Rector hath and so hath every Bishop in his Diocess who when he gives Institution saith accipe curam tuam et meam but the Act only extends to the first It appeared also on the other side That the Parson had come once or twice a year Preached and Administred Sacraments and that without the Vicars leave and also paid First-fruits Vpon all this matter the Opinion of the Court was That the Parson had a concurrent Cure with the Vicar and resembled it to the case where there are two Incumbents in one Church and coming in by Admission Institution and Induction the Vicar could not discharge him of the cure of Souls But Donatives which are conferred by Laymen are sinè cura Note The Plaintiffs Counsel would have denyed the Act of 12 Car. to be an Act of Parliament because the were not Summoned by the Kings Writ but the Iudges would not admit it to be questioned and said That all the Iudges resolved that the Act being made by King Lords and Commons they ought not now to pry into any defects of the Circumstance of calling them together neither would they suffer a point to be stirred wherein the Estates of so many were concerned Vid. Hob. 109. 33 H. 6. 19. Notwithstanding all this the Jury found for the Plaintiff It seemed by the Court in this case that Letters of Institution must be under the Episcopal Seal sed vide Cro. lib. 1. 249. Vid. postea The King against Burford HE was Indicted for that he scandalose contemptuose propalavit publicavit verba squentia viz. That none of the Justices of Peace do understand the Statutes for the Excise unless Mr. A. B. and he understands but little of them no nor many Parliament men do not understand them upon the reading of them And it was moved to quash the Idictment for that a man could not be Indicted for speaking◠of such words and of that Opinion was the Court But they said he might have been bound to his Good Behaviour Stones Case A Writ of Priviledge was prayed for Stone an Attorney of the Court who was Copyholder of a Mannor where the Custom was for the Homage to chuse one of the Tenants to collect the Lords Rents for the year following and they elected him But it was said that this might be taken to be parcel of his Tenure for the Lords use to seize the Land for not executing of it and his Priviledge ought not to deprive the Lord of the Service of his Tenant 1 Cro. 422. In the Book of H. 6. The Archbishop of York being bound by Tenure to Collect the Tenths pleaded the Kings Letters Patents in discharge thereof and they were disallowed and tho' Attorneys have had their priviledge where they have been pressed Souldiers as in Venables Case 1 Cro. 8. Co. Entries 436. Springs Case and 1 Cro. 283. and where by Custom it came to an Attorneys turn to be Constable vid. Rolls 2. part 276. yet these are publick Services to which every one is bound but Priviledges may be allowed to exempt particular persons as the King may grant to one that he shall not be of
Nonsuit him Dyer 76. b. for the Defendant could have no Scire facias into Ireland Leech versus Widsley IN an Action of Trespass for Chasing of his Sheep and Impounding of them and there detaining of them until he gave him 12 d per quod one of the Sheep died The Defendant pleads that J.S. was seised in Fee of the place Where and that the Sheep were there Damage feasant and that he by the Command of J. S. leniter chaceavit eas and Impounded them until he gave him satisfaction quae est eadem Transgressio The Plaintiff in his Replication entitles himself to Common there The Defendant Rejoyns and says that the place Where was parcel of a great Waste wherein the Plaintiff had Common appurtenant and that the Lord Inclosed the place Where and that the Plaintiff had tempore quo c. semper postea sufficient Common for all his Sheep levant and couchant To which the Plaintiff Demurs First For that the Bar was Insufficient for the Plaintiff chargeth him with detaining them until he paid him a Shilling and he pleads that he detained them until he gave him satisfaction sed non allocatur Vid. 3 Cro. 384. Hill and Prideaux's Case but here the Plaintiff hath waived that Advantage by pleading over Again He doth not answer to the killing of the Sheep sed non allocatur for he pleads leniter chaceavit so that if the Sheep did dye he is not answerable neither doth the Plaintiff declare of any extraordinary Chasing but alledges the dying of the Sheep only in aggravation of the Damages coming after the Per quod and that is not traversable As in an Action for Beating of his Servant per quod servitium amisit the loss of the Service cannot be traversed But that which was most insisted on was what he alledges in his Rejoynder viz. That the Plaintiff had Common sufficient left him for his Sheep levant and couchant upon the Tenements Whereas he ought to have said Sufficient ad tenementa praedicta For it may be the Ground was understocked Also 't is not set forth that he had free Egress and Regress the Words of the Statute of Merton are Tantam pasturam habeant quantum sufficit ad tenementa sua quod habeant liberum ingressum sed non allocatur for his Sheep levant and couchant is intended as many as the Land will maintain and if there were no Egress or Regress it ought to come on the other side So Judgment was given for the Defendant nisi causa Anonymus AN Infant Executor brings an Action It was said by Twisden That it had been Adjudged that he ought to sue by Guardian Ely versus Ward IN a Writ of Error to Reverse a Judgment given in the Court at Hull upon an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That it was Agreed between them at a place infra Jurisdictionem Curiae That upon Request c. and that he Requested him at a place infra Jurisdictionem Curiae It was assigned for Error That this Action ought not to have been brought in Hull because the Request was not appointed to be made within the Iurisdiction by Agreement Sed non allocatur As long as the Agreement and Request were made there tho' the Request might have been elsewhere Another Error was assigned in that the Precept to the Serjeant at Mace for Returning of the Jury was Probos legales homines qui null affinitat ' c. attingen ' whereas the Form of the Venire is attingunt Sed non allocatur For it was held to be as well Tho' Twisden said The Form of a Writ ought not to be altered into another Expression of the same signification Then the Entry was Ad quem diem venerunt the Plaintiff and Defendant Juratores and it should have been Veniunt sed his non obstantibus the Judgment was affirmed Anonymus IT was held That if the Sheriff Returns a Cepi Corpus upon a Capias altho' he hath not his Body in Court at the day of the Return yet no Action can be brought against him but he is to be amerced for it at the Common Law One so taken could not be Bailed but by a Homine Replegiando and now the Statute of the 23th of H. 6. obliges the Sheriff to take Bail however the Return is as at the Common Law Cepi Corpus Freeman versus Barnes TRin. 20 Car. 2. Rot. 554. Error to Reverse a Judgment given in Communi Banco in an Ejectment where upon Not Guilty pleaded the Jury found a Special Verdict to this effect Tenant in Fee makes a Lease for an hundred years in Trust for himself to wait upon the Inheritance the Lessee enters Cestuy que Trust enters and takes the Profits and makes several Leases all which being expired he makes a Lease for 54 years and for the corroborating of it Levies a Fine with Proclamations the Lessee enters 5 years pass And Tyrrel and Archer they being the only Judges in the Common Plea then gave Iudgment That the Fine should bar the Lessee for an hundred years Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and Argued this Term by Levins for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error and Finch Solicitor for the Defendant And for the Reversing of the Judgment Levins Argued That this Lease by the Cestuy que Trust and the Entry of his Lessee did not dispossess the former Lessee and then the Fine and Non-claim could not prejudice his Interest which was not put to a right For first the Cestuy que Trust was at least Tenant at Will So is Littleton Sect. 464. Cestuy que Use may enter and hold at the Will of his Feoffees then his Lease can be no Disseisin because the Inheritance was in himself 'T is true in some Cases a man may do an Act which shall divest his own Estate As if a Stranger disseises Tenant for Life to the use of him in the Reversion and he assents Co. Lit. 180. b. the Law shall not construe a Disseisin against the parties Intention Rolls 661. He that enters by colour of a void Lease is no Disseisor 1 Cro. 188. nor any one that enters by Consent 15 E. 4. 5. b. Neither shall the Interest of the Lessee be divested but at his Election for this Lease works in point of Contract and not so violently upon other mens Interests as Livery doth In Latche's Rep. 75. Sir Thomas Fisher's Case Tenant for years le ts at Will the Lessee makes a Lease for years this works no dispossession If a Copyholder makes a Lease for years without Licence the Entry of the Lessee is no Disseisin to the Lord and he may chuse whether he will take it as a Forfeiture Rolls 830. Lease for years upon Condition to be void upon Non-payment of Rent a demand is made the Lessor may make a new Lease of the Land the former Lessee being still in possession And Blunden and Baugh's Case was cited in 1 Cro.
Berwick is part of Scotland and bound by our Acts of Parliament because Conquered in Edward the Fourth's time But the course is to name it expresly because 't is out of the Realm and not like to Wales where the Trials in such Cases shall be out of the prochein County 19 Hen. 6.12 for that is a Member of England Vid. 7 Co. Calvin's Case But two Presidents being shewn where the Trials were as it is here and one of them affirmed in a Writ of Error also the Case in Rolls tit Trial 597. A Writ of Error was brought to Reverse a Judgment given in Ireland and an Error in Fact was assigned and tryed in a County next to Ireland The Court Ruled the Venire to be well awarded Twisden said The Reason why an Ejectment would not lye of Lands in Jamaica or any of the Kings foreign Territories was Because the Courts here could not command them to do Execution there for they have no Sheriffs This Case having remained two or three Terms since the Postea was Returned and no Continuances Entred one of the Plaintiffs died and it was doubted whether Judgment could be now Entred And the Secondary said That they did Enter up Judgments two Terms after the Day in Bank as at the Day in Bank without any Continuances And of this Matter the Court would be Advised Postea Anonymus IF one upon Complaint to two Justices 1 Cro. Prigeon's Case be Ordered to keep a Bastard Child and this upon an Appeal to the Sessions is revoked that Person is absolutely discharged and unless a Father can be found the Court said the Justices of Peace must keep it themselves The Earl of Peterborough versus Sir John Mordant IN an Action upon the Statute de Scandalis Magnatum for speaking these Words of the Plaintiff I do not know but my Lord of Peterborough sent Gybbs to take my Purse After Judgment by Default and a Writ of Enquiry of Damages returned it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that no Action would lye for these Words First He doth not positively charge him with it Again The Words do not import a Felonious taking Hob. 326. Mason's Case I charge him with Felony for taking Money out of the Pocket of H. Stacie adjudged not Actionable And in 1 Cro. 312. Thou didst set upon me and take my Purse go before a Justice and I will charge you with Felony It was held there that no Action would lye But the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff As to the first it was held as much as a direct Affirmation for otherwise one might slander another and by such a slight Evasion escape an Action Twisden said He knew these Words adjudged Actionable He hides himself for Debt and for ought I know is a Bankrupt And for the Words the Court said Three was difference between an Action grounded upon the Statute de Scandalis Magnatum and a Common Action of Slander The Chief Justice said The Words in the one case shall be taken in mitiori sensu and in the other in the worst sense against the Speaker that the Honour of such Great Persons may be preserved More 55. The Earl of Leicester had Judgment for these words My Lord of Leicester is a Cruel Man an Oppressor and an Enemy to Reformation Leon. 33. The Lord Abergavenny sued for these words My Lord Abergavenny sent for us and put some of us into the Stocks some to the Coal-house and some to the Prison in his House called Little Ease And Recovered Vide Crompton's Jurisdiction of Courts 13. and Leonard 336. Anonymus AN Indictment was Compertum fuit per Sacramentum duodecim proborum legalium hominum c. and quashed because it was not jurat ' onerat ' And the Clerk of the Crown-Office Informed the Court that that was always the Course also it must be Adtunc ibidem jurat ' where the Caption is recited to be taken Williams versus Gwyn ERror to Reverse a Judgment given in Dower in the Grand Sessions in Wales It appeared by the Record that the Tenant appeared upon the Summons Returned and Day was given over adtunc venit per Attornatum nihil dicit in barram Whereupon Consideratum est quod tertia pars terr' tenemen ' capiatur in man ' Domini Regis and Day was given ad audiend ' Judicium at which Day Iudgment was given quod recuperet It was Assigned for Error that the Court here had awarded a Petit Cape and yet the Defendant appeared whereas they should have given Iudgment upon the Nient dedire for a Petit Cape is always upon default after appearance and only to answer the Default The Grand Cape is before appearance to answer the Default and the Demand Vet. N. B. 97. So it was said the Court had erred in Judgment and tho' it were in advantage of the Tenant by the delay yet not being by his Prier as an Essoign granted where none ought to be is not Error but the act of the Court as if they should Enter a Misericordia for a Capiatur it were Erroneous But the Court answered That the reason of that was Because it is parcel of the Judgment and the King should lose his Fine But this was only the awarding of Process more than should be and in advantage of the Tenant wherefore they resolved that they could not Reverse it for Error And Twisden said Admitting it were Erroneous they might then give Iudgment in this Court Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Arches for Libelling against one there for calling Whore and Baud because they were but words of Heat also the Party lived in the Diocess of London so against 23 H. 8. to Cite him there But the Court would not grant it for though formerly there hath been divers Opinions touching these words yet Twisden said ever since 8 Car. the Law hath been taken that they may punish such words pro reformatione morum And for the other it appeared Sentence was given and that it was too late to pray a Prohibition when it appears they have Iurisdiction of the Cause as the Superiour Court and he that would have the benefit of the Statute against citing out of the Diocess must come before Sentence 1 Cro. Anonymus FInch Solicitor moved for a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court to stay a Suit for Tythes of Hopps commenced there by the Vicar upon a Suggestion that they had paid for all Tythe Hopps so much an Acre to the Parson time out of mind But it was denied for there could be no such Composition time out of mind Hopps not being known in England until Queen Elizabeths time for then they were first brought out of Holland though Beer is mentioned in a Statute in Henry the Fourth's time But it was said by the Court That perhaps the Vicaridge was Endowed time out of mind of the small Tythes of which nature Hopps were Then the prescription of paying of Modus to
be good Now this being the way of Operation there is no reason why he may not Devise it to one after the death of two as well as after the death of one This would be so in Grants were it not that a certainty is required in them 1 Cro. 155. which is not required in Devises Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 22 Car. II. In Banco Regis Freeman versus Barnes EError to Reverse a Judgment in an Ejectione firmae in the Common Pleas the Case upon a Special Verdict was thus The Marquess of Winchester being seised in Fee of the Lands in Question the 8 of July 9 Jac. Lets them to Sir An. Maynee for 100 years in Trust for the Marquess and his Heirs and to wait upon the Inheritance The Lessee enters afterwards the Marquess enters and Lets it to the Lord Darcy for 7 years and then Le ts to the Spanish Embassador for 7 years which Leases being expired Sir A.M. Demises to Freeman for a Term yet unexpired this Demise is not found to be upon the Land Afterwards the Lord Marquess Demises to Germin for 54 years upon Consideration of Money and Reserves a Rent and Covenants to Levy a Fine for the assurance of the Term which was afterwards done with Proclamation Germin enters and five years passed without any Claim made which Lease by mean Assignment came to Wicherly the Lessor of the Defendant who was Plaintiff in the Common Pleas and there had Iudgment The only Question upon this Special Verdict was Whether the Fine and Non Claim should barr the interest of Sir A. M. the Lessee in Trust This Case having béen argued thrée several times at the Bar The Court did this Term deliver their Opinons and did all agrée that the Iudgment ought to be affirmed It was considered quid operatur by the entry of the Marquess and they all except Moreton held that Prima facie he was Tenant at Will as Littleton Sect. 463. is where the Feoffor enters upon the Feoffée to his use but that the Entry of Germin his Lessée did ouft Freeman the Assignee of Sir A.M. which Assignment though not found to be upon the Land 2 Cro. 660. was good as the Chief Justice held because the two former Leases made by the Marquess were expired so he became Tenant at Will again but them he making of another Lease and the Lessee entring this must work an ouster and so the Fine would bar the Right For they agreed that a Fine regularly shall not work upon an Interest which is not divested though in some Cases it doth as upon the Interest of a Term according to Safins Case 5 Co. which yet cannot be divested but though the first Entry make but a Tenancy at Will yet taking upon him to make Leases that is enough to declare his intent to dispossess his Lessee in Trust Besides he reserves a Rent and Covenants for quiet Enjoyment and to make further assurance which could not stand with the Interest of the Lessee in Trust And for the Cases that were objected as Blunden and Baughs 1 Cro. 220. Where it is adjudged That the Entry of the Lessée for years of Tenant at Will should be no disseisin nolens volens to him that had the Freehold for there was no intention of the Parties to make it so and here the Law shall rather give the Election to him which had the Inheritance to make it a devësting than the Lessee or rather as the Chief Justice said the Law construes such Acts to amount to a divesting or not divesting as is most agreeable to the intention of the Parties and the right of the thing which distinguishes it also from the Case of Powsley and Blackman cited in Blunden and Baughs Case where the Mortgageor held at the Will of the Motrgageē and let for years the Lessee entred and held notwithstanding that the Mortgagee might Devest So Sir Tho. Fishes Case in Latches Rep. Where Tenant for years Le ts at Will and the Lessée makes a Lease for years and then the remainder is granted over This Grant is held to be good which whether by the remainder there be understood the interest of the Lessee or the Fee-simple yet it is no more than my Lord Nottinghams Case and not like the Case in Question For there the Lessee held the interest in his own Right and here but in Trust and for the Case in Noyes Reports 23. Twisden said he wholly rejected that Authority for it was but an Abridgment of Cases by Serjeant Size who when he was a Student borrowed Noyes Reports and abridged them for his own use The Case was this Tenant in Fée makes a Lease for years then Levies a Fine before Entry of the Lessee It is held there though five years pass the Lessée is not barred which is directly against the Resolution of Saffins Case and for Authority in this Case they relied upon the Case of Isham and Morris in 1 Cro. 781. Where upon Evidence it was resolved by the Justices That if the cesty quo Trust of a Lease for years Purchaseth the Inheritance and Occupies the Land and Levies a Fine that this after five years shall bar the Term which is not so strong as this Case because there were no Leases made and Entry thereupon and the Trust must pass inclusively by the Fine as is resolved in divers Books especially in this Case where it is to wait upon the Inheritance which though it arises but out of a Term yet it shall follow the Land and go to the Heir And for the inconveniences which were objected That if any Man purchased Land by Fine that he could not keep on Foot Mortgages and Leases which it is often convenient to do The Chief Justice declared his Opinion That in that Case the Fine should not bar there not being any intention of the Parties to that purpose And as to the other that where the Mortgageor continuing in Possession Levies a Fine this should bar the Mortgagee he denied that also and grounded himself upon Fermours Case in 3 Cro. And Twisden agreed Dighton's Case HE brought a Mandamus to be restored to his place of Town Clerk of Stratford super Avon The Corporation returned Letters Patents whereby they were empowered to chuse one into the Office of Town Clerk Durante bene placito and that they removed him from his Office Jones prayed that he might be restored notwithstanding because no Cause of his removal was returned nor that they had ever Summoned him whereas if they had he might peradventure have shewed such Reasons as would have moved them to have continued him and he cited Warrens Case 2 Cro. 540. who was restored to his Aldermanship where the Return was as here But the Court held that they could not in this Case although they confessed they knew the Merits of the Person help him And the Chief Justice said The Case of the Alderman differed for he is a part of the Corporation which
Again He alledges a Custom of Dimising Copyholds and doth not say for what Estate neither doth he name any Copyholders Also he should have averred that the Beasts were levant and couchant One prescribed to have omnes Spinas yet laid them to be spent in a certain House And the Verdict shall not help the Defect as this Case is but if the Copyholder had pleaded so himself it should For after a Verdict it is intended they were levant and couchant but that cannot be in case of a Stranger Iustifying by Licence He took another Exception also That a Licence was pleaded here and not shewn to be by Deed as it appears it ought to be 2 Cro. 575. As to the first it was Answered That this Prescription did not take all the Profit from the Owner of the Soyl for there might be Trees and Bushes growing and if any one should Dig the Soyl and discover Mines the Lord should recover Damage in respect of the Mines Such an Interest as this might commence by Grant and therefore lies in Prescription The same Objection might be made against the sole Feeding for some part of the Year for the property of the Soyl remains in the Lord at that time also when the Profit is divided from him and it may be as well allowed for a longer as a shorter time this is no more than the Herbage or Vesture of the Land And Prescription to dig Turves cuts as deep into the Profits and yet that may be in one and the Soyl in another As to the second It is not needful to shew for what Estates the Copyholds have been demised for it is not laid by way of Prescription in them for then it would be material to shew that they had such Estates as might supports a Prescription but as a Custom in the Mannor and to have named them would have made a Repugnancy viz. that such particular Copyholders had the sole Feeding time out of mind 3 Cro. 311. Yelv. 187. Neither is it needful to alledge that the Beasts were levant and couchant in regard that he claims the sole Feeding which may therefore be with what Beasts he pleaseth And it is not needful that the Licence should in this case be by Deed for it passeth no Interest and serves but for an Excuse of Trespass and 't is for no certain time but only pro hac vice The Opinion of the Court inclined for the Plaintiff Sed Adjornatur Vide postea The Duke of Richmond versus Wise IN an Ejectment the parties had a Trial at Bar and a Verdict for the Plaintiff The Court were moved to set aside this Verdict upon an Affidavit made of these Misdemeanors in the Jury viz. That they had Bottles of Wine brought them before they had given their Verdict which were put in a Bill together with Wine and other things which were eat and drank by the Servants of the Jury and the Tipstaves that attended them at the Tavern where they were consulting their Verdict That this Bill after the Verdict given was paid by the Plaintiffs Solicitor and that after they had given up their Privy Verdict they were Treated at the Tavern by the Plaintiffs Solicitor before their affirmance of it in Court Counsel being heard on both Sides as to these matters the Court delivered their Opinions seriatim that the Verdict should stand They said they were not upon a discretionary setting aside of the Verdict as when the Jury goes against Evidence but whether these miscarriages shall avoid it in point of Law They all agreed That if the Jury eat or drank at the charge of the party for whom they find the Verdict it disannuls their Verdict but here it doth not appear that the Wine they drank was had by the order of the Plaintiff or any Agent for him 'T is true in regard his Sollicitor paid for it afterwards it doth induce a presumption that he bespoke it but that again is extenuated by its being put into a Bill with other things that were allowable and if the Verdict should be quashed for this Cause it must be entred upon the Roll 1 Cro. 616. that it was for drinking at the Plaintiffs charge and it is not proved that this Wine was provided by him And as to the other matter That they received a Treat from the Plaintiff after their Privy Verdict given and before it was given up in Court that shall not avoid their Verdict But if the Defendant had treated them and they had changed their Verdict as they might have done in Court it should then have been void Co. Lit. 227. b. It after the Jury be agréed on their Verdict which the Chief Justice said must be intended such an Agréement as hath the signature of the Court put upon it viz. A Privy Verdict They eat and drink at the charge of him for whom they do pass it It shall not avoid the Verdict and if it should The Court said most Verdicts given at the Assizes would be void for there 't is usual for the Jury to receive a Collation after their Privy Verdict given from him for whom they find But such practice ought not to be and if any of the Parties their Attorneys or Sollicitors speak any thing to the Jury before they are agreed relating to the Cause viz. That it is a clear Cause or I hope you will find for such an one or the like and they find accordingly it shall avoid the Verdict but if words of Salutation or the like pass between them as was endeavoured to be proved in this Case they shall not Also if after they depart from the Bar any matter of Evidence be given them as Depositions or the like tho' the Jury swear they never looked on them yet that shall quash their Verdict But they all held in this Case that tho' there was great matter of Suspition yet there was not matter of clear proof as there ought to be sufficient to disannul this Verdict but they said it was a great Misdemeanour in the Jury for which they ought to be fined and that the Plaintiffs Sollicitor had carried himself with much blame and indiscretion and the two Tipstaves which attended the Jury for that they were not more careful but connived at these matters were fined the one 40 shillings who appeared to be most in fault and the other 20 shillings Barnard versus Michell HIll 22. 23 Car. 2. Rot. 865. The Case was moved again and by the Opinion of all the Court Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff being after a Verdict For though the pleading that he brake all the Covenants would not have béen good upon a Demurrer as they said for two Reasons First For that it would have been double in regard that the breach of any one of them would have intituled the Plaintiff to the penalty Secondly For that some of the Covenants were such as he ought to have assigned a special breach upon that it might have been in
Note directed to the Defendant whereby he required the Defendant to pay him who upon view of the Note in Consideration that the Plaintiff would accept of his Promise and forbear him a Fortnight promised to pay him the Money There after Verdict for the Plaintiff Judgment was Arrested because that was held no Consideration Sed non allocatur For Hale said When Assumpsits grew first into practice they used to set out the Matter at large viz. in such a Case as this Quod mutuo aggreatum fuit inter eos c. and they should be discharged one against the other but since it hath been the way to declare more concisely And upon the whole Matter here it appears that the Defendant agreed to this Transferring of the Debt of J. S. to the Plaintiff and that it was agreed that he should be discharged against J. S. And he said that the Case of Davison and Haslip hoc Termino ante was to the same effect And for Clipsham's Case that was said to be good Law for there it did not appear that the Defendant was at all Indebted to him that sent the Note Sir William Hicks's Case DEbt was brought against him by the Name of Sir William Hicks Knight and Baronet He pleaded in Abatement that he was never Knighted The Plaintiff moved that he might Amend an that he had put in Bail by the Name of Knight and Baronet so that he was concluded to alledge this Matter which the Court agreed if it were so But it was found to be Entred for William Hicks Baronet only So they said they could not permit any Amendment but the Plaintiff must of necessity Arrest him over again Fisher versus Batten A Bill was Exhibited in the Dutchy Court to be relieved against the Forfeiture of a Mortgage of Lands lying within the County of Lancaster The Defendant prayed a Prohibition Surmizing that the Lands in question were not the Kings Lands or holden of him and therefore he ought not to Answer in the Dutchy Court And the Court appointed to hear Counsel on both Sides whether or no this Prohibition were to be granted And it was Argued by Sir William Jones for the Prohibition That a Court of Equity must begin by Prescription or Act of Parliament That there can be no Prescription in this Case for both the Dutchy and County Palatine of Lancaster began within time of Memory Henry Father of John of Gaunt was the first Duke of Lancaster and he was made so in Edward the Third's time and then Lancaster was made a County Palatine The Act of Parliament upon which this Case must depend is that of 1 Ed. 4. which takes notice that the Dutchy and County Palatine of Lancaster were forfeited to the Crown by the Attainder of H. 6. and Enacts That they shall be separate and distinguished from other Inheritances of the Crown and appoints a Chancellor for the County Palatine and a Chancellor for the Dutchy and that each should have his Seal so that the Chancellor of the Dutchy is not to intermeddle in the County Palatine which hath a Chancellor of its own for Matters there Counties Palatine had their Original from a Politick Reason and Lancaster Durham and Chester were made so probably because they were adjacent to Enemies Countries viz. the two first to Scotland and Chester to Wales so that the Inhabitants having Administration of Justice at home and not being obliged to attend other Courts those parts should not be disfurnished of Inhabitants that might secure the Country from Incursions 'T is true of a long time the Chancellorship both of County and Dutchy have been in one Person but 't is the same thing as if there were two for the several Capacities remain distinct in him The first Patent that made it a County Palatine Ordained that it should have Jura regalia ad Comitatum Palatinum pertinen ' adeo libere integre sicut Comes Cestriae Com. 215. infra eundem Comitat ' Cestriae dignoscitur obtinere c. So that by that the Jurisdiction ought to be exercised within the County They have shewn indeed a multitude of Presidents but I can hear but of One for the first Fifty years after 1 Edw. 4. most of the other are of Personal things and of the rest divers began in the County Palatine and were transmitted to the Dutchy Court As they may send Causes out of the Courts there to be Argued in the Kings Bench but doubtful whether the Court here can give Judgment They have very few Presidents of Causes which commenced Originally in the Dutchy Court which is but a Court of Revenue 4 Inst The Court of Requests had a multitude of Presidents but could not thereby gain it self any Jurisdiction 4 Inst 97. Holt's Case Hob. 77. A Bill was Exhibited to be relieved against the Penalty of a Bond which concerned an Extent of Lands within the County Palantine and a Prohibition was granted for the Dutchy Court is said there to have nothing to do but with the Kings Land and his Revenue Vid. Rolls accordingly Weston contra We cannot pretend to a Court of Equity by Prescription but we have Presidents of above Two hundred years last past as well of Bills retained which commenced Originally here as of those transmitted and that of Transmission is agreed on the other side which proves the Jurisdiction For if a Certiorari or Corpus cum causa should go out of the Kings-Bench Conusans of Pleas might be demanded and so to stop the Removing of the Cause out of the Inferiour Court We maintain our Jurisdiction upon the Statute of 1 Ed. 4. before which the County Palatine and Dutchy of Lancaster were distinct as they were 1 H. 4. by which Act they were both severed from the Possessions of the Crown But now 1 Ed. 4. makes one Body of these distinct Bodies and gives a superiority to the Dutchy over the County Palatine for that is annexed unto and made parcel of the Dutchy as the supream Name of Corporation The Words of the Act are That our Liege and Sovereign Lord King Edward the Fourth and his Heirs have as parcel of the Dutchy the County of Lancaster and County Palatine and there is a Chancellor and Seal appointed for the County Palatine and a Seal also for the Dutchy and a Chancellor there for the keeping thereof and Officers and Counsellors for the Guidance and Governance of the same Dutchy and of the particular Officers Ministers Tenants and Inhabitants thereof So that the Act having Constituted a Chancellor indefinitely over the Dutchy and not circumscribing his Power it is not reason to exempt any part of the Dutchy and that the County is by force of this Act. In the 4 Inst 119. it is said that seeing there hath been time out of mind a Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be also in the Exchequer a Court of Equity So the Book of the 2d of H. 8. and Rolls Tit. Prohibition to the
the Reservation to the Estate Whitlocks Case 8 Co. is very full to this where Tenant for Life the Remainder over so setled by Limitation of uses with power to the Tenant for Life to make Leases who made a Lease reserving Rent to him his Heirs and Assigns Resolved That he in the Remainder might have the Rent upon this Reservation So put the Case That Lessee for a 100 years should let for 50 reserving a Rent to him and his Heirs during the Term I conceive this would go to the Executor 'T is true if the Lessor reserves the Rent to himself 't is held it will neither go to the Heir or Executor But in 27 H. 8. 19. where the Reservation is to him and his Assigns It is said that it will go to the Heir And in the Case at Bar the words Executors and Administrators are void then t is as much as if reserved to him and his Assigns during the Term which are express words declaring the intent and must govern any implied construction which is the true and particular Reason in this Case The Old Books that have been cited have not the words during the Term. Vid. Lane 256. Richmond and Butchers Case indeed is judged contrary in point 3 Cro. 217. but that went upon a mistaken ground which was the Manuscript Report 12 E. 2. Whereas I suppose the Book intended was 12 E. 3. Fitz. Assize 86. for I have appointed the Manuscript of E. 2. which is in Lincolns Inn Library to be searched 6 Co. 62. and there is no such Case in that year of E. 2. The Case in the 12 E. 3. is A Man seized of two Acres let one reserving Rent to him and let the other reserving Rent to him and his Heirs and resolved that the first Reservation should determin with his Life for the Antithesis in the Reservation makes a strong Implication that he intended so In Wotton and Edwins Case 5 Jac. the words of Reservation were Yeilding and Paying to the Lessor and his Assigns And resolved that the Rent determined upon his Death In that case there wanted the effectual and operative Clause during the Term. The Case of Sury and Brown is the same with ours in the words of Reservation and the Assignee of the Reversion brought Debt Lane 255. and did not aver the Life of the Lessor And the Opinion of Jones Croke and Doderidge was for the Plaintiff Latches Rep. 99. The Law will not suffer and Construction to take away the energy of these words during the Term. If a Man reserves a Rent to him or his Heirs 't is void to the Heir 1 Inst 214. a. But in Mallorys Case 5 Co. where an Abbot reserved a Rent during the Term to him or his Successors it was resolved good to the Successor It is said in Brudnels Case 5 Co. that if a Lease be made for years if A. and B. so long live if one of them dies the Lease Determines because not said if either of them so long lives So it is in point of Grant But it is not so in point of Reservation for Pas 4 Jac. in the Common Pleas between Hill and Hill The Case was a Copyholder in Fee where the Custom was for a Widows Estate made a Lease by Licence reserving Rent to him and his Wife during their lives and did not say or either of them and to his Heirs It was resolved First That the Wife might have this Rent tho' not party to the Lease Secondly That tho' the Rent were reserved during their lives yet it should continue for the life of either of them for the Reversion if possible will attract the Rent to it as it were by a kind of Magnetism Hoskins versus Robbins A Replevin for six Sheep The Defendant makes Conusance c. for Damage Fesant The Plaintiff replied That the place where was a great Wast parcel of such a Mannor within which there were time out of mind Copyhold Tenants and that there was a Custom in the Mannor that the said Tenants should have the sole and several Pasture of the Wast as belonging to their Tenements and shews that the Tenants licenced him to put in his Beasts The Defendant Traverses the Custom and found for the Plaintiff The exceptions moved in Arrest of Judgment were now spoken to again First That the Custom to have the sole Pasture and thereby to exclude the Lord is not allowable It hath béen ever held That such a Prescription for Common is not good and why should the same thing in effect be gained by the change of the name That Prescription for Pasture and Prescription for Common is the same thing Vid. 3 Cro. Daniel v. Count de Hertford 542. and Rolls tit Prescription 267. It is held a Man may claim Common for half a year excluding the Lord and that one cannot prescribe to have it always so is not because of the Contradiction of the Term for if the sole Feeding be but for half a year 't is as improper to call it Common but the true reason seems to be because it should in a manner take away the whole profit of the Soil from the Lord and he should by such usage lose his greatest Evidence to prove his Title for it would appear that the Land was always fed by the Beasts of others and it would be very mischievous to Lords who live remote from their Wasts or that seldom put their Beasts there as many times they do not so that by the Tenants solely using to feed it they should lose their Improvements provided for the Lords by the Statute and so come at last for want of Evidence to lose the Soil it self Secondly This Custom is laid To have the sole Feeding belonging to their Tenements and 't is not said for Beasts levant and couchant or averred that the Beasts taken were so 15 E. 4. 32. and Rolls tit Common 398. Fitz. tit Prescription 51. A Man cannot prescribe to take Estovers as belonging to his House unless he Avers them to be spent in his House Noy 145. So 2 Cro. 256. tho' the Prescription was there to take omnes Spinas for it is necessary to apply it to something which agrees in nature to the thing Brownlow 35. Thirdly Here the Plaintiff justifies the putting in his Beasts by a Licence and doth not say it was by Deed whereas it could not be without Deed and so is the 2 Cro. 575. Fourthly Those defects are not aided by the Verdict for they are in the right and of substance But the Court were all of Opinion for the Plaintiff First They held the Prescription to be good and being laid as a Custom in the Mannor it was not needful to express the Copy-hold Estates it doth not take away all the profit of the Land from the Lord for his interest in the Trees Mines Bushes c. continues Co. Inst 122. a. is express that a Prescription may be for sola separalis pastura ' and if
it may be for half a year upon the same reason it may be for ever An interest of this nature might have commenced by grant 18 E. 3. the Lord granted to the Tenant that he would not improve tho' it may be such a Grant were not good at this day The Court were agreed in this point in the Case between Porter and North brought here about three years since the principal doubt in that Case was whether the Freeholders and Copyholders could in pleading alledge a Joint Prescription for the Sole Pasture and for the mischief alledged that this might be obtained from every Lord that had not of a great many years used his Common Hale said It would not be sufficient to prove an Vsage for the sole Pasture to shew that the Tenants had only fed it unless it were proved also that the Lord had been opposed in putting in his Cattle and the Cattle Impounded from time to time To the Second Objection They held that Levancy was not material in this case because the sole Feeding is claimed So where Common for a certain number of Beasts is claimed 't is possible between the Tenants there may be some proportioning of it that one may not eat up all from the rest but 't is not material to the Owner of the Soyl. And Twisden said it was Resolved in this Court between Stonell and Masselden that want of averment of Levancy and Couchancy was aided by a Verdict Thirdly Tho' the Licence is not shewn to be by Deed they Resolved it was well enough 'T is true if the Licence were to make Title against the party which gave it there would be greater question For 't is nothing to the Plaintiff who it appears had not Damage at the most it is but a Mispleading aided by 32 H. 8. And the Plaintiff waved this matter and took Issue upon the Custom which is the material Point Vid. 2 Cro. 377. and it is found against him There might have been more colour upon a Demurrer Ante. Anonymus A Prohibition was granted to a Suit for Fees in the Ecclesiastical Court by an Apparitor upon a Suggestion that there were no such Fees due by Custom For that it tryable at Law and not by a Decinaria or Vicenaria praescriptio which is allowed in their Courts But they may Sue there for their due and customary Fees Brell versus Richards ERror upon a Judgment in the Common Pleas in an Ejectment against Eight Defendants and the Writ was Ad grave dampnum ipsorum the Judgment was only against Three and the other Five were acquitted The Error was assigned in the Nonage of the Three It was moved Whether the Writ of Error was well brought or whether the Judgment should reversed in toto The Court Resolved that the Writ was good Hob. 70. Yelv. 209. tho' it might be also ad damnum only of those Convicted But being only in the nature of a Commission whereby the King commands the Errors to be examined this matter is not material And Twisden said that the constant Practice is for all to joyn And they all held That the Judgment ought to be Reversed against all Sir Anthony Bateman's Case UPon a Trial at Bar the Question was Whether he were a Bankrupt or no It was proved that he was a Turky Merchant and Traded in the Year 1656 but it was not proved that he had afterwards Imported or Exported any thing but having the Effects of his former Trade by him to a great Value he shewed them to several and obtained the Loan of divers Sums of Money upon the Credit of them The Court held that this brought him within the Statute for such Debts as he Contracted after 1656 otherwise the Mischief would be great for Men cannot take notice when another withdraws his Trade or when he Commands his Factors beyond Sea to Deal no further for him but they seeing great quantities of Goods and Merchandize in his hands are apt to Trust him Wherefore 't is fit that they should be Relieved by the Statute Anonymus AN Administrator brought a Writ of Error upon a Judgment given in an Ejectment against the Intestate It was held that he should pay no Costs tho' the Judgment were affirmed and the Writ brought in dilatione Executionis The Bishop of Exeter versus Starr IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition recited That whereas the Obligor was Excommunicated for not coming to Church and that the now Plaintiff at his Instance and Request had absolved him That if he should obey all the lawful Commands of the Church that then c. The Defendant Demurred supposing the Condition to be against Law and so the Bond void Hale said If a man were Excommunicated there was a Writ De cautione admittenda and sometimes they took an Oath of the party Ad parendum omnibus Ecclesiae mandatis licitis honestis and that was called Cautio juratoris and sometimes Cautio pignoratitia was given 1 Bulstr 122. He said also It was held 8 Car. in Com. Banco that where the Ecclesiastical Court took a Bond of an Administrator to make distribution of what remained of the Intestates Estate after Debts and Legacies satisfied or to dispose so much to Pious uses that the Bond was void for they presumed the party in such cases to be under a kind of Coertion Et Adjornatur Isaac versus Ledgingham IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for Suit of Court The Plaintiff Replies and confesseth himself Tenant of the Mannor and saith That there are very many Tenants of the Mannor and that there is a Custom That if those Copy-holders which live remote from the Mannor pay Eight pence to the Steward of the Court for the Lord and 1 d to himself for the Entring of it that they should be excused of doing their Suit for One year after the said payment and alledgeth That he lives 10 Miles from the Mannor and that he tendred the 8 d and 1 d and both were refused To this the Avowant Demurred First The Custom is unreasonable for by means of it no Court can be kept if so be all the Tenants live remote Secondly The Plaintiff hath not brought himself within the Custom for that is to be discharged upon payment and not upon tender and refusal And the Construction of Customs is always strict to the Words and not with that latitude as is used in Contracts Hale 'T is Custom gives the Suit and consequently may qualifie it The Doubt arises because the Plaintiff hath not alledged that there are any Tenants live near or within the Mannor or whether that ought to be shewn on the other side if it be not so because the Intendment is strong that there are Therefore a By-Law in a Mannor binds the Tenants without notice because they are supposed to be within the Mannor For the other matter they all held that Tender and Refusal was as much as Payment And Twisden said It was Resolved 8 Co.
own Wrong as to enforce the Lessee to pay any thing for the residue Otherwise of a Rightful Entry into part as in the Case at Bar. 'T is true in Ascough's Case in the 9 Co. 't is said a Rent cannot be suspended in part and in esse for part And so in the 4 Co. Rawlin's Case it is held That the whole Rent is suspended where part is Redemised to the Lessor But the Court observed that the Resolution of that Point was not necessary to the Judgment given in that Case which was upon the Extinguishment of the Condition which is entire and not to be apportioned But as to the Rent no Book was found to warrant such an Opinion but Brook tit Extinguishment 48. where 't is said If there be Lord and Tenant by three Acres and the Tenant lets one to the Lord for years the whole Rent is suspended This Case is not found in the Book at large An in 7 Ed. 3. 56 57. where a Formedon was brought of a Rent-Service issuing out of three Acres and as to one Acre it was pleaded that the Demandant himself was Sole seised and concluded Judgment of the Writ But it was Ruled to be a Plea to the Action for so much and to the rest the Tenant must answer which is a full Authority that in such case the Rent is to be apportioned And the Case of Dorrell and Andrews Rolls tit Extinguishment 938. is full in the Point That where Lessee for years let ts at Will which Lessee Licenses the Lessor to enter that the Entry of the Lessor thereupon shall not suspend his Rent For Hale said Tho' it might be Objected that in regard the Lessee at Will cannot lett the Entry of the Lessor thereupon might be a Disseisin but that is ever at the Election of the Lessor And if that were now the Question perhaps the Lessor cannot take such an Entry for a Desseisin It is the Common Experience that where it comes to be tryed upon Nil debet if it be shewn that the Lessor entred into part to Answer this by proving it was the Lease of the Lessee and if the Law should not go upon this difference it would shake abundance of Rents it being a frequent thing for a Lessor to Hire a Room or other part of the thing demised for his Conveniency Hale said That a Case of a Lease for years was stronger than a Lease for Life where the remedy is by Assize and the Tenants of the Land out of which the Rent issues are to be named And for a Condition that must be extinct where part of the thing Demised comes to the Lessor because 't is annexed to such a Rent in quantity For if the Rent be diminished the Condition must fail Holland versus Ellis IN Trespass Quare clausum fregit herbas conculc ' diversas carectat ' tritici ibid ' asportavit After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Declaration did not mention whose the Loads of Wheat were for it was not ibid. crescent ' Adjornatur Resolved per Cur ' That an Inquisition before the Coroner taken super visum corporis that finds that the Person was Felo de se non compos mentis may be traversed But the fugam fecit in an Inquisition before the Coroner cannot be traversed Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 27 28 Car. II. In Banco Regis The Earl of Leicesters Case IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was to this effect Robert Earl of Leicester in the .. of Eliz. levied a Fine of the Lands in question to the use of the Earl of Pembrook and his Heirs for payment of his Debts reserving a Power to himself to Revoke by any Writing Indented or by his last Will subscribed with his Hand and sealed with his Seal And sometime after he Covenants by a Writing Sealed and Subscribed as aforesaid to Levy a Fine to other uses and after the Covenant a Fine was levied accordingly And whether this should be taken as a Revocation and so an execution of the Power and the extinguishment of it was the Question It was Argued by Jones Attorney General that this should not be taken as a Revocation In Powers of Revocation there is to be considered the Substance and the Circumstance and that which Revokes must be defective in neither The Deed alone in this Case cannot revoke for tho' it has the Circumstance limited viz. Indenting Writing Sealing Subscribing yet it wants Substance for it doth nothing in praesenti but refers to a future Act viz. the Fine If a man has made his Will a Covenant after that he will levy a Fine or a Charter of Feoffment made will not be a Revocation of the Will 1 Roll. 615. yet there appeared an intention to Revoke and less matter will Revoke a Will than a Deed. Again the Fine alone cannot Revoke because it is defective in the Circumstances contained in the Power but then to consider them both together how can it be conceived that the Fine should communicate Substance to the Deed or the Deed give Circumstances to the Fine But 't is Objected That they make but one Conveyance I Answer If so then the words of the Power here are to Revoke by Deed and not by Deed and Fine Again This Construction is repugnant to the words of the Power which are That it shall be lawful for him to Revoke by his Deed And yet it is agreed here that the Deed of it self is not sufficient to revoke but only in respect of another Act done which as it must be observed is executed at another time The Books agree that a Condition or Power c. may be annexed to an Estate by a distinct Deed from that which conveys the Estate but not unless both are Sealed and Delivered at the same time and so they are but as one Deed But in the present Case the Deed was made in one year and the Fine levied in another Suppose the Power to be with such Circumstances as in our Case and a Deed is made which contains some of them at one time and another Deed comprehending the rest of another time Should both these make a Revocation is one Deed Surely not Again Suppose the Fine had been Levied first and then afterwards such Deed had declared the Uses surely the Power had been extinguished by the Fine tho' there the Fine and Deed might be taken as one Conveyance as well as here Again the different natures of these Instruments makes that they cannot be taken as one entire Act within the Power for the Covenant is the Act of the party and the Fine the Act or Iudgment of the Court. But it has been Objected That this ought to have a favourable Construction I Answer But not so as to dispence with that Form the Execution of the Power is limited to be done by In the 6 Co. 33. Powers that are to divest an Estate out of another person are
Tenant in Tail and levying of a Fine there is an Instantaneous Fee in him out of which the new Estate Tail is supposed to be created and that cannot hold bring derived out of a Fee subject to the Forfeiture by Relation but this Point was not touched by the Judges for that they were fully agreed upon the other Point Beasly's Case HE was taken in Execution taken a Recognizance of Bail and he made it appear to the Court that he never acknowledged the Recognizance but was personated by another and thereupon it was moved that the Bail might be vacated and he discharged as was done in Cottons Case 2 Cro. 256. But the Court said since 21 Jac. cap. 26. by which this Offence is made Felony without Clergy it is not convenient to vacate it until the Offender is convicted and so it was done 22 Car. 2. in Spicers Case Wherefore it was ordered that Beasly should bring the Money into Court an be let at large to prosecute the Offender Twisden said it must be tried in Middlesex tho' the Bayl was taken at a Judges Chamber in London because filed here and the Entry is venit coram Domingo Rege c. So it differs from a Recognizance acknowledged before my Lord Hobart upon 23 H. 8. at his Chamber and Recorded in Middlesex there Scire facias may be either in London or Middlesex Hob. rep If a false Bayl be acknowledged it is not Felony unless it be Filed and so held in Timberly's Case The King versus Humphrey's al. AN Indictment upon the Statute of Maintenance and one only found Guilty and it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that seeing but one was found Guilty it did not maintain the Indictment 2 Rolls 81. several were indicted for using of a Trade and said uterque eor ' usus fuit and held not good Sed non allocatur for that in that case in Rolls the using of the Trade by one cannot be an using by the other But this is an Offence that two may joyn in or it may be several as in a Trespass But then it was alledged that the Maintenance was in quodam placito in Cur ' coram Domino Rege pendent ' and not said where the Kings Bench Sate and this was held fatal Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 28 29 Car. II. In Banco Regis Jay's Case A Mandamus to restore to his place of a Common Council Man in the Corporation of Eye in Suffolk The Return was that he was amoved for speaking of approbious words of one of the Aldermen viz. That he was a Knave and deserved to be posted for a Knave all over England And it was moved that the Return was insufficient for words are not good cause to remove a Man from his place in the Corporation To which it was said that this not a difranchising of him but only removing him from the Common Council as a person not fit to sit there To which Twisden said that his place there could no more be forfeited than his Freedom for he was chosen thereunto by the Custom of the place And Magna Charta is that a Man shall not be disseised de liberis consuetudinibus But he held that words might be a cause to turn out a Freeman as if they were that the Mayor or the like did burn the Charters of the Town or other words that related to the Duty of his place But in the Case at Bar the words do not appear to have any reference to the Corporation wherefore it was ordered that he should be restored The Court said that my Lord Hale held That Returns of this nature should be sworn tho' of late days it has not been used and that it was so done in Medlecot's Case in Cro. Abram versus Cunningham UPon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be to this effect A. possessed of a Term makes B. Executor who makes three Executors and dies two of them dies and the Will of B. the Executor not being discovered Administration is granted cum Testamento annexo to D. who grants over the Term. The surviving Execcutor never intermeddles but so soon as he had Notice of the Will Refused before the Ordinary and the Point was Whether the grant of the Term in the mean time was good Saunders to maintain it Argued That to the making of an Executor besides the Will there was requisite that the Executor should assent and if the Executor refuses 't is as much as if there never had been any There is no Book which proves the Acts of an Administrator void where there is a Will and the Executor renounces Greysbrook and Foxe's Case in Plowden's Com. is that after Administration granted the Executor proved the Will And so in 7 E. 4. 14. in Dormer and Clerke's Case it was held that where there was an Executor who after refused and Administration committed the Administrator should have all the Rent belonging to the Term in Reversion which accrued after the death of the Testator If an Executor be a Debtor and refuses the Administrator may Sue him Which was denied by Twisden because a Personal Action once suspended is ever so Dyer 372. If one makes an Executor who dies and never proves the Will Administration shall be granted as upon a dying Intestate suppose an Executor de son tort had Judgment against him Shall not there be Execution upon a Term as Assets in his hands Twisden It hath been Doubted whether there could be an Executor de son tort of a Term or whether he were not a Disseisor And by the same Reason it may be granted in the present Case for at least the Administrator here is an Executor de son tort before the Refusal Levins contra Anciently Bona Intestati capi solebant in manus Regis as appears in Hensloe's Case in the 9 Co. And since the Power of the Ordinary hath been introduced it was only to grant Administration upon a dying Intestate 4 H. 7. Pl. 10. If the Ordinary cites the Executor to prove the Will and he Renounces 't is said he may grant Administration which implies that it cannot be before So 21 H. 8. cap. 5. is to grant Administration c. upon a dying Intestate or refusal of the Executor the Interest of the Executor commences before the Probat In 36 H. 6. 8. an Executor commanded one to take the Goods and after the Executor refused before the Ordinary who committed Administration and the Administrator Sued the person that took the Goods who Iustified by the Executor's Command and it was held good And a Relation shall never make an Act good which was void for defect of Power And the Court seemed strongly of that Opinion But Serjeant Pemberton desiring to Argue it the Court permitted him to speak to it the next Term. Et sic Adjornatur And afterwards it was Argued again and Judgment was given for the Defendant per totam Curiam Dunwell versus Bullocke IN an Action of
is very clear For tho' in M. Portington's Case in 10 Co. 't is said that the word Condition shall not in a Will be taken as a Limitation yet the Current of the Authorities since are otherwise But here the Court held the Condition void for a man cannot be restrained from an Attempt to Alien For non constat what shall be judged an Attempt and how can it be tryed And when the express words are so there shall not be made another sort of Condition than the Will imports And so the Judgment was affirmed Osborn versus Beversham DEbt for Rent incurred at two Half years As to one of them the Defendant pleaded non debet And as to the other Actio non because he says He was ready to pay it at the Day and Place and has been ever since profert in Cur ' the Rent ideo petit Judicium de damnis To which the Plaintiff Demurred For that he did not say quod obtulit for where the Time and Place of Payment is certain Semper paratus is no Plea without an Obtulit For the Defendant it was said That the Plaintiff ought to reply to a Demand 1 Inst 34. 'T is a good Plea for the Heir in Dower to save his Damages to say That he was always ready Rastal's Entries 159. Semper paratus is pleaded without an Obtulit So 1 Rolls 573. no mention made of a Tender But then another Fault was found that it was pleaded in Bar whereas it ought to have been only in Bar of Damages and not to the Action and this was agreed to be fatal But the Court held the Plea to be naught for the other Cause also Anonymus IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was A man Devised his Land to J. S. after the death of his Wife And after Argument the whole Court were of Opinion that J.S. not being Heir to the Devisor there should go no implied Estate to the Wife for an Heir shall not be defeated but by a necessary Implication Anonymus AN Action for Words for that the Defendant said of the Plaintiff He would have given Dean Money to have Robbed Golding's House and he did Rob the House After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the first part of the words import only an Inclination and not that he did give any Money And the words He did Rob the House shall be referred to Dean as the last antecedent and not the Plaintiff But the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff as was Adjudged where the words were He lay in wait to Rob. Vid. Cockain's Case in the 1 Cro. and in the 4 Co. And the Court said the Words might be construed That the Plaintiff offered Dean Money and he refusing it that the Plaintiff robbed the House himself Smith versus Tracy THe Case being moved again the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Half-Blood should come in for Distribution upon the new Act For as to the granting of Administration the being of Guardian c. the Half-Blood may be taken nearer of Kin than a more remote Kinsman of the Whole Blood Mo. 635 Ro. Rep. 114. Ante. J 's Case J. Brings his Habeas Corpus The Return was that he was Committed by J. S. J. N. T. K. to whom and others a Commission of Bankrupt was awarded for refusing to answer a Question put to him concerning the Bankrupt's Estate c. and so Commissus fuit in custodia by a Warrant to the Officer Virtute Commissionis praedictae haec est causa captionis seu detentionis c. The Counsel for the Prisoner took three Exceptions to the Return First For that there did not appear a sufficient Authority For the Commission is said to be granted to them and others and then they could not act without the rest for the Return does not express any Quorum c. in the Commission Secondly Instead of Commissus in custodia it ought to be Captus for that is the usual Form For this is as if the Commitment were by the Officer that makes the Return Thirdly Haec est causa captionis seu detentionis is uncertain for it ought to be detentionis And upon the first and last Exception the Prisoner was Discharged by the Court but at the same time was told by the Court That he must answer directly to such Questions as were put to him in order to the discovery of the Bankrupts Estate or else he was liable to be Committed Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 29 30 Car. II. In Banco Regis Harrington's Case AN Information was preferred against him for that he maliciously and traiterously intending to stir up Sedition and to create a Disturbance between the King and his People upon Discourse of the late Rebellion and those Persons which were Executed at Charing-Cross for the Murder of the late King in praesentia audita quamplurium utteravit propalavit haec verba pernitiosa sequentia viz. Gubernatio nostra consistebat de tribus statibus si eveniret Rebellio in Regno nisi foret Rebellio contra omnes Status non est Rebellio Vpon Not Guilty pleaded he was found Guilty of speaking the precedent Words and Not guilty as to other Words contained in the Information It was moved in Arrest of Judment that Gubernatio signified the Exercise and Administration of the Government and not the State of it which Regimen doth Again That it was Consistebat and so might relate to the Britons or Saxons Time or to the late mutations of the Form of Government amongst us and that to put the words in Latin without an Anglicè was not to be allowed for the Translation might either aggravate or mitigate the Sense And that such a President might be prejudicial as well to the King as the Defendant But those Exceptions finding little weight with the Court his Counsel proceeded to justifie or at least to extenuate the Words alledging That the Relation was so great between the King and People that to raise a Rebellion against the King must also affect the other States and this whether the King be taken as some would have it as one of the Three Estates or as others that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal make two of the Estates and the Commons the third and the King as Chief and Head of all as is the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords and Commons call themselves the Queens Obedient Subjects Representing the Three Estates of the Realm of England and so is the 4 Inst 1. But the Court supposing that the Words did tend to set on Foot that Position upon which the War Levied in 1641. by the Two Houses against the King was grounded were much displeased that the Counsel would pretend to defend them or put any tolerable Sense upon them It was also insisted upon by the King's Counsel and agreed by the Court that the Ancient Presidents and many latter also were to express the
makes a Lease for the Life of the Lessee not warranted by the Statute and dies leaving B. in Remainder his Heir B. let ts for 99 years to commence after the death of the Tenant for Life reserving Rent and then the Tenant for Life surrenders to B. upon Condition and dies B. suffers a Recovery with single Voucher and dies the Lessee for years enters the Heir of B. distrains for the Rent and the Lessee brings a Replevin and upon an Avowry and Pleadings thereupon this Case was disclosed to the Court of Common Bench and Judgment given there for the Avowant and Error thereupon brought in this Court For the Plaintiff in the Error it was Argued That the Lease being derived out of a Reversion in Fee which was Created in A. upon the Discontinuance for Life and the New Fee vanishing by the Surrender of the Tenant for Life for it was urged he was in his Remitter altho' the taking of the Surrender was his own Act that the Lease for years by consequence was become void Again It was Objected against the Common Recovery that the Tenant in Tail and a Stranger which had nothing in the Estate were made Tenants to the Praecipe and therefore no good Recovery Again In case B. were not remitted after acceptance of the Surrender then he was Seised by force of the Tail and so no good Recovery being with single Voucher On the other side it was Argued to be no Remitter because the acceptance of the Surrender was his own Act and the Entry was taken away But admitting it were a Remitter because by the Surrender the Estate for Life which was the Discontinuance was gone and it was no more than a Discontinuance for Life For if Tenant in Tail letts for Life and after grants the Reversion in Fee if the Lessee for Life dies after the Death of the Tenant in Tail so that the Estate was not executed in the Grantee during the Life of the Tenant in Tail the Heir shall immediately Enter upon the Grantee of the Reversion Co. Litt. It seems also to be stronger against the Remitter in this case because 't is not Absolute but only Conditional However the Lease may be good by Estoppel for it appears to have been by Indenture and if the Lessor cannot avoid the Lease the Lessee shall without question be subject to the Rent But it was Objected against the Estoppel that here an Interest passes and the Lease was good for a time As if the Lessee for Ten years makes a Lease for Twenty years and afterwards purchaseth the Reversion it shall bind him for no more than Ten. To which Pemberton Chief Justice said The difference is where the party that makes the Estate has a legal Estate and where a Defeasible Estate only for in the latter a Lease may work by Estoppel tho' an Interest passed so long as the Estate out of which the Lease was derived remained undefeated As to the Recovery it was held clearly good altho' a Stranger that had nothing in the Land was made Tenant to the Praecipe with the Tenant in Tail for the Recompence in Value shall go to him that lost the Estate and being a Common Assurance 't is to be favourably Expounded Et Adjornatur Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 33 34 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Error upon a Judgment in Ejectione Firmae in the Common Pleas where the Case was That the Bishop of London was seized injure Episcopatus of a Mannor of which the Lands in question were held and time out of mind were demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll for Life in Possession and Reversion and J.S. being Copyholder for Life in Reversion after an Estate for Life in Ann Pitt and J.N. being seized of the Mannor by Disseisin J.S. at a Court holden for the Mannor in the name of J. N. surrendred into the Hands of the said J.N. the Disseisor Lord to the used of the said Lord. Afterwards the Bishop of London entred and avoided the Disseisin Ann Pitt died and an Ejectment was brought by J. S. And it was adjudged in the Common Bench that he had a good Title and now upon a Writ of Error in this Court the Matter in Law was insisted upon by Pollexfen for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error That this Surrender to the Disseisor Lord to the Lords own use was good for all the Books agree a Copyholder may Surrender to a Disseisor of the Mannor to the use of a Stranger and why not to the Lords own use As if Lessee for years be ousted and he in Reversion disseised and the Lessee Releases to the Disseisor this extinguishes his Term. Here is a compleat Disseisin of the Mannor by Attornment of the Freeholders without which the Services cannot be gained and the Copyholders comeing to the Disseisors Court and by making Surrenders c. owning him for their Lords tantamounts Serjeant Maynard contra And he insisted that this Surrender was not good for the Disseisor had no Estate in this Land capable of a Surrender for the Copyholder for Life continuing in Possession and never having been ousted there could be no Disssesin of that And he endeavoured to distinguish it from a Surrender to a Disseisor Lord to the use of another for in such Surrenders the Lord is only an Instrument and does but as it were assent and until admittance the Estate is in the Surrenderer And he resembled it to the Attornment of a Tenant when è converso a Seigniory is granted and he put Cases upon Surrenders of Leases that they must be to one that hath the immediate Reversion as an under Lessee for part of the Term cannot Surrender to the first Lessor and he cited a Case of Lessee for years Remainder for Life Remainder in Fee to a Stranger he that had the Fee enfeoffed the Tenant for years by Deed and made Livery and the Conveyance held void for it could not work by Livery to the Tenant for years who was in Possession before and a Surrender it could not be because of the intermediate Estate for Life and it could not work as a Grant for want of Attornment He said it had been commonly received that a Common Recovery cannot be suffered where the Tail is expectant upon an Estate for Life not made Tenant to the Praecipe which he said was true in a Writ of Entry in the Post which are commonly used And the true reason is because such Writ supposes a Disseisin which cannot be when there is a Tenant for Life in Possession But as he said a Common Recovery in such case in a Writ of Right would be good Pemberton Chief Justice said his reason of Desseisin would overthrow Surrenders to the use of a Stranger for if the Possession of the Copyholder would preserve it from a Disseisin then was it pro tempore lopped off or severed from the Mannor and then no Surrender could be at all Et Adjornatur Berry
because the Intent of the parties appears that it should be so There 's no great difference between the Construction of a Deed of Uses and a Will 13 H. 7. The Wife takes an Estate for Life by Implication where the Land is devised to the eldest Son after her decease Manning and Andrew's Case in 1 Leon. 259. The Reason of these Cases is the fulfilling of the Intention of the Parties and here this Limitation cannot be made good by way of a Future Use nor by any other way but only by creating of an Estate for Life in Michael the Father by Implication and this is according to the nature of a Covenant to stand seiz'd For the Use is not to pass out of the Covenantor till the proper time for the subsequent Estate to commence As to my Lord Paget's Case 't was his Intention to have the Use during his Life And my Lord Coke was certainly very well satisfied with the Resolution in Fenwick and Mitford's Case when he wrote his Institutes for he Argued before to the contrary as appears by the Report of that Case in Moor. Rainsford Justice to the same Intent If no Use rises immediately to Ralph yet if a Use rises by the Deed so that he has the Land any way be it by discent from his Father 't is within the Conclusion of the Verdict By the scope of the Conveyance it appears that it was intended that Robert should never have his Land till Twelve hundred Pound was paid for the provision of younger Children so that if Robert should have it it would be against the Intention of Michael There are two Reasons and Grounds in Law by which we may make this Deed agree with the Intention of the Parties First Because it is in the Case of an Estate Tail ubi voluntas donatoris observari debet Secondly It is in a Conveyance setled by way of Use and in Cases of Uses the Intention of the parties ought to be pursued And this is in Case of a Use that rises by Covenant to stand seiz'd which makes the Case the stronger And I conceive this is not a void Limitation but such an one as gives an Estate to Ralph In speaking to which I shall observe what my Lord Coke in the 1 Inst 23. says viz. That so much of the Use as the Owner of the Land does not dispose of remains in him c. and so in Cownden and Clark's Case in Hob. 30. And this is the Reason of Bingham's Case 1 Co. 91. Now here when Michael Covenanted to stand seiz'd to the Vse of his Heirs Male on the Body of his second Wife begotten I conceive he shall retain the Land as parcel of his ancient Vse during his Life for non est Haeres viventis according to Archer's Case 1 Co. And that Michael shall retain an Estate for Life is prov'd by my Lord Paget's Case 1 Co. 154. Dyer 310. N. 79. 1 Co. Chudleigh's Case 129. 2 Rolls 788. 21 H. 7. 18. From my Lord Paget's Case upon which I shall rely and the other Cases it appears that were there 's a Limitation to one after the death of another the Covenantor shall retain the Land during the Life of the other and here in our Case this Estate not taking effect till after the Death of Michael he shall retain the Estate and shall be Tenant for Life of the old Vse Now the Question is Whether Ralph shall take by Discent or Purchase And I conceive this Estate for Life with the Remainder in Tail makes but one Estate Tail in Michael and that he becomes Tenant in Tail and so Ralph shall take as Heir in Tail I shall not trouble my self whether Ralph may take here as a Purchaser because in Cownden and Clark's Case in Hob. it is Resolved that he cannot take as Heir Male of the Body by Purchase because all the words are not verified in him for he is not Heir I shall rely upon the First Point That here is an Estate Tail executed in Michael For when an Estate for Life is in the Auncestor by way of Retainer and an Estate is afterwards limited to his Heirs this is within the Rule put in Shelley's Case in 1 Co. where the Auncestor takes an Estate of Freehold and by the same Conveyance an Estate is limited to his Heirs Mediately or Immediately they are Words of Limitation and not of Purchase because the Heir is part of his Father Our Case is stronger that Fenwick and Mitfords Case It s true the same Reason for that Case is not given by Anderson and More which is given by my Lord Coke More 437. There the Reason is because the Limitation to the right Heirs is merely void here Michael hath an Estate in Tail of the ancient Use therefore 't is not necessary for the Law to create an Estate for Life Obj. That this cannot be an Estate Tail executed in Michael because the Estate for Life is not by the same Limitation but by Construction of Law But my Lord Coke says in Fenwick and Mitfords Case 1 Inst 22. b. that there is no difference where the Estate is created by Law and where by the Deed. 1 Anderson 259. and the Law retaining an Estate in Michael for Life our Case is the same as if the Estate had been limited to him with the Remainder to his Heirs Male begotten on his second Wife which would be an Estate Tail executed in Michael and would have discended to Ralph Twisden Justice for the Plaintiff I hold there 's no Use raised to Ralph by this Deed. We are here in the construction of a Deed and not of a Will It may be an Estate should be raised in such a case by a Will altho' my Lord Hobart is of a contrary Opinion I agree the Case of Hodgkinson and Wood Cro. Car. 23. but it cannot be argued from thence that it shall be so in a Deed for a Devise is not to take effect till after the Death of the Devisor and then 't is apparent that he is Heir Male of his Body It hath been agreed that Heirs Male of the Body are words of purchase It is plain that Ralph cannot take as Special Heir unless by Purchase and that he cannot do because he who shall take by virtue of such a Limitation ought to be Heir as well as Issue Male and Ralph here cannot take by vertue of the Statute de Donis Conditionalibis because none can take as Special Heir but where his Ancestor took before and therefore this Limitation is utterly void To make this Limitation good divers ways have been urged First That this Deed has an operation by way of returning of the Use and it has been compared to my Lord Pagets Case which differs from it here cannot be any part of the old Use in Michael for if he hath an Estate for Life it ought to be a new Use It cannot be a returning Use for the Limitation to the Heirs Male of the Body
Estate Tail in Michael First Because in this Case the Use returns by operation of Law and executes an Estate in Michael for Life which being conjoined to the Estate limited to the Heirs Male of his Body makes an Estate Tail This Estate for Life rising by operation of Law is as strong as if it had been limitted to him for his Life and after his decease to the Heirs Male of his Body Secondly Because that a Limitation to the Heirs Male of his Body is in Construction of Law a Limitation to himself and the Heirs Male of his Body There is a great difference when he who has the Use limits it to A. for Life the Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of B. here no Estate can rise to B. because nothing moved from him but where he who has the Estate limits it to the Heirs Male of his own Body ut res valeat he shall have it for his Life Thirdly It is plainly according to the intent of the Parties the intent perfectly appears that the Issue by the second Wife should take and that Robert the eldest Son should not take till so much Money be paid therefore if we can by any means serve the intent of the parties we ought to do it as good Expositors For as my Lord Hobart says Judges in Construction of Deeds do no harm if they are astuti in serving the intent of the Parties without violating any Law Obj. Here the Use being never out of Michael he hath the ancient Use which is the Fee simple and consequently being the ancient Use and this being a new Limitation to the Heirs Male of his Body the ancient use and the new one cannot be piec'd to make an Estate Tail executed in Michael but it shall be a Contingent Use if any which ought to rise to the Heir Male of his Body and so remains the ancient Fee simple And it hath been compared to these Cases If a Man Covenants to stand seized to the Use of J.S. or of his Son after his Marriage or after the Death of J. D. these are Contingent Limitations and there is a Fee simple determinable in the Covenantor to serve the future Uses Resp 'T is true if a Man Covenants to stand seized to such Uses as that he leaves a discendible Estate in himself As if a Man Covenants to stand seized to the Use of his Son from and after his Marriage this is purely a Contingent Use because t is possible the Marriage may never take effect and nothing is fetch'd out of the Covenantor so if he Covenants to stand seized to the Use of J. S. after 40 years there is a Fee simple determinable in the Covenantor and therefore those Cases are not to be resembled to our Case where the Estate of Michael cannot continue longer than his Life And this without any wrong done to any Rule of Law may be turned to a Use for Life and therefore such construction shall be Object 2. Here is an Estate to rise by way of Use by a Deed and not by a Will which shall not be by Implication by a Deed. Resp It s a certain truth But we are not here upon raising an Estate by Implication but qualifying an Estate that is now in the Father which by this new Deed is to be qualified to be an Estate for Life to preserve the Estate Tail so that the Cases of Implication are not to the purpose Object 3. In this Case Michael shall be in of his ancient Estate in Fee simple which is in him and not of a new Estate created by Implication of Law and it hath been compared to the Devise of Land to a Mans Heir he shall not be in by the Devise but of his ancient Estate that would have descended to him Resp True But in this Case a Man may qualifie his Estate as in Gilpins Case Cro. Ca. 161. Devise to his Heir upon Condition that he shall pay his Debts in a year the Heir is a Purchasor so here is a qualification to turn the Estate of Michael into an Estate for Life ut res valeat Object 4. Michael had not an Intention to have an Estate for Life for in the Limitation of the other Lands he has limited them expressly to himself for Life and if he had intended to have had an Estate for Life in the Lands in question he would also have so expressed it Resp The intention will not controul the operation of Law his main intent was to settle the Lands upon his younger Children this the Law serves but not his secondary intentions If a Man Covenants to stand seized to the Use of himself for Life without impeachment of Wast and afterwards to the Use of the Heirs Male of his Body the Law supervenes his intention and makes him to be Tenant in Tail And in our Case there was a necessity to limit the other Lands to himself for Life because there was another Estate to intervene the Estate for Life and the Estate Tail The Reason given by my Lord Coke in Fenwick and Mitfords Case is plain enough and it appears that he was of that Opinion afterwards by the Report of Pannel and Lanes Case 13 Jac. in Rolls Rep. 1 part 238. The Case upon which I shall rely which has not been answered is my Lord Pagets Case adjudged by all the Judges of England Tho. Lord Paget Covenants in consideration of the discharge of his Funerals Payment of his Debts and Legacies out of the profits of his Land and for the advancement of his Son Brother and others of his Blood that he and his Heirs would stand seized of divers Mannors to the Use of T.F. one of the Covenantees for the Life of my Lord Paget and after his Death to the Use of C. Paget for the term of 24 years and then to the Use of W. Paget his Son in Tail with Remainders in over and afterwards the Lord Paget was aâ—â—â—nted of Treason And it was adjudged that the Lord Paget himself had an Estate for his Life for the Remainder being limited after his Death the Estate cannot pass out of him during his Life and there in Case of a Covenant to stand seized he himself hath an Estate for Life And this is not because the Estate returns as my Brother Twisden has said but because the Estate was never out of him and cannot return either from the Heir or the Covenantee otherwise where should it be during the Life of the Lord Paget who was attainted the Book is that it was never out of him but was turn'd into an Estate for Life So that now it is all one as if he had Covenanted to stand seized to the Use of his eldest Son after his Death And the question is What Estate he has during his Life It is adjudged that he has an Estate for Life for if there had been a Contingent Fee simple in the Lord Paget his Heir could never have had an Amoveas manus
the City there is a Custom for all Freemen to be Discharged c. and the Question was Whether this was a Custom to be tryed by the Mouth of the Recorder or a Prescription to be tried per Pais It was held to be in its Nature a Prescription and if it were not that it was Adjudged that it ought not to be tryed by their Certificate who were concerned in Interest The Prescription there meant by the Court was not a Prescription to claim a real Interest as in this Case but it was as I may call it a local Prescription to priviledge Persons in a certain Place and Condition which is in its Nature betwixt a Prescription and a Custom and not a Custom because it concerns the Discharge of persons And it is not meerly Local nor a Prescription because it is not annexed to any Estate nor to any Person but in relation to a certain Place and Condition And yet it is rather termed a Prescription for it is said That Inhabitants may prescribe for an Easement or a Discharge but a strict Prescription to make Title to a Real Interest is so nice that it cannot be pleaded by way of Custom nor confounded with it Inhabitants or Freemen or Citizens cannot prescribe in that kind I must add to strengthen my Reasons upon these two Matters that no President can be shewn in all our Books of any such Case either where two Freeholders joyn to claim a Real Interest in solo alieno or where Prescription and Custom are mixed as in this Case It will be no Objection that it cannot be pleaded better when it appears the very thing cannot consist with the Principles of Law for tho' there be such a thing as several Pasture and frequent which may be appurtenant to a Messuage yet it cannot be annexed to the Estates of so many several Freeholders and Copy-holders But if the thing were consistent with Principles of Law the Pleading here is naught to mix a Prescription and a Custom together which are incompatible The whole ought to have been laid by way of Custom it being an Entire thing and the necessity of the Case would have maintained it If J.S. makes a Feoffment to the use of the Feoffee and Feoffor and their Heirs one cannot be in by the Common Law and another by the Statute of Uses but hath shall be in by the Statute of Uses So here the Entire thing not being to be maintained possibly hath Prescription and Custom should have been laid by way of Custom for the Freeholders in case of Necessity it may be might claim by Custom tho' the Copyholders could not prescribe Thirdly My third Reason is because the Owner of the Soyl can by no Prescription or Custom be excluded out of his own Soyl at all times of the year And this Reason I principally depend on because it strikes at the very Root and Essence of the thing I know there are many Cases in our Books of Usages that have been all owed in restraint of the Owner of the Soyl I shall not oppose any one of them but admit them all yet oppose this Prescription of which I may confidently say there is not one President in all our Books I will admit the Lord or Owner may be excluded for a certain time according to the Books Fitzh tit Prescription 51. Huttons Rep. 45. Pitt and Cheekes Case and the same Case 6 Co. by the name of Sparks Case and Co. on Litt. 122. a. where he says a Man may prescribe to have solam vesturam from such a day to such a day and thereby the Owner of the Soil may be excluded from Feeding there so he may prescribe to have Separal ' pasturam and exclude the Owner of the Soil from Feeding there I know that they object that my Lord Co. is to be understood as to Separal ' pastur ' that it may be at all times in the year because he does not restrain it as he does the solam pasturam But certainly the Law is the same for the one as for the other and the Books must be intended for the one as well as for the other for coming immediately next there needed no Repetition for the latter but the so signifies in the same manner and so understood I admit it I admit the Lord or Owner may be stinted as to his kind of Cattel and have none but Sheep or Horses and so he may be stinted to a certain number according to Kenwrick and Pargiters Case Yel 129. 2 Cro. 208. I admit the Lord or Owner may be excluded as to some kind of profits An other Man may prescribe to have omnes Spinas upon such a Wast according to Dowglass and Kendals Case Yel 187. 2 Cro. 256. And for this Reason a Man may prescribe to have solam piscariam upon anothers Soil for there he leaves the Owner the profits of the Soil for Manuring of his Ground or Ballastage which the Owner has besides the Property and the use of the Water so that he leaves enough for the subsistence of the Fish Nay I shall agree further that the Lord may be excluded wholly from the feeding of his Ground upon Special Matter shewn to the Court whereby it may appear that the Lord has some recompence or takes the profits some other way as if there be a Park or Forrest where the Lord has the Game an other Man may prescribe to have the Herbage for the Lord has considerable profits of the Ground by his Deer which is so considerable that if the Franchise come to be determined it hath been held that such a Prescription for Herbage being but surplusage after the feeding of the Deer and subordinate to it shall rather be lost than carry the whole profit of the feeding and exclude the Owner And it has been the Case of many Parks that have been disparked by the King after the Herbage granted away so if there be Mines opened or any other profit that appears to the Court to be left to the Owner I do not oppose but that the pasturage may be claimed by prescription But to have the Sole pasturage of all Pasture Grounds at all times in the year is to have the whole profit of the Ground and the Owner is wholly excluded which would be very unreasonable I shall agree yet further that upon a Special Case shown to the Court in the Pleading the Lord may be excluded from any pernancy of profit in his own Soil as putting this Case a Lord hath improved so much of his Wastes as that he has left but just sufficient for his Common Feeding in such Case the Lord ought to be excluded of Feeding but this must be shewn in Pleading according to my Lord Coke's Opinion in Kenwrick and Pargiters Case which is well reported in Brownlow 2 part 64 65. And in all reason there must be Special Pleading in such Case for where a Prescription or Custom is reasonable only upon Special Matter or
a Maxim in Law and is of mischievous consequence New inventions that are agreeable to Rules of Law I know have been always received and sometimes have proved of excellent use But New inventions that are framed to supplant Principles of Law have been always baffled and rejected The Maxim and Principle of Law that is overturned by this way of Pleading is That a Commoner cannot prescribe to exclude his Lord. This Maxim is one of the foundations of Law and depends upon the reason of the thing and not upon the sound of the word It will be objected that the reason is because ex vi termini the word Common implies that they are to Common with the Lord which they cannot do if the Lord does not feed But I conceive it is not so for it may be as well called a Common without a Solecism where the Tenants feed in common together and the Lord never feeds with them as where he does the true reason is from the nature of the thing for it is supposed the Lord has no need of his Waste and to make non-usage in such a case turn to a Prescription or Custom against him would be most unreasonable Vpon the creation of Mannors the Lords took as much as was for their own Use into their Demesns they distributed as much as was convenient amongst their Tenants what was left was called the Lords Waste which was neglected by the Lord because he had before taken into his Demesns what he had need of It were very hard that non-usage should turn to a Prescription against the Lord because he doth not feed his Wastes when he left them waste before because he had taken as much before as he had occasion to feed It is upon the same reason that the Law will not allow any Prescription for Commoners to exclude and not upon any Argument from the word Common Maxims in Law do not depend upon words but upon foundations of reason it is not for the honour of the Law that it should have its Maxims depend upon sounds and words and not upon solid reason That Commoners cannot prescribe to exclude their Lords if they call their Right by the term of Common but if they call it by another name tho' they claim the same kind of interest they may exclude them If you prescribe to have Communiam excludendo Dom ' that is not good but if you prescribe to have solam separalem Pastur ' in common amongst your selves for Beasts Levant and Couchant you may exclude him Vnder favour to have such a Maxim turned out of Doors and made Vseless there ought to be very good Authority for it such an Invention ought to be examined by strict Rules And the consequence of this Innovation will be great and general for there is no Common in England but this Plea will serve for if the Iury will find it and it is found by experience that many times though the Lord of the Mannor gives very good Evidence a Iury will find against him and if a Lord cannot prove an actual feeding a Iury will certainly incline to find it let the Court direct what they please The King and great Lords that have large Wastes that lie remote from their care seldom made any benefit by feeding and they must not expect hereafter to make any improvements if this pleading be allowed which will be very mischievous whereas if that Maxim of Law were observed and such an unreasonable Claim disallowed in Pleading it will not be in the power of Iuries to exclude Lords out of their own Wastes I conceive in this Case upon the matter disclosed in pleading the Court may discern judicially that this is but an Innovation and an Artifice to disguise a Common and to call it a Sole-pasture to enable the Commoners to prescribe to exclude the Lord which they cannot directly do by the Rules of Law Here first The Soil is the Lords of the Mannor and a parcel of the Mannor and a large quantity in truth 10000 Acres tho' the place assigned is but 100 Acres All the Free-holders and Copy-holders of ancient Houses or parcel of the Mannor are to feed and not to be excluded and in truth of 3 or 4 Messuages in the Town 'T is for Beasts Levant and Couchant 't is with an exception of Hoggs Sheep and Northern Steers which is like the regulation of Common if it were a Sole-pasture they might have put in what Cattle they pleased for it is all one to the Lord who is to be wholly excluded The Court may discern by all these Badges that it is in its nature but a Common by Art put into other words to oust the Lord. I shall now crave leave to offer to the view of the Court the Consequences and Inconveniences of this Prescription 1. If there be a Surplusage at any time the Lord cannot improve nor feed but it must be lost which is against the Publick Good 2. If a Stranger feeds and does a Petit Trespass as it is called in Robert Maries Case 9 Co. the Lord can have no Action for the feeding but the Tenants must and then they must either joyn or sever if they joyn what a number of Plaintiffs will there be and how shall the same recovered be divided in Equity or the Contribution for the Costs If they sever and be non-suit then there will be as many several Actions which will be vexatious according to Robert Maries Case 3. If a Freehold be purchased by the Lord or Escheat or a Copyhold Estate be determined what is become then of the share of the Sole feeding The Lord cannot joyn with them in the Prescription shall he have not benefit of the Soil If so what if all but one fail shall that one have all If on the contrary the Lord shall feed must he do it as the Owner of the Soil and have the Surplusage for the Levancy and Couchancy is not material among themselves And then they would become as Commoners again and this would be a strange Prescription that cannot be maintained if ever there were any Escheat of any Tenancy into the Lords hands 4. But the greatest mischief of all will be that this will be a ready way to enable Tenants to withstand all Improvements In Gatewards Case 6 Co. 60. it was a great reason against a Prescription that it was inconsistent with any improvement it would be a great mischief to this Kingdom where there are large Wastes and Commons Forrests and Fenns to take away all power of improving them for the same Land by improvement becomes able to support a great number of people which are the strength of the Kingdom And as there are great inconveniences on this side so the other way there will be none at all for they may enjoy the same Usages as Commoners if they prescribe the ordinary way and the Lord cannot do them any prejudice at all he can only take the Surplusage leaving them sufficient if he
Demurrer to the Replication Joynder in Demurrer 241 7. Debt upon a By-Law made by a Corporation by Prescription 243 The Declaration sets forth That the Town of G. is Antiqua Villa a Corporation time out of mind Power to implead and be impleaded A Custom to make By-Laws for good Government of the Corporation and to impose Penalties Custom to elect a Bayliff annually 243 The By Law sets forth Forfeiture for the Breach The Defendant elected Bayliff for the year then next following who refused to execute the Office per quod Actio accrevit The Defendant pleads the Act of 13 Car. 2. 244 The Act set forth 245 And alledges that he is and at the time aforesaid was a Protestant Dissenter and had not received the Sacrament according to the Rites of the Church of England with a year before his Election and that the said Election by virtue of the said Act was void The Plaintiff demurs The Defendant joyns 246 8. Debt for Rent upon two several Demises by Lease Parol 249 The first Demise Exception Habendum Reddendum Entry Rent arrear Actio accrevit 250 The second Demise Exception Habendum Reddendum Rent arrear Actio accrevit 251 The Defendant pleads That the Plaintiff Nihil habuit in tenementis tempore dimissionis it should have been temporibus demissionis ibid. The Plaintiff replies That before the several Demises one J. S. demised to him for 41 years the said J. S. having then full Power Right and Title to make such Demise by virtue of which he entred and was possest and demised to the Defendant 252 The Defendan demurs The Plaintiff joyns in demurrer 253 Distress and Avowry Vide Replevin E Error 1. ERror in the Exchequer Chamber The Style of the Court 286 The Writ of Error 287 The Return of the Writ The Memorandum and Declaration in a special Action of the Case for not grinding at an Ancient Mill. Seisin of the Mannor and Mill. The Plaintiff Farmer of the Mill habuit habere debuit the Toll 288 The Defendant Occupier of an Ancient Messuage which ought to grind at his Mill. That the Defendant erected a Hand-Mill and ground therewith ratione cujus the Plaintiff lost his Toll The Defendant imparles and pleads Not guilty 289 Postea Tales Verdict for the Plaintiff The Judgment The Placita in the Exchequer Chamber 190 The General Errors assigned A Scire facias ad audiendum Errores prayed and awarded The Defendant in the Writ of Error appears and pleads in nullo est Erratum 291 2. The Placita in the Exchequer Chamber The Writ of Error 296 The Return of the Writ The Placita 297 The Memorandum and Declaration upon an Inland Bill of Exchange The Custom set forth That any Merchant or other person vel Ordini suo super visum acceptavit sic per Indorsamentum appunctuaret pro valore recept ' c. Upon Refusal to pay the Merchant or other person to become chargable 298 Avers That the Defendant being a Merchant at N. drew a Bill upon one J. S. in London payable to one P. or Order for Value received The Bill presented to J. S. and accepted by him P. orders payment to the Plaintiff J. S. had Notice and the Money demanded of him but refused payment of which the Defendant had Notice 299 And became chargable and thereupon promised payment but tho' after requested non solvit 300 The Defendant Protestando that there is no such Custom for Plea says That one C. an Excise-man paid the Defendant the Money in question being the Kings Money to the intent that it should be paid to the King and the Defendant at C's request drew the Bill That C. was then indebted to the King prout per Record ' Scaccarij 301 That an Extent issued out thereupon ad inquirendum The Writ delivered to the Sheriffs of London An Inquisition taken by them 302 The Money and Bill of Exchange seised and returned into the Exchequer The King became Entituled An Extent issued out to the Sheriff of N. for the levying the Money and the Money paid thereupon Averment of una eadem persona 304 Et una eadem Billa Et una eadem Summa The Plaintiff demurs to the Plea especially Causes of demurrer The Defendant joyns in demurrer 304 Eleven Continuances 304 305 306 The Loquela and Proceedings revived by Act of Parliament 1 W. M. Judgment for the Plaintiff upon the demurrer A Writ of Enquiry awarded 306 The Inquisition return'd Damages found Judgment for the Plaintiff 307 Mill and Toll Vid. Error 1. Outlawry pleaded Vid. Action on the Case 8. Prerogative Process Vid. Action on the Case 3. Error 2. Trover 2. Quantum meruit Vid. Action on the Case 8. R Rent Vid. Debt 3. 8. Replevin 1. THe Plaintiff Declares for taking and detaining 8 Cows c. The Defendant acknowledges the taking as Bayliff to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury 131 Sets forth that they are Lords of the Mannor of M. That J. S. was seized of the Locus in quo parcel of the said Mannor and held it of the Dean and Chapter by Fealty Rent and Suit of Court Sets forth a Custom for the Lord to have a year and an halfs Rent upon every Alienation and power to distrain for it Shews the Alienation and the Purchasers Entry and that there was so much due for a Fine by Custom and because the same was unpaid the Defendant distrained infra feodum c. 132 133 The Plaintiff demurs to the Conizance The Defendant joyns in demurrer 134 2. Against two Defendants One of which avows the other acknowledges the taking as Baily to the former 145 They set forth that long before the taking R.L. and L.L. were seized in Fee of the Locus in quo and by Deed granted an Annuity to the Ancestor of the Avowant and his Heirs issuing out of certain Lands of which the Locus in quo was parcel with power of Distress Conditionally to be void upon payment of 100 l on a certain day then to come which was not paid c. 146 147 And for six years Rent Arrear the Distress was made which the one Defendant bene advocat and the other bene cognoscit as in the Lands charged with the Distress The Plaintiff demurs to the Avowry and Conizance The Defendants joyn 148 3. The Plaintiff declares for taking his Colt c. 210 The Defendant avows for Damage fesant and sets forth that E. M. being seized in Fee demised the Locus in quo to the Avowant to hold at Will That he entred and was possest and took the Cold Damage fesant prays Judgment and a Return and Costs and Damages according to the Statute The Plaintiff pleads in Bar to the Avowry That E. M. demised the Locus in quo to him before the pretended Demise to the Defendant to hold for 6 years That he entred and was possest and that the Defendant took his Colt there absque hoc that E. M. demised to
her But Object All these words together to make a Slander Answ No man can assign me such a ratiocination a male divisis ad bene conjuncta I never heard it but in my Lord Straffords Case viz. that many Trespasses should make a Treason 'T is said he stirred up a Vexatious Action so does a Counsell when he Advises an Unsuccessful Action for the party is amerced pro falso clamore He will milk your Purse taken enunciatively signifies no more than Milking a Bull the Phrase is not come to an Idiom So of Filling his Pockets these Words might have been spoken of the Law and indeed they are spoken of the Thing not the Man or his Practice Dunce Corrupt c. concern the Profession but these words are applicable to any If he had said he were not a Good Fidler would that be Actionable Termino Paschae Anno 28 Car. II. In Communi Banco Hockett Uxor versus Stegold Ux ' TRespass for Assault Battery and Wounding of the Baron and Feme Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Verdict was as to the Wife Guilty and quoad residuum Not guilty It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Baron and Feme could not joyn in an Action of Trespass for Beating them both 2 Cro. 355 655. 2. That there is nothing found as to the Beating of the Husband and so an imperfect Verdict for the Quoad residuum shall extend only to the other Trespasses done to the Wife Yelv. 106. Vid. Lib. which goes to both Points But the Whole Court were of Opinion that the Verdict had Cured this Mistake in the Action 9 Ed. 4. 51. 6 Acc ' Vid. Styles 349. Termino Paschae Anno 29 Car. II. In Communi Banco Herbert Perrot's Case HE having married a Wife that had an Inheritance of a considerable Value prevails upon her while she was but of the Age of 20 years to levy a Fine upon which the Use was declared to him and her and the Heirs of their two Bodies This was taken in the Country upon a Dedimus potestatem by Sir Herbert Perrot his Father and Mother After which the Wife died without Issue but had Issue at the time of the Fine It was moved in Court that this Fine might be set aside and a Fine imposed upon the Commissioners for the undue Practice and taking of a Fine of one under Age. But all the Judges agreed they could not meddle with the Fine but if the Wife had been alive and still under Age they might bring her in by Habeas Corpus and inspect her and set aside the Fine upon a Motion for perhaps the Husband would not suffer the bringing or proceeding in a Writ of Error And Justice Atkyns said These Abuses which are so frequent in taking Fines were occasioned by the Alteration of the Common Law made by the Statute of Carlisle 15 Ed. 2. that Fines which before were always to be done in Court may now be taken by Dedimus But the Common Law â—alls much short of the Order the Statute prescribes which requires that two Judges of the Court or one at the least should taking with him an Abbot Prior or Knight of good Fame take such Fines whereas 't is now the Common Practice to name Attorneys and Inconsiderable persons The Court were of Opinion That if a Commissioner to take a Fine do execute it corruptly he may be Fined by the Court for in relation to the Fine which is the proper Business of this Court he is subject to the Censures of it as Attorneys c. But they held that they had no power to Fine the Parties for a Misdemeanour in them North Chief Justice and Wyndham would have Fined Sir Herbert Perrot for taking a Fine of one under Age But Atkyns and Scroggs dissented because it did not appear that Sir Herbert Perrot did know she was under Age and it could not be discerned by the View she being Twenty Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 29 30 Car. II. In Communi Banco Sir John Otwaie's Case IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was to this effect It was found that there was a Parish of Ribton and Vill of Ribton but not Coextensive with the Parish J.S. had Land in Tail in the Parish and out of the Vill and bargained and sold by Indenture with a Covenant to levy a Fine and suffer a Recovery to the Vses of the Deed of the said Land in the Parish of Ribton and the Fine and Recovery were only of Lands in Ribton and whether this would serve for the said Land in the Parish of Ribton was the Question Serjeant Maynard Argued that it would not and said that the Division by Parishes is wholly Ecclesiastical the Limits of which are equal to the Cure of the Parson But that of Towns and Vills is Civil and hath the same Limits with the Power of the Constable and Tythingman Where a Place is named in a Record of the Law and no more said 't is always intended a Vill tho' when a Vill and Parish are both mentioned and of the same Name they are intended Coextensive The later Authorities have admitted Fines to be levied of Land in a place known 1 Cro. 2 Ro. 20. But in a Recovery the Town must be mentioned But 't is Objected That here the Intention appears by the Deed that these Lands should pass But he Answered That cannot carry the Words further than they are contained in the Record Again it is Objected That the Deed Fine and Recovery do all make but one Assurance True but each hath its several effect the Deed serves to declare the Uses but it cannot make the Record larger than it is in the Subject Matter of it If a Formedon had been brought and the Fine and Recovery pleaded in Bar had it not been a good Reply to have said Nient comprise c. In 2 Cro. 120. Storke and Fox the Case was Walton and Street were two Vills in the Parish of Street and a Fine was of Lands in Street and Resolved that no Lands but in the Vill of Street tho' in the Parish did pass And so is Mo. 910. in case of a Grant 2 Ro. 54. If this were permitted it would introduce much Mischief for men would not know what passed by searching the Record but this should be known only by a Pocket Deed and so they in Reversion a Lord of Ancient Demesne c. would not know when to make their Claim and should be barred by reason of a Private Deed when the Record of the Fine or Recovery did not import that they were concerned Fines are to end Controversies and therefore must be certain and in that respect sometimes receive a stricter Construction than Grants A Fine of a Tenement is not good but ought to be reversed but a Grant of a Tenement will bind On the other side it was Argued that since Common Recoveries have been so much in practice and become the Common Assurances of mens Estates
out of Repair Secondly The whole is Sequestred whereas it ought to have been but in proportion to the Charge of Repairing and should be certainly expressed what it required Thirdly The Sequestration is to remain by the Sentence until the Judge should take further Order Whereas it ought to have been but until the Repairs had been done These Exceptions the Court held fatal and therefore gave no Opinion as to the Matter in Law but did incline that there could be no Sequestration for being made Lay Fee the Impropriation was out of their Jurisdiction and it was now only against the Person as against a Layman for not Repairing the Church And they said in case of Dilapidations the whole ought not to be Sequestred but to leave a proportion to the Parson for his Livelyhood Anonymus IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the sole Point was Whether a Lease for a year upon no other Consideration than reserving a Pepper Corn if it be demanded shall work as a Bargain and Sale and so to make the Lessee capable of a Release And it was Resolved that it should and that the Reservation made a sufficient Consideration to raise an Use as by Bargain and Sale Vid. 10 Co. in Sutton's Hospitals Case Rozer versus Rozer AN Indebitatus Assumpsit pro parcell ' Corii ad specialem instantiam requisitionem of the Defendant sold and delivered to J.S. Et sic inde Indebitat ' existens the Defendant promised to pay Vpon Non assumpsit pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there is no Promise laid and no Reason to presume a Promise when 't is the very ground of the Action tho' after a Verdict And admitting there were a Promise yet it being Collateral it did not make a Debt but should have been brought as an Action upon the Case Mo. 702. and Dyer 230. And hereupon Judgment was stayed Tho' as I hear in the King Bench about two years since between Danbey and Kent they held such a Case well enough after a Verdict Quaere Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 33 Car. II. In Communi Banco Page versus Kirke IN an Action of Trespass upon Not Guilty at the Assizes in Suffolk a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff and 10 s Damages and 40 s Costs and Judgment entred accordingly And an Action of Debt was brought upon the Judgment and the Defendant pleaded Specially the Statute 22 23 of Car. II. ca. 9. against Recovering more Costs than Damages where the Damages are under 40 s in Trespass unless certified by the Judge that the Title was chiefly in question the Words of the Statute being If any more Costs in such Action shall be awarded the Judgment shall be void To which the Plaintiff Demurred and the Plea was held Insufficient because the Verdict was for 40 s Costs and not Costs increased by an Award of the Court. 2. If the Judgment were Erroneous yet it was hard to make it avoidable by Plea notwithstanding that the Words of the Statute are Shall be void Termino Sanctae Michaelis Anno 33 Car. II. In Communi Banco Onslowes Case HE brought an Action against a Bayliff being the chief Magistrate of a Corporation for that although he were chosen one of the Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the Corporation by the greater Number c. yet the Bayliff to disappoint him of sitting and to bring trouble c. upon him did return another Person in the Indentures together with him to his Damage c. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Action would not lie And of that Opinion were the whole Court viz. North Chief Iustice Wyndham Charlton and Levins for they said they had no Iurisdiction of this Matter the principal part thereof being a Retorn in Parliament No Action before the Statute H. 6. c. did lie against a Sheriff or chief Officer of a Corporation for a False-retorn and the Courts at Westminster must not enlarge their Iurisdiction in these matters further than those Acts give them That there were no Presidents of any Actions at the Common Law save Nevils Case in the late times and Sir Samuel Bernardistons Case both which miscarried In the Long Parliament there were a great many double Retorns but no Actions had been brought which is a great Argument that no such Action lies as Littleton argues upon the Statute of Merton of disparaging an Heir Termino Paschae Anno 35 Car. II. In Communi Banco The Lord Conwallis's Case THE Case was Isaac Pennington a Copyholder of the Mannor whereof my Lord Conwallis is now feised committed Treason in the matter of the Murder of King Charles the First and then about Anno 1655. surrendred into the hands of the Lord of the Mannor his Copyhold Lands to the use of some of his Children who were admitted In 1659. the Mannor was aliened to the Lord Conwallis then came the Act of Attainder 12 Car. 2. whereby Tychburn with other Regicides were attainted and thereby it was Enacted That all their Mannors Messuages Lands Tenements Rents Reversions Remainders Possessions Rights Conditions Interests Offices Annuities and all other Hereditaments Leases for Years Chattels Real and other things of that nature whatsoever they be shall stand forfeited to the King c. Provided that no Conveyance Assurance Grant Bargain Sale Charge Lease Assignment of Lease Grants and Surrenders by Copy of Court Roll c. made to any Person or Persons other than the Wife or Wives Child or Children Heir or Heirs of such Person or Persons c. After which Attainder c. the Lord of the Mannor caused the Lands to be seised and brought an Ejectment The First Point Was whether in Case of Treason or Felony the Lord can seise before Conviction or Attainder And the Court seemed to be of Opinion that no Seisure could be till Attainder without Special Custom but they agreed the presentment of the Homage was not necessary to precede a Seisure or to entitle the Lord to take the advantage of a Forfeiture but in case of a Capital Crime it would be unreasonable and inconvenient to permit the same to be tried or controverted in a Civil Action before the Conviction appeared upon Record Secondly Whether this were such a Forfeiture as the Lord was bound to take notice thereof for if no notice then the acceptance of the Surrender c. would not preclude him from taking advantage of the Forfeiture And the Court inclined that the Lord should be presumed to take notice in this Case as he shall in the Case of Failer of Suit of Court Non-paiment of Rent c. Vide 2 Cro. Matthews and Whetton 233. Thirdly Whether the Mannor being conveyed away before the Attainder shall purge the Forfeiture Iustice Levins said That although no advantage of this Forfeiture can be taken till Attainder yet after Attainder it has relation and
the committing of Treason is the Forfeiture There is a difference between an Heir taking advantage of a Forfeiture in the time of the Ancestor and an Alienee in the time of the former Lord Vid. Owen 63. But then Iustice Charleton declared his Opinion that the Copyhold was given to the King by the of Statute of 12 Car. For the generality of the words other things of that Nature whatsoever and that enforced by the Proviso where mesn Conveyances Surrenders by Copy were mentioned But the other Iustices seemed to be of another Opinion for that Copyholds were never included in a Statute where any prejudice would thereby accrue to the Lord unless expresly named and for the Proviso it might be satisfied by the Copyholds which the Traitors might hold of the Kings Mannors or where they had a Mannor held of the King and had made voluntary Grants of Copyholds and Surrenders made subsequent And so 't was said to be the Opinion of my Lord Hales 16 Car. 2. when he was Chief Baron of the Exchequer But however they were ordered to attend the Kings Attorney General to know whether he desired to be heard to that point Et adjornatur Anonymus UPon a Trial at Bar upon a Quare Impedit the Case was Parceners had made partition to present by turn and an Vsurpation is in the turn of one of them whether this put all the rest out of possession or the Sister which had the next turn should present when the Church became void The Court inclined to an Opinion that it should put all out of possession and would not permit a Special Verdict upon the motion of Serjeant Maynard but a case was made of it for the consideration of the Iudges Vid. Kielway and F. N. B. 35. Anonymus IN na Ejectment Vpon a Special Verdict an Vsurpation had been made to a Church and a Quare impedit brought to remove the Incumbent and pending the Quare impedit the perpetual Advowson was sold by the Plaintiff and it was found ea intentione that J. S. Clerk should be presented after the Vsurper Incumbent removed and accordingly after such removal J. S. was Presented Admitted Instituted and Inducted And after Argument the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff whose Lessor supposing the Presentation c. void by the Statute against Simony had procured a Presentation from the King and Admission Institution and Induction thereupon and the Court held it to be plain Simony Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 2 Jac. II. In Communi Banco Bathursts Case AN Action was brought against him as Executor of an Executor of an Executor against whom the Plaintiff had recovered a Iudgment in Debt and it was suggested that he had wasted the Estate of the first Testator and so by the Statute 30 Car. 2. his Executor was liable in such Manner as his Testator would have been if he had been living Vpon Plene Administravit pleaded the matter was found specially and that the Executor which wasted was indebted to the Defendant whom he made Executor upon a simple Contract And the Question was whether the Defendant might retain for his Debt against the Debt grounded upon the Devastavit And the Court held that he might for it shall not be adjudged a Debt superior to a simple Contract Termino Paschae Anno 22 Car. II. In Communi Banco Grove and Dr. Elliot Chancellor of Sarum A Motion had been made for a Prohibition upon a Suggestion that per legem terrae no man ought to be Iudge in his own Cause c. nor ought any man to be compelled to answer Articles prosecuted against him ex mero Officio c. And that contrary hereto the Defendant had articled against the Plaintiff that he did out of his own private Will and Spirit and contrary to the Laws keep Conventicles and did allow and permit one South and others pretended Ministers and not allowed by the Church to Expound and Preach to himself and many others c. and this was ex promotione A. B. Notarij Publici c. It was not alledged in this Libel or Articles that there was any Presentment of this Matter but the Register of the Court swore that there was a Presentment made by the Curate of the Parish where c. and that a certain Copy which he delivered here into Court was a true Copy thereof Ellis Serjeant for the Plaintiff First Conventicles are properly punishable at the Common Law and not by the Ecclesiastical Law they are inquirable upon every Commission of Oyer and Terminer 4 Inst 162. and the late Act against Conventicles was in force at this time Secondly No man ought to be proceeded against in the Spiritual Court without a due presentment 25 H. 8. c. 14. declares that 't is not reasonable that any Ordinary by any suspition conceived of his own fancy without due accusation or presentment should put any Subject of this Realm into the infamy or slander of Heresie And the reason of this extends to other things as well as Heresie Indeed this Statute is repealed but as my Lord Coke 12 Rep. 26. observes it was herein declaratory of the Common Law and 't is great reason that there should be a presentment and accusation by some proper Person for otherwise an innocent Person in case of false accusation would not known where to have his remedy Object Here is a Presentment by the Curate and by the 113 of the Canons made 3 Jacobi a Curate in the absence of the Rector may present Answ First These Canons were never confirmed by Act of Parliament and without that there cannot be any Canons made to alter the Law 12 Co. 72 73. at least they can bind none but the Clergy Vid. Mo. 755. and one reason thereof is because the Laity have no Representatives in the Convocation Secondly This Canon says only that a Curate may present in the absence of the Rector it doth not appear here that the Rector was absent Thirdly All such Presentments ought to be upon Oath and this is not proved so to be The Courts in this Hall cannot proceed upon any such thing without Oath Fourthly It is not alledged in the Libel or Articles that there was any Presentment at all only the Register comes in and saith he finds such a Presentment among the Acts of the Court so that Issue cannot be taken whether any or no So it must be taken his proceeding was ex Officio mero without Presentment and 't is as great a mischief as was by reason of common Informers before the 18 Eliz. c. 5. appointed their names to be endorsed upon all Process sued out by them Thirdly In this Case they will examine upon Oath Now no Layman ought to answer upon Oath except in Cases matrimonial and Testamentary 12 Co. 26 27. 3 Cro. 262. Baldwyn contra First That Conventicles are punishable at the Common Law or were by the late Statute does not disprove or take away the Iurisdiction of the Spiritual
The Defendant demurred and shewed for Cause that in the prescription for the Priviledge it was tempore quo non extat memoria which was said to be insensible and the course in pleading was to say a tempore cujus contrarium memoria hominum non existit Sed non allocatur for the Court took the words to be sufficiently expressing time out of mind and divers Presidents are in this manner Rastalls Entries 475 476 and 143. Shipley versus Craister IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 80 l the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant entred into a Bond to him who was then the Sheriff of Northumberland by the name of his Office of 80 l The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Condition which was that one Jenkin Wood should appear coram Dom. Rege apud Westm die Lunae proxime post Octab Pur. c. and then he pleaded a Release of all Demands under the Plaintiffs Hand and Seal made to him bearing date the 9th day of March in the third year of the raign of the late King James profert hic in Cur. the Release And to this the Plaintiff demurred Serjeant Jefferson offered to argue that this Bond being taken by the Sheriff according to the duty of his Office and for the benefit of the Plaintiff who brought the Action that his Release to the Obligor would not bar this Action but the Court said there was no colour but it should be a good bar But upon perusing of the Record it appeared that the Defendant had pleaded that the Plaintiff had released by his Deed of Release bearing date the 9th day of March whereas the Release produced in Court bore dath the 19th of the same March and this the Court held a material variance Note The King cannot discharge a Recognizance taken for Security of the Peace but after 't is broken he may 11 H. 7. 12. Holland versus Lancaster ss JOHANNES LANCASTER sumÌ„ fuit ad respondend ' Count in Replevin Thomae Holland de placito quare cepit averia ipsius Thomae ea injuste detinuit contra Vad ' Pleg ' c. Et unde idem Thomas ê‘ Robertum Bird Attorn ' suum queritur qd ' praed ' Johannes vicesimo secundo die Octobris Anno Regni Domini Jacobi secundi nuê‘ Regis Angl c. tercio apud Mounckton in Insula de Thanett in quodam loco ibidem vocat ' le Barnyard cepit averia videlicet octo Vaccas ipsius Thomae ea injuste detinuit contra vad ' pleg ' quousque c. Unde dic ' qd ' deteriorat ' est dampnum habet ad valenc ' decem librarum Et inde ê“ducit sectam c. Conuzance as Bailiff to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury for a Distress for a Fine upon an Alienation Dean and Chapter seised of a Mannor in Fee in jure Ecclesiae Et praed ' Johannes Lancaster per Brian ' Courthop Attorn ' suum ven ' defend ' vim injur ' quando c. Et ut Ballivus Decani Capitalis Ecclesiae Cathedral ' Metropolitan ' Cantuar ' bene cognoscit captionem averiorum praedictorum in praedict ' Clauso in quo c. juste c Quia dic ' qd ' diu ante praedict ' tempus captionis averiorum praed ' ac eodem tempore quo c. praed ' Decanus Capital ' fuer ' seisit ' de Manerio de Mounckton cum pertin ' in Com' Kanc ' praed ' in dominico suo ut de feodo in jure Ecclesiae suae praedict ' Qd'que quidam Johannes Sabine Barronettus diu ante praed ' tempus quo J. S. seized in Fee of the locus in quo c. suit seisit ' de tribus Mesuagiis quatuor Horreis centum quadraginta Acris terrae octogint ' acris marisci cum pertin ' in Parochiis de Mounckton sancti Nicholai Atwade in Insula Thanett in Com' Kanc ' praed ' unde praed ' Clausum in quo c. est praed ' tempore quo And held it of the Dean and Chapter By fealty and Rent and Suit of Court c. necnon a tempore cujus contrar ' memoria hom ' non existit suit parcel ' in dominico suo ut de feodo illa tenuit de eisdem Decano Capitalo ut de Manerio suo praed ' per fidelitat ' reddit ' sex librar ' duorum solidorum sex denar ' un ' oboli singulis annis ad Festum Sancti Michaelis ArcÌ„hi solvend ' per servicium faciend ' sectae ad Cur ' ipsorum Decani Capituli Manerii sui praedict ' de tribus septimanis in tres septimanas apud Manerium ill ' The Dean and Chapter seized of the Services tenend ' de quibus quidem serviciis iidem Decanus Capitalus fuer ' seisit ' per manus praefat ' Johannis Sabine ut per manus veri tenentis sui videlicet de fidelitate secta Cur ' praedict ' ut de feodo jure ac de reddit ' praed ' in dominico suo ut de feodo Et praedict ' Johannes Lancaster ulterius dic ' A Custom for the Lord to have a year and halfs Rent upon every Alienation qd ' infra Manerium praed ' talis habetur consuetudo a tempore quo non extat memoria hom ' habebatur scilicet qd ' post quamlibet alienationem in feodo vel de statu liberi tenementi alicujus parcel ' terrae vel tenÌ„torum tent ' de Manerio praed ' Dom ' Manerii praed ' pro tempore existen ' cum talis alienatio acciderit habuit habere consuevit reddit ' un ' anni medietat ' reddit ' unius anni per quem tal ' terrae vel tenementa sic alienaÌ„t ' tent ' fuer ' de Manerio praedict ' nomine finis pro alienatione Et sic dictus finis pro alienatione sic ut praefertur per consuetudinem Manerii praedict ' solubil ' aut aliqua pars in aretro fuit insolut ' qd ' tunc Dom ' And power to distrain for it if in arrear Manerii praedict ' pro tempore existen ' de tempore in tempus ad omnia tempora duran ' toto tempore praed ' quando quoties necesse requisivit distrinxit usus fuit consuevit distringere in super terras tenementa praed ' de Dom ' Manerii praed ' ut de eodem Manerio tent ' sic ut praefertur alienat ' quousque dictus finis pro alienatione sic ut praefertur solubil ' Quousque it be paid solut ' soret Et praedict ' Johannes Lancaster ulterius dic ' qd ' praedict ' Decano Capitulo de Manerio praedict ' cum pertin ' ac praed ' Johanne Sabine de Mesuagiis Horreis Terris praed ' cum perrin ' Unde c.
ann ' For 21 years extunc ê“x ' sequen ' plenar ' complend ' finiend ' Virtute cujus dimissionis praedictus Johan ' in TenÌ„ta praed ' cum pertinen ' Lessee enters intravit fuit inde possessionat ' Et sic inde possessionat ' existen ' idem Johannes postea scilicet decimo die Augusti Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo secundo apud Grancester praedictam dimisit ad firmam tradidit eidem Roberto Dickman Tenementa praedicta cum pertinen ' habend ' occupand ' And Demised to the Plaintiff eidem Roberto Assign ' suis a Festo Sancti Michaelis ArcÌ„hi tunc ê“x ' sequen ' usque plenum finem terminum sex annorum extunc ê“px ' sequen ' plenar ' For six years complend ' finiend ' virtute cujus dimissionis idem Robertus in crastino dicti Festi Sancti Michaelis Arch ' Anno Domini milesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo secundo supradicto in Tenementa praedicta cum pertinen ' intravit fuit inde possessionat ' The Lessee Enters usque finem expirationem ejusdem termini praedictus tamen Abrahamus praemissorum non ignarus sed machinans fraudulenter intendens ipsum Robertum minus rite praegravare ac eum de faldagio praedicto ut praefertur habend ' impedire ac de prosicuo commoditate inde totaliter deprivare diu ante finem termini praedicti ult ' mentionat ' scilicet primo die Maii Anno Regni Domini Jacobi secundi nuper Regis Angliae tertio Oves videlicet ducent ' Oves ipsius Abrahami in Communes Campos de Grancester praed ' ibidem depasturand ' The Cause of Action posuit Oves ibidem eun ' depascend ' extunc usque decimum diem Septembris tunc ê“x ' sequen ' existen ' ante finem termini praedicti ult ' mentionat ' custodivit continuavit sed Oves ill ' in aut super praedictas centum sexaginta acras terrae arrabilis ipsius Roberti vel in aut super aliquam inde parcellam minime faldavit sicut ipse debuisset nec permisit ipsum Robertum habere beneficium faldagii earun-praedicto Abrahamo duran ' eodem termino non existen ' tenen ' For not Folding his Sheep according to Custom sive occupatore aliquorum messuag ' sive terrarum in Villa de Coton praed ' de quibus tenen ' sive occupator ' inde ê“ tempore existen ' a tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit usi fuer ' intercoicÌ„are Causa vicinagii in praedictis Communibus Campis de Grancester praedict ' cum Ovibus suis praedict ' ut praefertur per quod idem Robertus ê“ficuum advantagium faldagii Ovium praedictorum super praedictas centum sexaginta acras terrae arabil ' quibus ipse gaudere debuisset ê‘ tempus illud omnino ê‘didit amisit ad dampnum ipsius Roberti quadraginta librarum inde ê“duc ' Sectam c. Per quod the Plaintiff lost the benefit of Foldage Et praedictus Abrahamus per Richardum Pyke Attorn ' suum ven ' defend ' vim injur ' quando c. Not Guilty pleaded Et dic ' qd ' ipse in nullo est culpabilis de pÌ„missis praedictis suê‘ius ei imposit ' ê“ut praedictus Robertus su ê‘ius versus eum queritur Et de hic pon ' se suê‘ Patriam Et praedictus Robertus similiter Ideo praecept ' est Vic' qd ' venire fac ' hic a die Sanct ' Trin ' in tres septimanas duodecim c. ê‘ quos c. Et qui nec c. ad recogn ' c. quia tam c. Dickman versus Allen. IN an Action upon the Case the Defendant declared That the Provost and Scholars of Kings College in Cambridge were seised in Fee in jure Collegii of a Messuage in Grancester in Cambridge and 160 Acres of Arable Land lying in the Common Fields of Grancester aforesaid and the said Provost c. and all those whose Estate they have in the Tenements aforesaid have time whereof c. for themselves their Farmers and Tenants of the said Tenements libertatem Foldagii Anglicè Foldage omnium Ovium except c. euntium depascentium infra Communes Campos Territoria de Grancester praed ' super praed ' centum sexaginta Acras Terrae ê‘cipiend ' foldand ' tanquam ad praed ' Tenement ' ê‘ertinent ' and then sets forth a Lease made by the Provost and Scholars to Sir John Witwrong of the said Messuage and 160 Acres for 20 years which said Sir John let them to the Plaintiff for six years by virtue whereof the Plaintiff entred and was possessed and the said Defendant Praemissorum non ignarus did put 200 Sheep into the Common Fields of Grancester aforesaid and there kept and depastured them for a certain time sed Oves illas in aut super praed ' centum sexaginta Acras Terrae Arab ' ipsius Quer ' vel in aut super aliquam inde parcell ' minime foldavit sicut ipse debuisset nec permisit ipsum Querentem habere beneficium faldagii earundem and shews how the Defendant was not within exception by which the Plaintiff lost the profit of the Foldage c. and laid it to his damage of 40 l The Defendant pleaded not guilty and a Verdict was for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not in his Declaration set forth a sufficient Cause of Action for he saith that the Defendant had not folded his Sheep upon the 160 Acres as he ought and it is not set forth that the Custom was for the Owner of the Sheep to bring his Sheep to fold them upon the said Lands But it was objected on the Plaintiffs part that the word Foldagium did imply as much and it was the usage in Norfolk and Suffolk for the Owner of the Sheep to put his Sheep into the Lords Land and fold them there for which the Lord provided Hurdles and prepared the Fold to receive them and of this Faldagium a Fine was levied of inter al' as is reported in 1 Ed. 3. fo 2. and the usage in Norfolk and Suffolk is there mentioned And it was said in a Possessory Action 't is enough to say sicut debuit without setting forth any particular Custom or Prescription And Dent and Olivers Case was cited 2 Cro. 122. where an Action was brought for disturbing of him in taking of Toll ad Feriam ipsius le Plaintiff spectan ' and it was moved after Verdict that he made no Title by Prescription or Custom to the Toll and it was held by the Court to be sufficient in a possessory Action to say ad Feriam suam spectant ' So also in an Action for stopping of a way belonging to his House without setting forth any Prescription between St. John and Moody a
it could not appear upon the Record but that the Verdict was against the Plaintiff upon the mistake of the Action whereas here it appears upon the Matter at large set forth in the Special Verdict that Judgment was given against the Plaintiffs upon the Merits of of the Cause And the Court were of Opinion that the Plea in Bar was good in this Case but they took the Case of Putt and Royston to be a Case of the same nature For tho' the Issue were General yet in regard of the Averments which in every such Plea there must be it appears to the Court that the Matter was the same as well as here it doth upon the Special Verdict and if it were not the same so that the Plaintiff was barred to the former by mistaking the Nature of his Action the Averment might be traversed Therefore by reason of that Case Adjudged and the Importunity of the Plaintiffs Leave was given by the Court to speak further to the Case the next Term. The Earl of Mountague versus The Lord Preston IN an Action on the Case for the Profits of the Office of Master of the King's Wardrobe the Plaintiff Declared That King Charles the Second in the 23th year of his Reign granted him a Patent to hold the said Office for Life reciting a former Grant thereof to the Earl of Sandwich and the Surrender of that Grant And that the Defendant by colour of a Patent granted to him in the First year of the late King James had entred upon the Office and taken the Profits and had deprived the Plaintiff of the whole benefit and profit of the Office Vpon Not guilty pleaded it came to a Trial at the Bar this Term and it was insisted upon for the Defendant That the Plaintiffs Patent having recited a former Grant that they must prove that Grant to have been surrendred To which it was Answered That if they took advantage of the Recital they must admit all that was recited as well the Surrender as the Grant And of that Opinion was the Court. Then the Defendant produced the Earl of Sandwich's Patent and this the Court held would put the Plaintiff to prove a Surrender And a Surrender was shewn in Evidence accordingly Note It was said in an Action of this Nature that it is not necessary to shew every particular Sum received by the Defendant But it is a good Evidence for the Damage to shew the Profit of the Office communibus annis Anonymus AFter an Extent upon a Statute and a Liberate out of this Court the Writ was Habere fac ' terr' tenementa instead of Liberari facias and it was moved to amend the word Habere in the Writ and to make it Liberari And after divers Motions the Court Ordered the Amendment to be accordingly because it is a Judicial Writ 8 Co. 157. a. 1 Cro. 709. A Writ of Enquiry was awarded to the Sheriffs of London and it was quod Inquirat instead of Inquirant and it was amended Vid. the Case of Walker and Riches 3 Cro. 162. and the Case of Keer and Guyn Hob. 90. but in that Case the Roll was wrong in a very material thing for it was not said in the Elegit the Lands and Tenements of the Defendant Anonymus AN Action of Debt was brought in this Court for a Sum of Money recovered in the Hundred Court and the Defendant was admitted to wage his Law tho' at first the Court doubted Vid. Mo. 276. for a Wager of Law to an Action of Debt brought for an Amercement in a Court Baron Note When the Defendant hath his Hand upon the Book before he is sworn the Plaintiff is to be called and he may be Non-suited The Defendant is to bring his Compurgators but they may be less than Eleven and they are sworn de credulitate Anonymus AN Action was brought for speaking of these words of the Plaintiff He broke my House like a Thief And upon Not guilty pleaded a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And the Court held the words not to be Actionable Anonymus IN an Action for Words spoken of the Plaintiff in saying He was a Clipper and Coiner After Verdict upon Not guilty pleaded it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Words did not charge him with Clipping and Coining of Money and Clipping and Coining might be apply'd to many other things But the Court held the Words to be Actionable in regard of the strong Intendment and such Words are understood by those that heard them to mean Clipping and Coining of Money Anonymus AN Attorney brought an Action for that the Defendant said of him He is a Cheating Knave and not fit to be an Attorney After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no Communication of his Profession and the Words did not necessarily relate to his Practice But the Court held the Action would lye for saying That he was not fit to be an Attorney shewed plainly that Cheating Knave had reference to that Anonymus UPon a Motion for a New Trial it appeared that the Solicitor for the Plaintiff who also was an Attorney had wrote two Letters to two of the Jury before the Trial importuning them to Appear and setting forth the Hardships that his Client had suffered in the Cause and how he had Verdicts for his Title The Court set aside the Trial for this Cause and Committed the Solicitor to the Fleet for this Misdemeanor being Embracing of a Jury and before his Discharge made him pay Ten pounds to the party towards the Charges of the Trial. Pretious versus Robinson THe Cause being at Issue in Hillary Term last a Venire was awarded and a Jury Retorned upon it and in Easter Term after another Venire was awarded and a Trial was by a Jury Returned upon the two Venire's Vpon this the Court set aside the Verdict for there was no Authority for the two Venire's so all the Proceedings thereupon are void and not aided by the Statute of 16 Car. 2. Cooke versus Romney AN Action of Covenant was brought against two and it was quod teneat conventionem instead of teneant and after a Writ of Error brought it was moved that it might be amended and made teneant It was Objected That False Latin in an Original could not be amended as hos breve for hoc breve so in Waste destrictionem for destructionem Blackamore's Case 8 Co. But the Court granted the Motion and ordered the Amendment And it was said of late days it had been done in case of a word Mistaken in an Original as in Ejectment divisit for dimisit Vid. in Blackamore's Case the like 159. b. Imaginavit for imaginatus est was amended Anonymus IN Trover and Conversion for a Mare Vpon Not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Mare was said ad valentiam and it should have been pretii Sed non
the putting them to Sue severally as they must do at Law But here there is but part of them that Sue and then they appear to be Officers in the Ship that Sue and so not to have this Priviledge of the Common Seamen to Sue for it was alledged that this practice had been obtained but of late and in favour to them and here it appears that the Contract for the Wages was joynt with the Owners and they have sued but two of them and so they shall be charged with the whole But the Court denied the Prohibition for they have been ever alowed to proceed for Marriners Wages and tho' the Plaintiffs have an employment in the Ship as Purfer Boatswain or the like they are Marriners as well as others and may sue in the Admiral Court for their Wages and they having Iurisdiction shall proceed in their own way tho' different from our Law as to the joyning of all the Plaintiffs or Defendants and if the Proceeding be not according to their Law the Remedy lies there Note It was said by one of the Admiralty that tho' the Suit be against some of the Owners the course there is not to charge them with the whole but according to their proportionable parts Adams versus Cross IN a Replevin against Cross and two others for taking of divers Goods at Ware in quodam loco vocat ' a Messuage there The Defendants made Conusance as Bayliffs of Jane Cross and they say that before the Caption she was seised in her Demesn as a Fee at the Will of the Lord of the Mannor according to the Custom of the Mannor of and in the aforesaid Messuage which said Messuage is and time out of mind hath been parcel of the said Mannor and demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll c. and being so seised 24 June 1687. she demised the said Messuage to the said Adams from thenceforth at Will reserving for so long time as the said Adams should hold it the yearly Rent of 8 l by equal Quarterly payments By virtue of which Demise the said Adams entred and was and yet is possessed and for 14 l being a Year and three Quarters Rent ending at the Feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist last past they as Bayliffs to the said Jane distrained the said Goods being in the House c. To this Avowry the Plaintiff pleaded an insufficient and frivolous Bar and now took Exceptions to the Avowry for that the said Jane Cross is therein set forth to have been seised in Fee of the said Messuage at the Will of the Lord according to the Custom of the Mannor and sheweth no admission from the Lord whereas a Copyholder cannot plead his Estate without setting forth an Admission or Grant from the Lord 4 Co. 22. b. But the Court resolved in this Case there need not be shewn any Admittance for the Title did not come in question If one pleads a particular Estate for life or years generally the commencement of it is to be shewn but if a Lessee for years Let for a lesser Term reserving a Rent in an Action of Debt for the Rent he may set forth that at the time of the Lease he was possessed of the Land ê“ termino diversorum annorum adtunc adhuc ventur ' and being so possessed demised to the Defendant c. without shewing the beginning of his Term and how derived for 't is but an inducement to the Action And Judgment was given for the Avowant Clarke versus Tucket IN an Action of Trespass for entring of his House and taking of four Pewter Dishes of the Plaintiffs The Defendant pleaded the Letters Patents of Edward the 4th whereby the Company of Taylors in the City of Exeter were Incorporated and by the said Letters Patents they were to keep a Feast every year upon the Feast-day of St. John the Baptist in some place of the City belonging to them and there to make Orders and By-Laws c. And that the said Corporation at a Meeting held the 20th of March in the 21st year of the Reign of the late King Charles the Second did make an Ordinance or By-Law That if any person being Master or one of the Chief Wardens of the Corporation aforesaid at any of their Assemblies should reproach or revile the Master or any of his Brethren or any of the Common Council of the Corporation he should forfeit 6 s and 8 d And if any other person or persons of the said Bodies should revile or use any unhandsom Speech of the Master Wardens or any of the said Council he should forfeit 3 s and 4 d the said Fines to be levied by Distress upon a Warrant under the Corporation Seal and by sale of the Offenders Goods after Four days Notice given to the Fine so set forth and an Allowance of the By-Law by the Justices of Assize according to the Statute of Henry the 7th And further saith That the Plaintiff being a Member of the said Corporation and having Notice of the said By-Law did at an Assembly of the said Master and Wardens in the Common Hall say of the said Master and Wardens in the said Corporation these words viz. The Masters ipsos Magistrum Custod ' innuendo are all a Company of Pickpocket Rogues and divers other very scurrilous and reproachful Words were set forth to have been there spoken of the said Master and Wardens by the Plaintiff whereby the Plaintiff forfeited 3 s and 4 d by the said By-Law which was demanded of him and by him neglected to be paid by the space of six Days Whereupon the said Master made his Warrant directed to the Defendant commanding him to Levy the said 3 s and 4 d by distress and sale of the Goods of the Plaintiff And the Defendant by virtue of the said Warrant did enter into the Plaintiffs House being then open and took the Goods in the Declaration mentioned Nomine districtionis prout ei bene licuit And to this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff For a Corporation cannot make a By-Law to have a Forfeiture levied by the sale of Goods 8 Co. 127. nor for Forfeiture of Goods And here tho' the Defendant only Distrained neither is the Defendant charged with selling the Goods in the Declaration yet the By-Law being void as to the selling is void in toto and no Justification can be upon it It was also said at the Bar That the Distress was excessive to distrain so many Dishes for 3 s and 4 d Indeed a man cannot sever a Distress and therefore in some cases a Distress of great value as a Cart and Horses may be taken for a small matter because not severable but here he might have taken some of the Dishes But the Court did not regard that Exception because it did not appear of what value the Dishes were Again it was said That they ought to have made the By-Law upon St. John Baptists Day To
part yet notwithstanding the Estate should continue in him The words of my Lord Coke 1 Inst 217. a are That it cannot stand with any Reason that a Freehold should remain in a man against his own Livery when there is a person able to take it There needs only a Capacity to take his Will to take is intended Why should it not seem as unreasonable that the Estate should remain in Simon Leach against his own Deed of Surrender For in case of a Surrender a Deed and sometimes Words without a Deed are as effectual as a Livery in case of a Feoffment Thirdly The third and principal Reason as I take it why the Law will not suffer the Operation of a Conveyance to be in suspence and to expect the Agreement of the party to whom 't was made is to prevent the Vncertainty of the Freehold This I take to be the great Reason why a Freehold cannot be granted in futuro because that it would be very hard and inconvenient that a man should be driven to bring his Praecipe or Real Action first against the Grantor and after he had proceeded in it a considerable time it should abate by the transferring the Freehold to a Stranger by reason of his Agrement to some Conveyance made before the Writ brought for otherwise there is nothing in the nature of the thing against Conveying a Freehold in futuro for a Rent de novo may be so granted because that being newly Created there can be no precedent Right to bring any Real Action for it Palmer 29 30. Now in this Case suppose a Praecipe had been brought against Simon Leach this should have proceeded and he could not have pleaded in Abatement till Sir Simon Leach ha assented and after a long progress in the Suit he might have pleaded that Sir Simon Leach assented puis darrein continuance and defeated all So that the same Inconvenience as to the bringing of Real Actions holds in Surrenders as in other Conveyances And to shew that it is not a slight matter but what the Law much considers and is very careful to have the Freehold fixed and will never suffer it to be in abeyance or under such uncertainty as a Stranger that demands Right should not know where to fix his Action A multitude of Cases might be cited but I will cite only a Case put 1 H. 6. 2. a. because it seems something of a singular nature Lord and Villain Mortgagor and Mortgagee may be both made Tenants But it will be said here that if a Praecipe had been brought against Sir Simon Leach might not he have pleaded his Disagreement and so abated the Writ of Nontenure 'T is true but that Inconvenience had been no more than in all other Cases a Plea of Nontenure and it must have abated immediately for he could not have abated it by any dissent after he had answered to the Writ Whereas I have shewn it in the other Case it may be after a long progress in the Suit Again It 's very improbable that he should dissent whereas on the other side an Assent is the likeliest thing in the world so the mischief to the Demandant is not near so great nor the hundredth part so probable Now I come to consider those Inconveniences that have been urged that would ensue if a Surrender should work immediately It has been said That a Tenant for Life might make such Deed of Surrender and continue in possession and suffer a Recovery and this might destroy a great many Recoveries and overthrow Marriage Settlements and defeat Charges and Securities upon his Estate after such Deed of Surrender These and a great many more such like Mischiefs may be instanced in Surrenders but they hold no less in any other Conveyance whereby a man may as has been shewed before divest himself of the Estate and yet continue the Possession and in this Case the Assent of the Surrendree tho' he doth not enter would as it is agreed of all hands vest the Estate in him Hutton 95. Br. tit Surrender 50. tho' he cannot have Trespass before Entry and that Assent might be kept as private and let in all the Mischiefs before mentioned as if no such Assent were necessary And this I think sufficient to Answer to the Inconveniences objected on that side Now let us see what Inconveniences and odd Consequences would follow in case a Surrender could not operate till the express Assent of the Surrendree then no Surrender could be to an Infant at least when under the age of Discretion for if it be a necessary Circumstance it cannot be dispensed with no more than Livery or Attornment So tho' an Infant of a year Old is capable to take an Estate because for his benefit he could not take a particular Estate upon which he had a Reversion immediately expectant because it must enure by Surrender If there be Joyntenants in Reversion a Surrender to one of them enures to both 1 Inst 192 214. a. so there as to one Moiety it operates without Assent or Notice Suppose Tenant for Life should make Livery upon a Grant of his Estate to him in Reversion and two others and the Livery is made to the other two in the absence and without the Notice of him in Reversion should the Livery not work immediately for a Third part of the Estate And if it doth it must enure as a Surrender for a Third part So is Bro. tit Surrender and 3 Co. 76. If Tenant for Life should by Lease and Release convey the Lands held by him for Life together with other Lands to him in Reversion who knows nothing of the Sealing of the Deed should this pass the other Lands presently and the Lands held for Life not till after an express Assent because as to those Lands it must work as a Surrender Plainly an express Assent is not necessary For if the Grantee enters this is sufficient I come in the last place to Answer those Arguments that have been made from the manner of putting the Case of Surrenders in the Book and the Form of pleading Surrenders Co. 1 Inst 337. b. First A Surrender is a yielding up of the Estate which drowns by mutual Agreement between them Tenant for Life by Agreement of him in Reversion surrenders to him he hath a Freehold before he enters And so Perkins in putting the Case of a Surrender mentions an Agreement and divers other Books have been cited to the same purpose To all which I Answer No doubt but an Agreement is necessary But the Question is Whether an Agreement is not intended where a Deed of Surrender is made in the absence of him in the Reversion whether the Law shall not suppose an Assent till a Disagreement appears Indeed if he were present ' he must agree or disagree immediately and so 't is in all other Conveyances The Cases put in Perkins Sect. 607 608 609. are all of Surrenders made to the Lessor in person for thus he puts
parcell ' terrae praemiss praedict ' cum pertinen ' dimittend ' concedend ' ê“ praedict ' termino quadraginta unius annorum habente Virtute cujus quidem dimissionis idem Johannes Harris postea scilicet eodem decimo tercio die Novembr ' anno regni dicti dnÌ„i Caroli secundi Regis vicesimo sexto in praedict ' peciam sive parcell ' Entry and possession terrae mesuag ' horreum cum pertin ' intravit suit inde possessionat ' pro residuo praedict ' termini quadraginta unius annorum Et sic inde possessionat ' existen ' idem Johannes primo die Maij anno regni dicti dnÌ„i Caroli Regis tricesimo quinto in Narracone praed ' superius menconat ' apud paroch ' sancti Martini in Campis praedict ' And demised to the Defendant in Com' praedict ' dimisit praefat ' Samueli tenementa praedict ' in Narracone praedict ' superius menconat ' cum pertin ' modo forma prout idem Johannes superius versus eum Narravit Et hoc parat ' verificare Unde petit Judicium debitum suum praedict ' unacum dampnis suis occone detenconis debiti illius sibi adjudicari c. The Defendant demurrs to the Plaintiffs Replication ss Et praedict ' Samuel dic ' quod praedictum placitum praedict ' Johannis superius Replicando placitat ' materiaque in eodem content ' minus sufficien ' in lege existunt ad praedict ' Johannem acconem suam praed ' habend ' manutenend ' quodque ipse ad placitum illud modo forma praed ' placitat ' necesse non habet nec per legem terrae tenetur respondere Et hoc parat ' est verificare Unde ê“ defectu sufficien ' Repl ' ipsius Johannis in hac parte idem Samuel pet ' Judicium Et quod praedict ' Johannes ab accone sua praedict ' versus eum habend ' praecludatur c. Hen. Trinder Et praedict ' Johannes dicit quod placitum praedict ' The Defendant joyns in Demurrer per ipsum Johannem modo forma praedict ' superius Replicando placitat ' materiaque in eodem content ' bon ' sufficien ' in lege existunt ad praedict ' Johannem acconem suam praedict ' habend ' manutenend ' Quod quidem placitum materiaque in eodem concent ' ipse idem Johannes parat ' est verificare probare prout Cur ' c. Et quia praedict ' Samuel ad placitum ill ' non Respond ' nec ill ' hucusque aliqualit ' dedic ' ipse idem Johannes petit Judic ' debitum suum praedict unde cum dampnis suis occone detenconis debiti praed ' sibi adjudicari c. Sed quia Cur ' hic de Judicio suo de super praemissis reddend ' nondum advisatur Dies inde dat' est partibus praedict ' coram Justic ' domini Regis dominae Reginae apud Westm ' usque de Judicio suo de super praemissis ill ' audiend ' eo quod Cur ' hic nondum inde c. Harris versus Parker IN an Action of Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared That he demised at the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields in the County of Middlesex to the Defendant a Messuage Barn and Gardens with a Stable adjoyning que premissa praed sunt Scituat ' jacen existen in super acclivitatem de Hampstead Anglicè the rise of Hampstead Hill to hold to the Defendant for seven years at 18 l per annum Rent c. and declared of another Demise at St. Martins aforesaid of another Messuage c. Scituate as aforesaid to the Defendant to hold at Will at the like yearly Rent c. and for 90 l set forth to have been due upon the said several Demises he brings the Action The Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff tempore dimissionum praed nihil habuit in Tenementis praed The Plaintiff replied That ante tempora praedict seperal Dimiss the Lord Wotton dimised to the Plaintiff the said Messuage and Premisses for the Term of one and forty years ipso Dom. Wotton plenam potestatem jus titulum ad premissa ea dimittend pro Termino praed habente and that the Plaintiff did enter by vertue of the said Dimise and being possessed of the Premisses made the several Dimises to the Defendant prout c. To this the Defendant Demurred For that the Plaintiff in his Replication hath set forth no Title in the Lord Wotton nor shewn what Estate he had or that he had any Estate As to that the Court inclined that the Replication was well enough but they took the Bar not to be well pleaded for the Plaintiff declared of two Dimises and the Bar is that tempore dimissionum praed nihil habuit whereas it ought to have been distinctly pleaded that he had nothing at the time of either of the Dimises for the Declaration is of two Dimises and the time being put in the singular number it cannot be carried to both and t is not like pleading Non Assumpsit to a Declaration containing several promises vide Palmers Rep. A Quo Warranto was brought against a Corporation for several Franchises and they pleaded a Prescription to one and a Charter as to another c. and concluded eo Warr. Clamant and that was held good and so Iudgment there was given for the Plaintiff nisi causa But then it was moved at another day that the Declaration was not good for the Messuage and Premses dimised for they are said here to be Scituate in super acclivitat ' de Hampstead which is a description of the Scituation but here is no Vill laid or lieu conus for a Jury and of this the Court doubted Postea Every versus Carter Staff ss Indebitatus Assumpsit upon several Promises JOHANNES CARTER nuper de Burton super Trent in Com' praedict ' Dyer Attach ' fuit ad respondend ' Johanni Every Armig ' de placito Transgr ' super Casum c. Et unde idem Johannes Every per Isaacum Hawkins Attorn ' suum Queritur quare cum praedict ' Johannes Carter primo die Marcij anno regni dominorum Regis Regin ' nunc c. primo apud Tutbury indebitat ' fuisset eidem Johanni Every in Cent ' nonagint ' quinque libr ' For Moneys had and received to the Plaintiffs use legalis monet ' Angl ' ê“ denar ' ê“ eodem Johanne Every ad ejus usum per praedict ' Johannem Carter ante tempus ill ' habit ' recept ' sic inde indebitat ' existen ' Idem Johannes Carter in cons inde super se assumpsit eidem Johanni adtunc ibidem fidelit ' promisit quod ipse Johannes Carter praedict ' Centum nonagint ' quinque libr ' eidem Johanni Every cum inde postea requisit ' esset bene fidelit
said several Demises viz. 13 Novemb. Anno. 26. Car. 2. nuper Regis The Lord Wotton Demised the Premisses in Hampstead praed ' to the Plaintiff for 40 years the said Lord Wotton adtunc ibedem plenam potestatem jus titulum ad praemissa dimittend ' pro praed ' Termino Quadraginta unius annorum habente by virtue whereof the Plaintiff entred and became possessed and made the several Demises to the Defendant c. prout c. To this the Defendant Demurred And it was objected That the Replication was insufficient for that it did not set forth what Estate the Lord Wotton had when he made the Demise to the Plaintiff but only plenam Potestatem jus titulum adtunc habente whereas it should have been shewn that he was seised in Fee or of some other Estate empowering him to make the Lease Yelv. 228. Glasses Case where in Debt for Rent The Defendant pleaded The Plaintiff nil habuit as in this Case and the Plaintiff replied quod habuit bonum sufficientem Statum unde he could Demise and Issue thereupon and a Verdict for the Plaintiff And upon a Writ of Error brought the Court held That the Estate ought to be set forth that the Court might judge whether the Plaintiff could make the Lease but it being after a Verdict in that Case they resolved it was aided by the Statute of Jeofailes And the Court inclined in the Case at Bar that it was not good upon a Demurrer But then an Exception was taken to the Bar that it was tempore dimissionum praedictar ' nil habuit whereas there are two Demises in the Declaration and the Plaintiff might have a Title the time when one was made and not the other and tempore in the singular number can be understood but of one of the Demises But the Court said tempore would serve as well as temporibus and non Assumpsit where there are divers Promises or in a Quo Warranto he used several Franchises and the Party Entitles himself in his Plea to one by Prescription and to another by Charter c. he may conclude eo Wart ' clamat c. Palmers Rep. 1 2. Nevertheless it was resolved That the Bar was insufficient for he ought to have pleaded distinctly viz. That the Plaintiff nil habuit at the time of the first Demise nor at the time of the second for as t is pleaded the Construction is dubious and incertain whether he had Right when each of the Demises was made or at either of them and the Council for the Defendant séeing the Opinion of the Court took exceptions to the Declaration For that no place is laid for the Messuage and demised Premisses only t is said quae premissa sunt situat ' existent ' in super acclivitatem de Hampstead Anglicè the rise of Hampstead Hill and this could not be taken for a Vill or lieu conus out of a Vill a Venire may come out of a Forest c. or place known but then it must be shewn to lie out of a Town or Parish 1 Inst 125. Syderfin 326. Hutton 105. Pollexfen Chief Justice was strong of Opinion That here was no place sufficiently laid for the Lands as to the manner of laying it It seemed to be only a description of their Situation He seemed to agree that to lay a thing apud acclivitatem de Hampstead might be good but to say Situat ' in super c. varied wholly from the Form of pleading the place The other three Justices agreed That the place was sufficiently laid they did not take acclivitas de Hampstead in this Case for a lieu conus for that must indeed lie out of any Town or Parish but here the Venue shall come out of Hampstead and Hampstead shall be taken for the Vill and they relied upon the Cases 1 Ro. Rep. 312. Atkinson and Buckle where a delivery of Goods was alledged to be at Barton Haven and not shewn where Barton Haven was there it was inteneded Barton was a Town and the Haven there so the Venire was out of Barton Mo. 695. Issue upon delivery of Goods apud Portum de Blackney the Venire was to Blackney 2 Cro. 239. so Hampstead is taken for the Town And as to the Form of Pleading it seemed to the said Justices not to be varying in sense from the common Farm and that in super might serve as well as apud so by their three Opinions Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs Target versus Loyd Midd'x ss Covenant ELIZABETH LLOYD nuper de parochi Sancti Jacobi Westm ' in Com' praedict ' Vid ' alias dicta Elizabeth Loyd of the Parish of St. James Westminster in the County of Middlesex Widow sum ' fuit ad respondend ' Willelmo Target Bricklayer de placito quod teneat ei Convenconem inter praedict ' Elizabetham ipsum Willielmum secundum vim formam effectum quarundam Indenturarum inter praedict ' Elizabetham praefat ' Willielmum factarum Et unde idem Willielmus per Willielm ' Indentures made Botteler Attorn ' suum dic ' quod cum per quandam Indenturarum apud parochiam Sanctae Margaret ' Westm ' in Com' praedict ' factam decimo sexto die Novembris anno regni domini Jacob secundi nuper Regis Angl ' c. quarto inter praefat ' Elizabetham per nomen Elizabethae Loyd de parochia Sancti Jacobi Westm ' in Com' Midd ' Vid ' ex una parte praedict ' Willielm ' per nomen Willielmi Target de eadem parochia Comtat ' Bricklayer ex altera parte menconat ' fore factam inter praefat ' Elizabetham Loyd per nomen Elizabeth ' Loyd de parochia Sancti Jacobi Westm ' in Com' Midd ' Widow ex una parte praedict ' Willielm ' Target per nomen Willielmi Target de eisdem parochia Com' Bricklayer ex altera parte Cujus quidem Indenturae alteram partem sigillo praed ' Profert in Curia Elizabethae sigillat ' dictus Willielmus hic in Cur ' profert cujus dat' est eisdem die anno Testatur quod praedict ' Elizabetha ê“ in consideracone annual ' reddit ' convencon ' in eadem Indentura reservat ' content ' diversis aliis bonis causis consideraconibus ipsam dictam Elizabetham adinde moven ' The Demise dimisisset concessisset ad firmam tradidisset c. per eandem Indenturam dimisit concessit ad firmam tradidit eidem Willielmo Executoribus Administratoribus Assign ' suis illa duo mesuagia vel tenementa parvas areas à Fronte cum subliciis inclus ' scituat ' jacen ' existen ' in Market Lane in parochia Com' praed ' tunc in occupacone ejusdem Willielmi abutran ' super viculam vocat ' Market Lane ex occidentali in mesuagium vel tenementum in occupacone Willielmi Eades
of the Crown so 11. and so it was held in the Case of the Earl of Essex in Queen Elizabeths Time and in the Lord Cobham's Case in the Reign of King James the First And the Chief Justice cited the Statute made 29 H. 6. cap. 1. upon the Rebellion of Jack Cade which Act sets forth that John Cade naming himself John Mortimer falsly and traiterously imagined the Death of the King and the destruction and subversion of this Realm in gathering together and levying of a great Number of the King's People and exciting them to Rise against the King c. against the Royal Crown and Dignity of the King was an Overt act of imagining the Death of the King and made and levied War falsly and trayterously against the King and his Highness c. So that it appears by that Act that it was the Iudgment of the Parliament That gathering Men together and exciting them to Rise against the King was an Overt Act of Imagining the Death of the King Vide Stamford's Pleas of the Crown fo 180. And according to this Opinion Judgment was given against Harding in the following Sessions and he was Executed thereupon NOta At an Adjourned Sessions held the 19th of May 2 Willielmi Mariae it appeared that one of the Kings Witnesses which was to be produced in an Indictment for Treason had been the day before Challenged to Fight by a Gentleman that it was said was a Member of the House of Commons he was by the Court bound in a Recognizance of 500 l to keep the Peace And because it appeared the Witness had accepted the Challenge he was bound in the like Sum. NOta Vpon an Appeal to the House of Lords Anno 2 Willielmi Mariae the sole Question was Whether upon the Statute of Distributions 22 23 Car. 2. the half Blood should have an equal share with the whole Blood of the Personal Estate And by the Advice of the two Chief Justices and some other of the Judges the Decree of the Lords was That the Half Blood should have an Equal share Samon versus Jones IN an Ejectment brought in the Court of Exchequer in the year of the Reign of the late King James the Second The Case upon a Special Verdict was to this effect William Lewis seised of a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate for Life did by Deed Poll in Consideration of Natural love and affection which he had to his Wife and Robert Lewis his Son and Heir apparent begotten on the Body of his said Wife and to Ellen his Daughter give grant and confirm unto the said Robert Lewis the Son all those Lands c. the Reversion and Reversions Remainder and Remainders thereof To have and to hold to his Son and his Heirs to the Vses following viz. to the use of himself for Life and then mentioned several other Vses not necessary to be here mentioned as not material to the Point in question and then to the use of the Wife for Life and after to the use of Robert and the Heirs of his Body and for want of such Issue to the use of Ellen the Daughter and the Heirs of her Body c. William Lewis and his Wife died Robert the Son devised the Estate to the Lessor of the Plaintiff and died without Issue Ellen was in possession and claimed the Lands by this Deed in which thâ—re was a Warranty but no Execution of the said Deed further than the Sealing and Delivery was had either by Enrolment Attornment or otherwise So that the sole Question was Whether this Deed should operate as a Covenant to stand seised or be void And it was Adjudged to amount to a Covenant to stand seised in the Court of the Exchequer And upon a Writ of Error brought upon the Statute of Ed. 3. before the Commissioners of the Great Seal and others empowered by that Act to sit upon Writs of Error of Judgments given in the Court of Exchequer the said Judgment was Reversed by the Opinion of Holt Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Pollexfen Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas And upon a Writ of Error before the Lords in Parliament brought upon the said last Judgment it was Argued for the Plaintiff in the VVrit of Error That this should enure as a Covenant to stand seised to the use of the Wife Son c. It appears by Bedell's Case in the 7 Co. and Foxe's Case in the 8 Co. that the words proper to a Conveyance are not necessary but ut res magis valeat a Conveyance may work as a Bargain and Sale tho' the words be not used so as a Covenant to stand seised tho' the word Covenant is not in the Deed and and Poplewell's Case were cited in 2 Roll. Abr. 786 787. A Feme in Consideration of a Marriage intended to be had between her and J. S. did give grant and confirm Lands to J.S. and his Heirs with a Clause of VVarranty in the Deed which was also Enrolled but no Livery was made It was Resolved to operate as a Covenant to stand seised Vide Osborn and Churchman's Case in the 2 Cro. 127. which seems contrary to that Case but the chiefest Case relied upon was that of Crossing and Scudamore Mod. Rep. 175. where a man by Indenture bargained sold enfeoffed and confirmed certain Lands to his Daughter and her Heirs and no Consideration of Natural Love or Money exprest This was Resolved 22 Car. 2. in B.R. to operate as a Covenant to stand seised and upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Judgment was affirmed It was said on the other side for the Defendant That the Case at Bar differed from the Cases cited for here the Intention of the Deed is to transfer the Estate to the Son and that the Vses should arise out of such Estate so transferred In the Cases cited no Vses are limited upon the Estate purported or intended to be Conveyed but only an Intention appearing to convey an Estate to the Daughter in Crossing's Case and to the intended Husband in Poplewell's Case and seeing for want of due Execution in those Cases the Estate could not pass at Law it shall pass by raising of an Vse But the Case at Bar is much the same with the Case of Hore and Dix in Siderfin the 1st Part. 25. where one by Indenture between him and his Son of the one part and two Strangers of the other part in Consideration of Natural love did give grant and enfeoff the two Strangers to the use of himself for Life Remainder to the Son in Tail c. and no other Execution was three than the Sealing and Delivery of the Deed this was Resolved not to raise an Vse for the Vse was limited to rise out of the Seisin of the Strangers who took no Estate Vide Pitfield and Pierce's Case 15 Car. 1. Marche's Rep. 50. One gave granted and confirmed Lands to his Son after his Death this Deed had been
his Opinion that he might But if the Owner dig there also he conceived that he might then stop his farther progress And in Cornwall it is their Vse that if a man begins a Mine in his own Land he may proceed in the Vein through another mans Ground Note If a Bill in Chancery be Exhibited against a Peer the Course is first for my Lord Keeper to write a Letter to him and if he doth not answer then a Subpoena and then an Order to shew Cause why a Sequestration should not go and if he still stands out then a Sequestration For there can be no Process of Contempt against his Person Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 29 Car. II. Clobberie's Case IN one Clobberie's Case it was held That where one Bequeathed a Sum of Money to a Woman at her Age of 21 years or Day of Marriage to be paid unto her with Interest and she died before either that the Money should go to her Executor and was so Decreed by my Lord Chancellor Fynch But he said If Money were bequeathed to one of his Age of 21 years if he dies before that Age the Money is lost On the other side If Money be given to one to be paid at the Age of 21 years tho' if the party dies before it shall go to the Executors Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 30 Car. II. In Cancellaria Haymer Vid. versus Haymer THe Case was thus The late Husband of the Plaintiff before their Marriage had entred into Articles with the Plaintiff whereby it was Agreed That certain of the said Haymer's Lands should be setled before the Marriage which was then intended between them should be solemnized upon him and the Plaintiff and the Heirs of his Body by the Plaintiff but died before the Settlement was made In pursuance of the said Articles the Plaintiff married him and after his Decease the Plaintiff Exhibits her Bill to have those Articles executed Which was Decreed accordingly against the Heir at Law of the Husband Altho' it was Objected That the Articles being to make the Settlement before Marriage it was a Waver of the benefit of them the Plaintiff marrying before it was done and the Plaintiff being the sole party with whom they were made her marriage with the other party before they were performed was a Release in Law Note The Lands were mortgaged to one that had no Notice of the Articles It was Decreed That the Plaintiff should Redeem and hold for her Life and that her Executors should detain the Land till the Money was raised that she had been out upon the Redemption Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 31 32 Car. II. In Cancellaria Sir Oliver Butler's Case UPon a Scire facias to Repeal a Patent granted by this King to Sir Oliver Butler for a Market to be kept at Chatham reciting That there was an Ancient Market long before kept at Rochester within Half a Mile of Chatham and that there was an Ad quod damnum taken out before the New Patent and the Inquest thereupon taken found it not to be to the Damage of any and that it was Executed by Surprize and without Notice and that notwithstanding it was to the great Damage of the former Market c. To this Scire facias Sir Oliver Butler Demurred And it was Argued by his Counsel That this Patent could not be Repealed because it was preceded by a Writ of Ad quod damnum whereupon it was found to be to no Bodies damage and that should conclude all or at least the King could not bring a Scire facias to Repeal his own Patent But the Lord Chancellor Fynch assisted by North Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas and Justice Jones gave Judgment for Repealing of the Patent For the Return of the Writ of Ad quod damnum was not Conclusive and here by the Demurrer it is Confessed to be to the Damage of the former Market And where a Patent is granted to the prejudice of the Subject the King of Right is to permit him upon his Petition to use His Name for the Repeal of it in a Scire facias at the King's Suit and to hinder multiplicity of Actions upon the Case for such Actions will lye notwithstanding such void Patent Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 32 Car. II. In Cancellario Sir Jerom Smithson's Case A Motion was made for a Ne exeat Regnum against Sir Jerom Smithson for that his Wife had Sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court for Alimony and it was suspected that he would go beyond Sea to avoid the Sentence And the Writ was granted And the Lord Chancellor said That it had been so done before for this Court was to aid the Ecclesiastical Court in such Cases And likewise the Court being Informed of his Ill usage of his Wife a Supplicavit de bono gestu was granted My Lord Hollis's Case Pasch 26 Car. II. MY Lord Hollis's Case was thus An Hundred Pounds was Lent by his Lady and in the Note which was first given for it it was written that the Money was to be disposed as the Lady Hollis should direct An Action at Law for this Mony being barred by the Statute of Limitations a Bill was exhibited for Relief and the Statute of Limitations insisted upon But in regard the Money was looked upon as a Depositum and a Trust thereupon to the Lady a Decree was obtained for the Money Sir William Beversham's Case HE had purchased a Mannor and a Copyhold being a little before Escheated which was not intended to pass in Demesn was left out of the particular yet the Conveyance was sufficient to pass it in Law And the Vendor Exhibited a Bill to be relieved and obtained a Decree to hold by Copy of Sir William Beversham Vide 1 Roll. 397. Averments not to be admitted in Chancery contrary to the purport of a Deed. Anonymus Trin. Anno 31 Car. II. THe Case was thus J.S. made his Will his Wife being at that time with Child where he ordered that all his Personal Estate after his Debts and Legacies paid should be laid out in Land in case he had a Son and be setled upon his Brother for preservation of his Name and Devised That if his Wife were delivered of a Daughter that she should have 3000 l paid her at her Day of Marriage provided that she married with her Mothers Consent and otherwise but 1000 l and also Devised That the Mother should have 80 l part of the Interest of the 3000 l for the Education of the Daughter The Testator dies and the Wife has a Daughter The Question was Whether the Daughter should have the remaining part of the Interest of the 3000 l or the Executors should have it in Trust for the Brother and so to be laid out c. It was said for the Brother that the Father intended the Daughter but 3000 l at the most and that appointing 80 l part of the Interest of her Education excluded her from the rest
and it s a Devise That all his Personal Estate shall be laid out c. Curia There is nothing to be laid out until the Debts and Legacies paid the 80 l is not to the Daughter but for the Mother 'T is taken for granted that where a Sum of Money is devised to a Child at such an Age it shall have the Interest in the mean time rather than the Executor shall swallow it but clear when no Maintenance is otherwise provided for The Lord Chancellor Decreed it for the Daughter and that the Executor should account for what Interest he paid the Brother Note Tho' it be said that the Money to be laid out after all Legacies paid yet all besides what serves to pay the Legacies should be laid out presently Anonymus Trin. Anno 31 Car. II. A Devise of 100 l to J.S. at the Age of 21 years and if J.S. died under Age then J.N. and A.B. to have the 100 l or else the Survivor of them A.B. and J.N. dye both in the life of J. S. and before the Age of 21 years and then J.S. dies under the Age of 21 years The Administrator of J.N. who survived A.B. sued and obtained a Decree for the 100 l for tho' he died before the Contingency hapned yet his Administrator should have it Charles Blois al' Plaintiffs versus Dame Jane Blois and Jane Blois Infants Defendants Mich. Anno 31 Car. II. THe Case was thus Sir William Blois who had Issue the Plaintiff and two Daughters by a former Venter and Jane the Defendant by a second Venter upon his second Marriage setled Lands for the Ioynture of his Wife and after her decease in case he had Issue only a Daughter to raise 3000 l for that Daughter to be paid her at the Day of Marriage so that she married after Sixteen or otherwise at the Age of Eighteen years and if she died before either then his Heir to have the benefit Afterwards Sir William Blois by his Will devises the Reversion of his setled Lands and all his other Estate to Jane his Relict one of the Defendants and three others and says That after the Son by a convenient Match shall have raised 9000 l for his three Daughters that then they should let the Son the now Plaintiff have his Estate The Question now was That if the Daughter by the second Venter had 3000 l paid her whether she should have any further benefit by the Settlement and so take a double Portion one upon the Will and another upon the Settlement The Decree made by my Lord Fynch was That if the Heir paid 9000 l the Security by the Settlement should be discharged the Will being but Cumulative Security and so the Defendant Jane was to have but one 3000 l and be subject to the same Contingencies with the Settlement and gave the Heir two years time to pay the Money and in the mean time Jane to have a third part of the Profits of the Land devised My Lord Chancellor cited one Pyne's Case where a man had secured Portions for his Children and afterwards by his Will Devised to each of them a like Sum it was held that this would not double their Portions unless plainly proved that he intended to do so Nota If one sue in Chancery an Executor of one Obligor to discover Assets you must make all the Obligors parties that the Charge may lye equal Quaere Whether you may not sue the Principal and leave out them that are bound only as Sureties But 't is clear that if a Judgment be had at Law against one Obligor you may sue the Executor of him alone to discover Assets c. because the Bond is drowned in the Judgment Turner's Case A Mortgage was made in Fee which descended to the Heir at Law and the Money ten years since paid to him The Executor of the Mortgagee preferred his Bill and had a Decree for the Money but without Interest My Lord Chancellor went upon the Reason of the Case in Littleton That if a Feoffment be made upon Condition to re-enter upon the payment of a Sum of Money and not expressed to whom to be paid there after the Death of the Feoffee it must be paid to the Executor and not to the Heir So here tho' the Proviso was to pay to the Feoffee his Heirs or Executors yet when the Day is past 't is as much as if no person had been expressed and then Equity shall follow the Law and appoint it to the Executor Termino Paschae Anno 32 Car. II. In Cancellaria Anonymus AN Impropriator devised to one that served the Cure and to all that should serve the Cure after him all the Tythes and other Profits c. Tho' the Curate was incapable to take by this Devise in such manner for want of being Incorporate and having Succession yet my Lord Chancellor Finch Decreed That the Heir of the Devisee should be seised in Trust for the Curate for the time being Broadhurst versus Richardson al' A Man had Issue three Daughters and devised to his three Daughters 540 l equally to be divided between them that is to say 180 l apiece but if any of them died without Child her part to go to the Survivors One of the Daughters married Broadhurst and before the Portion paid she died without Issue Broadhurst Exihibits his Bill against the Executor and the two surviving Sisters and had a Decree for the 180 l For a Sum of Money cannot be Entailed Anonymus IF Lands be devised for the payment of Debts and Legacies and the residue of the Personal Estate be given to the Executors after the Debts and Legacies paid the Personal Estate shall notwithstanding as far as it will go be applied to the payment of the Debts c. and the Land charged no further than is necessary to make up the residue Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 32 33 Car. II. In Cancellaria Sayle Freeland al' Infants THe Bill was to Redeem a Mortgage made by the Father of the Defendants or to be foreclosed The Defendants by Guardian Answered setting forth That their Grandfather was seised in Fee and made a Settlement whereby he entailed the Estate but with a power of Revocation by any Writing published under his Hand and Seal in the presence of three Witnesses And the Case was That he made his Will under his Hand and Seal wherein he recited his Power and declared that he Revoked the Settlement but the Will had but two Witnesses which subscribed their Names tho' a third present and died The Lands descended to the Father who made the Mortgage and the Defendants claimed by virtue of the Entail The Decree was that the Mortgage Money should be paid First My Lord Chancellor said that here was an Execution of the Power in strictness tho' the third Witness did not Subscribe Secondly If there had not that Equity should help it in such a little Circumstance where the Owner of
may be sold Noell versus Robinson THe Plaintiffs Father being seised in Fee of a Foreign Plantation devised it to the Plaintiff and made the Defendant Executor The Executor let it for years reserving Rent in Trust for the Plaintiff who now Exhibited his Bill to have his Rent The Defendant Confessed the Devise of the Testator and the Lease made by himself but said That great Losses had fallen upon the Testator's Estate and that he paid and secured which is payment in Law for the Debts of the Testator to â— great value and that he hoped he should be permitted to reimburse himself by the receipt of this Rent notwithstanding the mentioning of the Trust as aforesaid The Cause came to Hearing and the Court Decreed for the Plaintiff For altho' a Legatee shall refund against Creditors if there be not Assets and against Legatees all which are to have these proportion where the Assets fall short yet the Executor himself after his Assent shall never bring the Legacy back But if he had been sued and paid it by the Decree of this Court the Legatee must have refunded as if a Debtor to a Bankrupt pays him voluntarily he must pay him over again Otherwise of payment by Compulsion of Law Note My Lord Chancellor said That if they give Sentence for a Legacy in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition lies unless they take Security to Refund Note also in this Case that tho' it be an Inheritance yet being in a Foreign Country 't is looked upon as a Chattel to pay Debts and a Testamentary thing It was Objected That this could not be taken for an Assent for if so how could the Executor let it But the Court said that it did tantamount to an Assent and being a lawful Act a little matter will be taken for an Assent Anonymus A Bill was Exhibited by the Assignees of Commissioners of Bankrupts to have an Account against the Defendant of the Bankrupts Estate The Defendant pleaded that he was but Servant to the Bankrupt and had given an account of all to his Master and likewise had been Examined before the Commissioners upon the whole Matter Vpon Hearing his Plea my Lord Chancellor Over-ruled it and Ordered that he should Answer Anonymus IF a man makes a Lease or devise an Estate for Years he being seised of an Estate of an Inheritance for payment of Debts if the Profits of the Lands surmount the Debt all that remains shall go to the Heir tho' not so exprest and albeit it be in the case of an Executor Barney versus Tyson THe Case was thus The Plaintiff in the Life of his Father being about 26 years of Age and having occasion for Money prevails with the Defendant to let him have in Wares to the value of 400 l and gives him Bond for 800 l to be paid if he survived his Father at which time an Estate would befall him of 5000 l per Annum and he having survived his Father he preferred his Bill against the Defendant to compel him to take his Principal Money and Interest And it was proved in the Case that the Defendant was Informed at the time of this bargain that the Father was ill and not like to live and he did live but a year and half after and that one Stisted a man very Infamous was employed in the transaction of this Bargain And the Plaintiff obtained a Decree in the time of the Lord Chancellor Fynch And now upon a Petition to the Lord Keeper North the Defendant obtained a Re-hearing And in maintenance of the Decree it was alledged that the hazard which was run was very little and such Bargains with Heirs were much to be discountenanced The Lord Keeper affirmed the Decree but said that he would not have it used as a President for this Court to set aside mens Bargains But this Case having received a Determination and the Defendant having accepted his Principal Money and Interest thereupon and there being only a slight Omission in the Enrolment of the Decree which if it had been done had prevented a Re-hearing and the Defendant having delayed his Application to him by Petition he would not now set the Decree aside Termino Paschae Anno 35 Car. II. In Cancellaria Hodges versus Waddington THe Case was thus An Executor wasted the Testator's Estate and made his Will wherein he devised divers of his own Goods and made his Son Executor Afterwards a Suit was commenced against the Son to bring him to an Account for the Estate of the first Testator which was wasted and pending that Suit the Son after the Bill brought against him by the Legatee of his own Goods delivered them to the Legatee and assented to the Legacy After which upon the Account against the Son it appeared that the first Executor had wasted the Goods of the first Testator to such a value And then the party at whose Suit the said Account was and who was to have the benefit thereof together with the Son and Executor of the first Executor preferred a Bill against the Legatee of the Goods to make him Refund and obtained no Relief especially for that he had made the Executor Plaintiff who should not be admitted to undo his own Assent But liberty being given to bring a New Bill against the Legatee and the said Executor the Cause came to Hearing and it was Decreed That the Legatee should Refund So that one Legatee that is paid shall not only Refund against another but a Legatee shall Refund against a Creditor of the Testator that can charge an Executor only in Equity viz. Upon a wasting by the first Executor But if an Executor pays a Debt upon a Simple Contract there shall be no Refunding to a Creditor of an higher Nature Note also The Principal Case went upon the Insolvency of the Executor Anonymus A Bill was brought setting forth a Deed of Settlement of Lands in Trust and to compel the Defendant who was a Trustee therein nominated to Execute an Estate The Defendant by Answer says That he believed that there was such a Deed as in the said Bill is set forth c. And upon the Hearing they would have read a Deed for the Plaintiff tho' not proved but upon a Commission taken out only against another Defendant to the Bill supposing it to be Confessed by the Answer But the Court would not permit the Reading of it for the Confessing goes no further than what is set forth in the Bill and will not warrant the Reading of a Deed produced altho' it hath such Clauses in it Anonymus A Bill was preferred against one to discover his Title that A.B. might be let in to have Execution of a Judgment The Defendant pleaded That he was a purchaser for a valuable Consideration but did not set forth That he had no Notice of the Judgment And it was Over-ruled for 't is a fatal Fault in the Plea Bird versus Blosse THe Case was thus One wrote a Letter signifying
Covenant there was therein to exclude from Redemption such Covenant would not be regarded in this Court and that the Person to whom the Conveyance was made might have had a Bill in the life time of him that Conveyed to have a time set for the payment of the Mony or otherwise to be foreclosed But my Lord Keeper dismissed the Bill For he said in a common Mortgage such Covenant to restrain Redemption should not be regarded but this was made with an Intention of a Settlement of his Estate besides the Consideration of the Mony paid And he denied that he could have been by the Decree of this Court limited to any time for payment of the Mony for this Court cannot shorten the time that is given by express Covenant and Agreement of the parties but when that time is past then the Practice is to foreclose Nota This Dismission was afterwards in the Parliament held 1 2 W. M. affirmed Nota If a man makes a Voluntary Conveyance and there be a defect in it so as it cannot operate at Law this Court will not Decree an Execution thereof But sometimes it has been Decreed where it is intended a provision for younger Children The Lord Salisbury's Case MY Lord Salisbury married the Daughter of one Bennet who had two Daughters and bequeathed by his Will to each of them 20000l provided that if they or either of them married before the Age of Sixteen or if that the Marriage were without the Consent of such persons that they should lose 10000 l of the Portion and that the 10000 l should go to his other Children The Case was thus The Lord Salisbury married with one of the Daughters under the Age of 16. but with the Consent of all the parties It was urged That it being with Consent it might be at any Age. But my Lord Keeper was of Opinion that both parts must be observed Anonymus IN a Covenant to stand seised to the use of A. for life and after to two equally to be divided and to their Heirs and Assigns for ever My Lord Keeper declared his Opinion that the Inheritance was in Common as well as the Estate for life He said that it had been held that where the words were to two equally divided that should be in Common otherwise if the words were equally to be divided but since taken to be all one Nay a Devise to two equally will be in Common Here there shall not be such a Construction as to make one kind of Estate for life and another of the Inheritance and Survivorship is not favoured in prejudice of an Heir Note That if a Bill be Exhibited for the Examining of Witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam if the Plaintiff therein prays Relief the Bill shall be dismissed Termino Paschae Anno 1 Jac. II. In Cancellaria The Lord Pawlett's Case THe Lord Pawlett had made a Settlement of his Estate and had by the Deed charged his Lands with the payment of 4000 l apiece to be paid to his two Daughters at their respective Ages of 21 years or days of Marriage and reserved to himself a Power of otherwise ordering it by his Will And by his Will in Writing made at the same time or within a day after devised by these words viz. I give and bequeath to my two Daughters by name 4000 l apiece to be respectively paid unto them for their Portions in such manner as I have provided by the said Settlement and mentioned that he would be understood to mean only one 4000 l to each of his said Daughters and appointed to each of the Daughters 100 l per annum for Maintenance It hapned one of the Daughters died before Marriage or the Age of 21 years and my Lady Pawlett the Mother of the Daughters took out Letters of Administration to the Daughter that died and preferred a Bill against the Trustees for the 4000 l and the Heir to whom the benefit of the Lands after the Mony raised was appointed The Question solely was Whether this Mony should go to the Administratrix or the Land be discharged thereof and accrue to the benefit of the Heir It was agreed on all hands that if this had been a Legacy or a Sum of Mony bequeathed by the Will altho' the party had died before the Age of 21 or Marriage the Administrator should have had it and that is the Practice in the Ecclesiastical Court in case of Legacies The Legatee in such case is taken to have a present Interest tho' the time of payment be future My Lord Keeper mentioned the Reason to be because it Charges the Personal Estate which is in being at the time of the Testator's death and if the Legacy should by such an accident be discharged it would turn to the benefit of the Executors whereas the Testator did not probably so intend it And further it has been Ruled That altho' a Sum of Mony be devised out of Lands to be so paid at a future day the Death of the Legatee doth not lose it Tho' my Lord Keeper did not seem satisfied with the Reason of that Case but it having been so Decreed it was not good to vary to avoid Arbitrariness and Incertainties But here this Sum of Mony is appointed to be paid by the Deed and is a Trust charged upon Lands and Trusts are governed by the Intention of the party and that the Personal Estate is not Charged and this Sum of Mony doth not lye in demand by a Suit as where a Legacy is devised but only a Bill may be preferred to have the Trusts performed And tho' it was much insisted on for the Plaintiff that here the Will bequeaths this Mony yet that refers to the Deed and orders it to be paid in such manner as was thereby appointed And it was said to be the same with the Case of Bond and Richardson which was lately by my Lord Keeper thus Decreed being a Sum of Mony charged to be paid out of Land at such an Age. If a Settlement were made and Lands charged with such Sums of Mony as a Will should declare there the Will would be but Declarative and not Operative Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 1 2 Jac. II. In Cancellaria Frances Whitmore Vid ' Plaintiff versus Weld al' Defendants THe Case as it was drawn up upon Reference thereof by my Lord Keeper to the Judges of the Common Pleas for their Opinion was thus Viz. On the 18th of January 1675. William Whitmore the Elder taking notice that he had setled the major part of his Lands by Deed and being possessed of a very great Personal Estate in Mortgages Jewels Plate Bonds and other Goods and Chattels amounting in the whole to a very great Sum by Will in Writing devised several Legacies and after Wills in this manner Viz. The surplusage of my Personal Estate my Debts Legacies and Funeral Charges being paid and satisfied I give unto the Right Honourable William Earl of Craven for
the use of my only Son William Whitmore and his Heirs lawfully desscended from his Body and for the use of the Issue Male and Issue Female discended from the Body of my Sister Elizabeth Weld deceased Margaret Kemes and Anne Robinson in case that my only Son William Whitmore should decease in his Minority without Issue lawfully descended from his Body I nominate and appoint my only Son William Whitmore Executor of my last Will and Testament I nominate and appoint the Right Honourable William Earl of Craven during the Minority of my only Son William Whitmore Executor of my last Will and Testament I commit the Education and Tuition of my only Son William Whitmore unto the Care of the Right Honourable the Earl of Craven On the 5th of August 1678 the Testator died his Son being then about the Age of 13 years The Earl of Craven proved the Will William Whitmore the Son made his Will in Writing and thereby Devised to Frances his Wife all his Estate real and personal and makes her sole Executrix and about the 2d of August died without Issue being above the Age of 18 years and under the Age of 21 years not having proved his Father's Will The Will of William Whitmore the elder is duly proved by Frances The Question was Whether Frances Whitmore the Executrix of William Whitmore the Son be well Entituled to the surplusage of the Personal Estate of William Whitmore the Father or the Discendants of the Sisters Vpon hearing of this Cause a Case was made ut ante and referred by the late Lord Keeper North to the Judges of the Common Pleas who were divided in Opinion but made no Certificate thereof the Reference being determined by his Death And afterwards by Order it came to be heard before the Lord Chancellor Jefferies who upon Hearing of the Counsel of both sides Decreed it for Frances Whitmore the Complainant for that the Executorship of my Lord Craven determined at the Age of 17 years of William Whitmore the Son and then the Surplusage became an Interest vested in him and could not be devised over And his Lordship seemed to be of Opinion That Minority in the Clause wherein the Devise over was should be understood to determine at the same time as in the Clause of Executorship A TABLE OF THE Principal Points Argued and Resolved in the SECOND PART OF THESE REPORTS A Acceptance See Surrender Action TORTS in their Nature are several so one Defendant of many may be found Guilty and the other Not guilty but 't is not so in Actions grounded upon Contracts p. 151 Action upon the Case See Assumpsit Outlawry Action lies against the Mayor of London for not granting a Poll upon a double Election 25 The Law gives an Action for but a possibility of Damage as for calling an Heir apparent Bastard c. 26 27 Where an Officer does any thing against or refuses to do the Duty of his place whereby Damage accrues to the party Action lies 26 But it lies not against a Lord of a Mannor for refusing to admit a Copyholder 27 Against a Common Carryer for losing Goods delivered and Carriage paid for 78 Against Bayliffs for levying Money by pretence of a Fieri facias 93 For not Folding his Sheep upon the Plaintiffs Land whereby the Plaintiff lost the benefit of Foldage 138 For the Profit of an Office not necessary to shew every particular Sum received by the Defendant But it is a good Evidence for Damage to shew the Profit of the Office Communibus Annis 171 In an Action for not Grinding at his Mill what shall be a sufficient Setting forth of the Custom 292 Action upon the Case for Slander Writ in a Letter of a Lawyer He will give Vexations and ill Counsel and stir up a Suit and milk your Purse and fill his own large Pockets Actionable 28 Anciently no Action for Words unless the Slander concerned Life ibid. Of one who had been a Member of Parliament Your Master is a Papist when he is at home he goes to Church but when he is at London he goos to Mass Sir J.C. and he were both Pensioners at the time of the Long Parliament Actionable 265 To say of a Man that had been in an Office that he had behaved himself corruptly in it Actionable 266 Administration In an Action against an Administrator it is necessary to set forth that Administration was committed to him tho' not to say by whom 84 Administrator shall be charged for Rent after the Assignment of the Testator's Term 209 Admiralty Marriners as well Officers as Common Seamen may sue for Wages in the Court of Admiralty and some only may sue there as well as when all joyn 181 If the Suit be there against some of the Part-owners the Course is not to charge them with the whole but according to their proportionable parts ibid. Advowson Presentation by Turns among Parceners whether an Usurpation in a Turn puts all out of Possession or only one 39 Age. See Devise Executor Amendment See Distress Scire facias Writs Habere facias instead of Liberari facias and inquirat instead of inquirant amendable upon Motion because in a Judicial Writ 171 Arbitrament Award See Vmpire No place mention'd where the Award was made naught 72 Whether Arbitrators having Power to name an Umpire may name a second if the first refuses 114 Submissions to Awards favourably construed because they tend to the end of Controversies 115 Where an Award that seems all on one side may be good 222 Award may be by Word of Mouth and he which sets forth such Parol Award is not tyed to strictness of Words but 't is sufficient to shew the effect and substance of what was Awarded 242 Award to pay the Charges of a Suit good tho' the Sum is uncertain for it may be easily reduced to certainty 243 Where Money is awarded to be paid to J. S. and no mention made of his Executors yet in case that he dies before the Money shall be paid to his Executors for an Award creates a Duty and the Executor shall release where the Testator was awarded so to do 249 Assent See Executor Assent of a Purchaser vest the Estate in him tho' he cannot have an Action of Trespass before Entry 205 Assigns Where a man covenants for himself and his Assigns to permit if a Breach be laid in the Assigns this Covenant shall relate only to the Assigns after the Deed was made and not before 278 Assumpsit J. S. being indebted to the Plaintiff and the Defendant to J. S. the Defendant promises that if he would procure an Order from J. S. he would pay him Action good after the Order procured 71 74 If Four be sued in an Assumpsit and they plead Non assumpsit infra sex annos and the Jury find that one did assume infra sex annos but not the rest the Plaintiff cannot have Judgment 151 Indebitatus Assumpsit brought for Money won at a Play called
83 W Wager of Law WHere a Man shall be admitted to Wage his Law in an Action of Debt and the manner of doing it 171 Waver An Executor cannot Wave a Term unless he renounce the whole Executorship 209 Way How a man may Intitle himself to a Foot Way 186 Wills See Devise Where there is a Custom to pass Lands by a Parol or Nuncupative Will yet they shall not pass without express and plain Words to shew the Intention 286 A Cumulative Provision in a Will shall not double a Portion unless plainly proved that the Testator intended to do so 347 348 Writs Where a Writ shall be amended according to the Instructions given to the Cursitor 46 49 152 Where an Original Writ shall be new made according to the Instructions first given to the Cursitor 130 Usual for a Plaintiff to take out his Original after Judgment entred 154 ERRATA in the Second Part. PAg. 8. lin 4. read Ireland p. 10. l. ult r. Canon Law p. 16. in fine r. Judaical p. 21. l. 23. r. Lands Freehold c. p. 50. l. 15. r. In Bar to the Advoâ—â—ry the Plaintiff reply'd p. 80. l. last but 3 r. Loan p. 115. l. 16. r. â—abere fac ' possess p. 150. l. â— r. Plaintiff p. 234. l. 12. for Eliz. r. Richard BOOKS Printed for and Sold by CHARLES HARPER at the Flower-de-Luce over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet LAW BOOKS THE Lord Coke's Reports in English Fol. His Eleven Reports in French Fol. His Commentary on Littleton or the First Part of the Institutes Fol. His Commentary on Magna Charta or the Second Part of the Institutes Fol. His Pleas of the Crown or the Third Part of the Institutes Fol. His Jurisdiction of Courts or the Fourth Part of the Institutes Fol. Bulstrode's Reports in Three Parts with New References Fol. Leonard's Reports in Four Parts with New References Fol. The Year Books in Ten Volumes the last Edition with new Notes and Tables to them all Fol. The Reports of the Lord Keeper Littleton in the Time of King Charles the First Fol. The Reports of the Learned Judge Sir Henry Hobart the Fourth Edition Corrected and Amended Fol. Reports in the Court of Kings-Bench at Westminster from the 12th to the 30th Year of King Charles II. By Jos Keble of Grays Inn Esq in Three Volumes Fol. An Assistance to Justices of the Peace for the easier performance of their Duty in Two Parts to which is now added a Table for the ready finding out the Presidents with a large Table of the Matters never before printed By Jos Keble of Grays-Inn Esq Fol. An Exact Abridgment of the Records in the Tower of London being of great use for all that are concerned in Parliamentary Affairs and Professors of the Laws of this Realm Collected by Sir Robert Cotton Kt. and Bar. Fol. The Commentaries of Edm. Plowden with References whereunto are added his Quaeries Fol. Keilwey's Reports with new References to all the late Reports Fol. Reports of several especial Cases in the Court of Common-Pleas in the Reign of King Charles II. By S Carter of the Middle-Temple Esq Fol. The Laws of Jamaica in Fol. An exact Abridgment of all the Statutes in force and use from Magna Charta Begun by Edm. Wingate of Grays Inn Esq and carefully continued down to the Year 1689. by Jos Washington of the Middle-Temple Esq 8o. The New Natura Brevium of the most Reverend Judge Mr. Anth. Fitzherbert Corrected and Revised Octavo Style 's Practical Register begun in the Reign of King Charles I. consisting of Rules Orders and the principal Observations concerning the Practice of the Common Law in the Courts at Westminster particularly the King's-Bench as well in Matters Criminal as Civil Carefully continued down to this time Octavo Two Dialogues in English between a Doctor of Divinity and a Student in the Laws of England of the Grounds of the said Laws and of Conscience 8o. The Law against Bankrupts or a Treatise wherein the Statutes against Bankrupts are explained By F. Gooding Serjeant at Law Octavo The Entring Clerk's Vade Mecum being an exact Collection of Presidents for Declarations and Pleadings in most Actions c. By W. Brown Gent. Oct. The Law of Jamaica Octavo The Exact Clerk or Scrivener's Guide being choice and approved Forms of Precedents of all sorts of Business now in use and practice in a much better Method than any yet printed being useful for all Gentlemen but chiefly those who practice the Law By Nicholas Covert One of the Attorneys of the Court of Com. Pleas 8o. Miscellanies DOctor Willis's Practice of Physick being the whole Works of that Renowned and Famous Physician Rendred into English The Second Edition with 40 Copper Plates Fol. The Historical and Miscellaneous Tracts of the Reverend and Learned Peter Heylin D. D. now Collected into One Volume and an Account of the Life of the Author never before Published Fol. The Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation with a Discourse of the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy By W. Chillingworth M. A. To which in this Edition is added Mr. Chillingworth's Letter shewing the Reasons why he left Popery Fol. The History of Queen Elizabeth By W. Cambden King at Arms The Fourth Edition Fol. Dugdale's Monasticon Anglican ' Fol. in Three Vol. The History of the Life Reign and Death of Edward II. King of England and Lord of Ireland Fol. The Life of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ an Heroick Poem in Ten Books By Samuel Wesley Rector of South Ormsby in the County of Lincoln with 60 Copper Plates Fol. The Works of the Famous N. Machiavel Citizen and Secretary of Florence Written Originally in Italian and from thence newly and faithfully Translated into English Fol. With several other Tracts c. FINIS