entred upon Ross the Plaintiff and enfeoffed Rockwood who enfeoffed Weston Coke for the Plaintiff The Case is no more but where a man hath issue a son and a daughter by several women and Deviseth his Lands to his son and the heirs of the body of the Father lawfully begotten in which case if the Son dieth without issue the Tail is extinct and the Daughter shall never have the Land for she doth not take by way of Reversion or Remainder and she doth not take in possession because the possession was in Jeofry who was the Heir of Henry c. And these Cases were vouched 1 Roberge's Case 2 E. 3. 1. to Tail John Mandevile took to Wife Roberge and Mandevile gave land to Roberge haeredibus ipsius Johannis quos ipse de corpore praedict Robergiae procreaverit there the Book is That the Formedon was Quae M. dedit Robergiae haeredibus dict Johannis quos ipsae de corpore dictae Robergiae procreaverit Et quae post mortem praefat Robergiae R. filii haeredis dict Johannis Mandevile haeredis ipsius Johannis de corpore dicto Robergiae per dict Johannem procreat c. and the same Writ awarded good which Coke denyed to be Law. And he cited the Case of Dyer 4 and 5 P. and Ma. 156. A. gives Lands to one for life the Remainder thereof rectis haeredibus masculis de corpore dict A. legitime procreat remanere inde rectis haeredibus dict A. who hath issue two Sons and dieth A. dieth the eldest Son hath issue a Daughter and dieth without issue male And he conceived first That in this case the limitation of the Remainder in Tail to the right Heirs of the body of the Donor is void for the Donor cannot make his own right Heir a Purchasor without departing with the Fee-simple of his person But admitting the limitation is good he said we are to consider If this entail to the Son once vested and commenced in the possession of the Son when he dieth without issue male The Estate be spent or that the same shall go to the younger Son And he said that it was the opinion of Dyer in that case That the younger Son was inheritable to the said Estate-tail as in the Case of Littleton 82. where the condition is That the Feoffee shall give the Lands to the Son and Heir of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Father and Mother lawfully begotten and the Husband and Wife before any such Gift die having issue and afterwards the Feoffee gives the Land to the Son and Heir of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Father and Mother begotten the condition is well performed and if the eldest Son to whom the Gift is made dieth without issue the youngest Son shall inherit And in a Formedon in the Reverter upon such a Gift the Writ shall be Et quae post mortem of the eldest Son ad ipsum reverti debet because the Husband and Wife obierunt sine haerede de corpor suis inter eos exeunt And such was also the Opinion of Saunders But Brook Brown and Catlin were clear contrary And he said that Bendloes Serjeant who reporteth that Case doth affirm That Iudgment was given in that case That the Estate-tail was spent and that the Daughter should have the Lands and not the second Son and so he said That in the Case at the Bar the Estate-tail was spent But he said That he conceived that in the principal case at Bar there is not any Estate-tail at all because the words upon which the Estate-tail is conceived are incertain and too general viz. secundum antiquam Evidentiam for there might be many ancient Evidences for the words may extend to Evidences which cut off the Estate tail as well as to the Entail of Guntwardy He also argued That the Partition was void and then the Lessee had a good interest for certain parts of the Lands for Partition cannot be made of an Vse and he said that he agreed That Partition betwixt Husband and Wives of Lands if it be equal should bind the makers because they are compellable to make Partition of them but contrary of an Vse for that they are not compellable to do Also in the principal Case the Land entailed is allotted to one of the Coparcenors which is not good but during the Coverture and afterwards void and then the Lease is void but in part and so the Conusance is not good Atkinson contrary and he said I conceive that by words of Relation a Fee may pass without the word Heirs See 39 Ass 12. The Father seised of Lands in fee doth enfeoff his younger Son in fee and the Father continues the possession of the Lands claiming to hold them at the will of the Son and the Son coming into the Town where the Lands do lie in the hearing of his Neighbours saith to his Father You have given to me these Lands naming them As fully as you have given them to me I give them back to you again and the same was holden to be a good Gift to the Father 43 E. 3. 22. The King seised of a Manor to which an advowson is appendant by Escheat or Conveyance gives the said Manor as entirely as such a one held the said Manor before the Escheat or Conveyance the Advowson shall pass without special mentioning of it And so here in our Case at Bar This Will hath reference to the ancient Evidence and it shall be as strong as if he had set down the special words of Entail and to ancient Evidence before the Entail it cannot extend for then a fee should pass and then the Devise should be void because to his Heir and the word Antiqua Evidentia shall have reference to the Charter which was made by Guntwardy for that was an ancient Evidence made two hundred years past and he cited the Case of 40 E. 3. 8. the Provost of Beverley's Case and conceived that the Estate was not spent for that the Estate-tail was in Jeofry as the fee was in him Lands are given to the Father for life the Remainder to the Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father the Father dieth the Tail and the fee are in the Son but yet after the death of the Son without issue the Lands shall be in the Brother's Son by descent and not as Purchasor And in our Case Jeofry was in in the Tail as right Heir of Henry and if Jeofry dieth without issue his Brother of the half bloud shall have the Lands as in the Case before cited of 40 E. 3. but that shall be in Tail by force of the Devise And he said That in this case here the Partition was made good enough although it were of Lands in use for a man might contract for an Vse without Deed 11 H. 4. Partition 156. Partition of an Advowson without Deed
Scire facias shall issue forth against the Sureties and thereupon a Capias And this question If the Capias in this case lieth or not is to be decided either by Audita Querela in the Chancery or by Error in the King's Bench for the said Courts have authority to affirm the proceedings or to disaffirm them And here the Question was If Woodhouse were imprisoned or no and not if the Capias erronice emanavit or not And he took a difference where Process is awarded out of a Court which hath not authority of the Principal cause there it is coram non judice and the Process is void and if the Sheriff taketh the party by force of such Process it is meerly void and he a Trespassor but contrary if the Court hath authority of the principal cause there if the Process be misconceived it is onely erroneous 10 Co. 76. An unskilfull man in Chancery makes an Appeal of Murther retornable in the Common Pleas and there an unskilfull Clark makes a Capias upon it the same is coram non-judice and not all together void But if in a Writ of Entry in the nature of an Assise the Demandant hath Iudgment to recover Debt and Damages and thereupon issueth a Capias the same is not void for it is but a misawarding of the Process provide emanavit If out of the Common Pleas immediately a Writ issueth to the Sheriff of Chester which is a County Palatine where the King 's Writ doth not run the same is void and false imprisonment lieth upon such a taking A Formedon brought in the King's Bench and upon that a Capias is void coram non judice and the Sheriff is bound to take notice of the Law in such cases that those of the King's Bench have not authority to hold plea in real Actions As to that That Woodhouse was convict of Felony the same shall not avoid the Execution but I grant that the King shall be satisfied before the subject c. And he relied much upon the said Case cited before 13 E. 3. Bar. 253. as to the matter of the Capias 19 H. 9. In Escape the Defendant pleaded a Release of him who recovered to the Prisoner being in Execution and it was holden no Plea. And in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXIII Bridget Clark 's Case Antea 30 31. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THE Case was Clark was indebted to Archdel by Obligation and afterwards delivered to Andrews certain Hogsheads of Wine to satisfie the said Archdel the said Debt and afterwards the Obligation of Clark is assigned to the Queen for the Debt of Archdel And if the property of the said Hogsheads of Wine were altered by the delivery of them to Andrews before the Assignment was the Question Egerton Solicitor The property is not altered for the Bailor might have an Action of Account against Andrews before that he hath delivered the same over according to the Bailment but if he hath delivered them over the same is a good bar in an Account But if one be accountable to me upon a Bailment and afterwards I do require him to deliver the Goods over to A. the same is not in bar of Account but is good in discharge of account before Auditors for the same is matter after the Bailment not upon the Bailment If Goods be bailed to bail over upon a consideration precedent of his part to whom they ought to be bailed the Bailor cannot countermand it otherwise it is where it is voluntary and without consideration but where it is in consideration of a Debt not countermandable contrary if it be to satisfie the Debt of another Manwood Where the Debtor of the King is sufficient there a Debt due to him ought not to be assigned to the King but onely where the Debt of the King is doubtfull and that was the ancient course but now at this day multi videntur habentur divites qui tamen non sunt and therefore omnis Ratio tentanda est for the Recovery of the King's Debts But as to the Case before us The Wife is Executrix to her Husband who was indebted to Archdel and she delivers the Goods to Andrews to satisfie Archdel and all that is before the Assignment And I am of Opinion That the property of the said Goods is altered for as the case is Andrews was Surety for Clark and hath a Counter-Bond of Clark to save him harmless If I borrow 100 l. and deliver unto the Lender Plate for the security of it the property general of it is in me yet the Bailee hath a special interest in it untill he be paid If Goods be delivered to A. to pay unto B. A. may sell them An Executor hath Goods of the Testators and he with his own Monies payeth the Debts of the Testator he shall retain the Goods and the property is altered And here in our case Andrews may by virtue of this Bailment sell the Goods and with the Monies arising thereof pay the said Archdel And afterwards Iudgment was given accordingly that the property of the Goods by the delivery over by Andrews was altered CXIV Foskew 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer FRancis Foskew seised of the Manor of Foskew in his Demesn as of fee in consideration of a Marriage to be had with Francis his Son with M. Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston 9 Feb. 25. Feb. covenanted to levy a Fine of the Manor aforesaid and that the said Fine should be to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and after their deaths to the use of the said Erancis their Son and M. and the Heirs of their bodies begotten with remainders over The Fine was levied accordingly afterwards 19 Octob. 27 Eliz. Francis the Father acknowledged a Recognizance to the Queen and died his Wife died and now this Manor is extended for the Debt to the Queen by force of the Statute of 33 H. 8. And now Coke came into Court and prayed that the said Manor might be discharged of the Debt to the Queen because it is not chargeable by the said Statute the words of whicih Statute are All Manors Lands Tenements c. which hereafter shall descend remain or revert in Fee-simple tail general or special by from or after the death of any his or their Ancestor or Ancestors as Heir or by Gift of his Ancestor whose Heir he is which said Ancestor or Ancestors was is or shall be indebted to the King or any other person or persons to his use by Judgment Recognizance Obligation c. In every such case the said Manors c. shall be charged c. This Statute was made for the benefit of the King in two points 1. To make Lands entailed liable to the King against the issue tail for the Kings Debts in the cases aforesaid where they were not liable 2. To make Bonds taken by the Officers of the King to the use of the King as
Iudgment of Action and not rein luy doit and the Court advised the Defendant to plead accordingly XV. Beamont and Dean 's Case Hillar 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Dower Dyer 361. IN Dower brought by the wife of Beamont Master of the Rolls in the time of E. 6. The Defendant said that he himself before the Writ brought did assign a rent of 10 l. per ann to the Demandant in recompence of her Dower upon which the Demandant did demur in Law and the cause was because the Tenant had not shewed what Estate he had in the Lands at the time of the granting of the Rent as to say that he was seised in Fee and granted the said Rent so as it might appear to the Court upon the plea that the Tenant had a lawfull power to grant such a Rent which was granted by the whole Court and the demur holden good XVI Hinde and Sir John Lyon 's Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN Debt by the Plaintiff against the Defendant as Heir Dyer 124. a. 3 Len. 70. 3 Len. 64. he pleaded That he had nothing by Descent but the third part of the Manor of D. The Plaintiff replied Assets and shewed for Assets that the Defendant had the whole Manor of Dale by descent upon which they were at issue and it was given in evidence to the Iury That the Manor was holden by Knight's-service and that the said Sir John the Ancestor of the Defendant Devises by his Will in writing devised the whole Manor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years and that at the age of his said Son of 24 years the Wife should have the third part of the said Manor for term of her life and her Son should have the residue and that if his said Son do die before he come to his age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain to J. S. the Remainder over to another The Devisor died the Son came to the age of 24 years and the Question was If the Son hath an Estate-tayl for then for two parts he is not in by Descent And by Dyer and Manwood Iustices here is not any Estate tayl for no tayl was to rise before his said age and therefore the tayl shall never take effect and the Fee-simple doth descend and remain in the Son unless he dieth within the age of 24 years and then the Entail vests with the Remainders over But now having attained his said age he hath a Fee-simple and that by Descent of the whole Manor and a general Iudgment shall be given against him as of his own Debt And an Elegit shall issue forth of the moyety of all his Lands as well those which he hath by descent from the same Ancestor as any else and a Capias lieth against him But Manwood conceived That if general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such a case a Capias doth not lie although in case of false Plea it lieth Dyer contrary and the Writ against the Heir is in the Debet Detinet which proves that in Law it is his own Debt and he said that he could shew a precedent where such an Action was maintainable against the Executors of the Heir XVII Hil. 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A Man made a Lease of Lands by Indenture Roll. 1. part 870. to begin after the expiration of a Lease thereof made to one Duffam and in an Action of Covenant brought by the second Lessee against the Lessor Covenant the Lessor said That there was no such Duffam in rerum natura at the time of the supposed Lease made to Duffam it was argued Estoppell That this Plea doth not lie for the Lessor for he is estopped to say against the Indenture That there is no such Duffam c. And also if no such person was then the first Lease was void and then the second Lease shall begin presently which Manwood and Mounson granted and by Manwood the Defendant shall be estopped by the Recital of the first Lease to say That there was no such Duffam And although the common Ground is That a Recital is not an Estoppel yet where the Recital is material as it is here it is otherwise for here the second Lease is to begin upon the expiration of the recited Lease and therefore in this case it shall be an Estoppel XVIII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Action upon the Stat. of 5 Eliz. for Perjury 3 Len. 68. IN an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for a Perjury by three the Plaintiffs declared That the Defendant being examined upon his oath before Commissioners If a Surrender was made at such a Court of a Copyhold to the use of A. and B. two of the Defendants The Defendant swore there was no such surrender made c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because that the certainty of the Copyhold did not appear upon the Declaration for the Statute requires that in such Case the party grieved shall have remedy so as it ought to appear in what thing he is grieved quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Another Exception was taken because the Action is given in this Case to the party grieved and it appeareth upon the Declaration that the Surrender in the negative deposing of which the Perjury is assigned Abatement of Writ was made to the use of two of the Plaintiffs onely and then the third person is not a party grieved for he claims nothing by the Surrender and therefore forasmuch as the two persons grieved have joined with the party not grieved the Writ shall abate against them all which Wray and Southcote granted XIX 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Action upon the Stat. of 13 E. 1. of Winchester 2 Inst 569. IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester 13 E. 1. against the men of the Hundred of A. Barham Serjeant took Exception to the Declaration because it appeareth upon it that the half year after the Robbery is not yet come for by the said Statute it is ordained that the Countrey have no longer time than half a year after the Robbery done within which time facent-gree of the Robbery or respondent the body of the Misfeasors And here the Action is brought within the half year And for this cause the Declaration was holden to be insufficient by the whole Court. And the Lord Dyer spake much in commendation of that Statute being made for the publick benefit of the whole Commonwealth for the Law intends when a Robbery is done That if the Countrey will not pursue the Malefactors that some of them are Receivers or Abettors of the Felons Manwood Iustice said When I was a Servant to Sir James Hales one of the Iustices of the Common-Pleas one of his Servants was robbed at Gadds Hill within the Hundred of Gravesend in Kent and he sued the men
the Defendant is cosin and heir of the Devisor and that he as heir entred and did the Trespass First it was agreed by all That by the first words of the Will the three Devisees had but for their lives But Fenner and Walmesley who argued for the Plaintiffs conceived that by force of the latter words scil If the said John Stephen and Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their body lawfully begotten Then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their heirs in manner aforesaid c. that they have Fee and the words in manner aforesaid are to be referred not to the Estate which was given by the first words which was but for life but to make them to hold in severalty as the first Devise would and not jointly as the words of the second Devise do purport And Fenner said It had been resolved by good opinion That where a Fine was levied to the use of the Conusee and his Wife and of the heirs of the body of the Conusor with divers Remainders over Proviso That it should be lawfull to the survivor of them to make Leases of the said Lands in such manner as Tenant in tail might make by the Statute of 32 H. 8. Although those Lands were never devised before the Fine yet the Wife survivor might demise them by force of the Proviso notwithstanding the words in manner c. So if Lands be given to A. for life upon condition the remainder to B. in manner aforesaid these words in manner aforesaid shall refer unto the Estate for life limited to A. and not to the Condition nor to any other collateral matter The words If they live untill they be of full age and have issue are words of Condition and shall not be construed to such purpose to give to them by implication an Estate tail for the words subsequent are That they shall have to them and their heirs to give and sell at their pleasures by which it appeareth that his intent was not to make an Estate tail for Tenant in tail cannot alien or dispose of his Estate c. And as to the latter words And if it fortune they three to die without issue c. these words cannot make an Estate tail and the express limitation of Fee in the former part of the Will shall not be controlled by implication out of the subsequent words As if Lessee for fourty years deviseth his term to his Wife for twenty years and if she die the remainder of the term to another although she survive the twenty years she shall not hold over And here the second sale appointed to be made by the Executor shall not take away the power of the first sale allowed unto the Devisees after issue Snagg and Shuttleworth Serjeants to the contrary And they said that the Defendant hath right to two parts for no Inheritance vesteth in the Devisees until full age and issue and because two of the Devisees died without issue they never had an Inheritance in their two parts and so those two parts do descend to the Defendant as heir to the Devisor no sale being made by the Executor These words If John Stephen and Roger are to be taken Distributive viz. If John live c. are to be taken Distributive scil If John live untill c. he shall have Inheritance in his part Et sic de reliquis As if I have right unto Lands which A. B. and C. hold in common and I by Deed release unto them all the same shall inure to them severally 19 H. 6. And here these latter words If they three die without issue it seems to be but an Estate tail See to that purpose 35 Ass 14. 37 Ass 15. For a man cannot declare his intent at once but in several parts all which make but one Inheritance and so it is said by Persay 37 Ass 15. we ought to adjudge upon all the Deed and not upon parcell And see Clatche's Case 16 Eliz Dyer 330 331. And it was said That if I give Lands to one and his heirs as long as J. S. hath heirs of his body the same is a Fee-simple determinable and not an Estate tail Quaere of that Then here the Fee-simple is determined by the death of the Devisees without issue and therefore the Lands shall revert to the heir of the Devisor especially there being no person in rerum natura who may sell for the Executor before any sale by him made died intestate and if he had made Executors yet the Executor of the Executor could not sell which see 19 H. 8. 9 10. And afterwards the Iustices resolved That no Estate tail is created by the Will but that the Fee-simple is settled in them when they came to their lawfull age and have issue so as the residue of the Devise is void And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs XCIII Hil. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. THE Case was this viz. By the Civil Law the Parson ought to have his Tythe by the tenth Ridg And in a great Field there was Corn upon the Arable Land Roll. 646. and Grass upon the Head Lands and in a Suit for Tythe Hay and Rakings of the Corn the Defendant did prescribe to pay the tenth Shock of Corn for all the Corn Hay and Rakings of the Corn and the Prescription was challenged not to be good for it is upon the matter a Prescription of Non Decimando for the tenth Shock is due of common Right and so nothing is for the Hay and Rakings It was holden by all the Iustices That for tying of Horses upon the Head Lands and eating of the Grass and Corn together that the Prescription was good But the doubt was when the Grass is made into Hay which is upon the Head Lands If it be a good Prescription then and discharge for the Hay because it is another thing than what is growing upon the Land But in the end all the Iustices agreed That by the Civil Law ut supra the tenth Ridg is due for Tythe Corn 1 Cro. 446. 475. therefore for the reaping binding and shocking it is a reasonable Prescription that the party shall have the Hay upon the Head Lands in recompence of the said other things and the Hay upon the Head Lands is but of little value XCIV 29 Eliz. Challoner and Bowyer 's Case IN Assise of Novel Disseisin by Challoner against Bowyer it was given in Evidence at the Assise That William Bowyer was seised and having issue two Sons and two Daughters devised his Lands to his younger Son in tail and for want of such issue to the Heirs of the body of his eldest Son and if he die without issue that then the Land shall remain to his two Daughters in Fee William Bowyer dieth the younger Son dieth without issue living the eldest Son having issue him who is Tenant in the Assise It was moved That notwithstanding that by way of Grant the
extend ad onerand personam of the Grantor for here the Proviso is rather an Exception than a Condition A Lease for years without impeachment of Wast Proviso that he shall not do voluntary Wast the same is a Qualification of the liberty for doing Wast Grant of a Manor Proviso that it shall not extend to wood growing upon the Manor the same is an Exception not a Condition See the Bishop of York's Case 5 Eliz. Dyer 222. The said Bishop made a Lease for certain years of certain Lands Proviso quod tempore vacationis the Rent shall be paid to the Chapter It was holden that the Proviso was not a Condition And here in this Case the Will of George Scott was That the Recoverors should make to the said Hugh a favourable Lease which cannot be if it be a conditional Lease Another point was because the Rent is not well demanded for he hath demanded the whole Rent of the year whereas but half a years Rent was onely due Coke contrary where the Proviso is parcel of one sentence which contains a Covenant or abridgeth the Covenant there it shall not amount to a Condition but to an Exception as a Grant of a Rent-charge Proviso that he shall not charge the person abridgeth the force of the Grant so a Lease without impeachment of Wast Proviso that the Feoffee shall not do voluntary Wast the same abridgeth the liberty But in our Case this Proviso makes a Condition and not a Qualification of the sentence or of any Covenant contained in the sentence nor doth it participate altogether with the sentence but stands substantively for it was a full sentence before A Feoffment in Fee with Warranty Proviso that when he is impleaded he shall not vouch J. S. the same is a good Condition for J. S. is a stranger contrary that he shall not vouch the Feoffor And a Proviso never makes a Covenant and therefore it shall be either a Condition or void And he said That by the devise Hugh Scott had a Lease without any Lease to be made by the Recoverors As unto the demand of the whole Rent where but half a years Rent was due the same is good enough And so was it adjudged in a Case betwixt Andrew's and the Lord Cromwell for he is at his peril to pay the one moyety and in as much as he denieth the whole he denieth every part It was adjorned CLXXI. Hawkins 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench ONE Hawkins was seised of three Messuages in Bury in his Demesit as of Fee and had issue Robert Christian and Joan Postea 193. 1 Cro. 53. 3 Len. 180. and devised all his said Messuages to his wife for life the remainder of one of the said Messuages to his son Robert and his heirs the remainder of another of his said Messuages to his daughter Christian and to her heirs and the remainder of the third Messuage to Joan and her heirs And farther by his Will devised That if any of his said issues die without issue of his body that then the other surviving shall have totam illam partem c. between them equally to be divided The Devisor dieth the wife of the Devisor dieth Joan dieth having issue Robert dieth without issue Christian entreth into all the house of Robert and dieth and her husband holds in as Tenant by the Curtesie Coke The surviving child shall have the whole and the issue of Joan shall have nothing and he said That by this Devise they have an Estate in tail for the Fee doth not vest in any of them for it is written Who shall survive But when one overlives he shall have in Fee for these words totam illam partem go to the whole Estate as well as to the whole Land. I devise my Land wholy to one he hath Fee thereby And he said that the three Devisees have Fee-tail and Fee expectant each severally as to the Messuage to him limited Golding contrary Each hath an Estate tail in the house devised to him and but an Estate for life expectant upon the death of the other without issue for there are no words by which it may appear what Estate he shall have by the survivorship I grant the Case which Perkins denies but Littleton affirms scil A Devise to one of lands in perpetuum for there the intent appeareth But where there are not words of Inheritance nor words amounting to so much then it shall be but an Estate for life And as to the words totam partem illam the same is all one as if he had said partem illam without the word totam And also he said That where one onely survives no farther the Estate vests for there ought to be two to take by the survivor for the words are Equally to be divided betwixt them And then if it cannot accrue by survivor then it shall descend and if it had accrued to two by the survivor they shall be thereof Tenants in common not Ioynt-tenants by reason of these words Equally to be divided Clench Iustice The words Totam illam partem go to the house and not to the Estate in it Shute Iustice accordingly and he said If both daughters had survived they should have Fee in the house of Robert but not by the Will but by descent in coparcenary Also when two are dead the son and one daughter then it cannot be divided therefore the Will as to that is void and then the common Law shall take place and put the house to the issue of one daughter and of the other daughter surviving Gawdy Iustice Here is but an Estate for life in the survivor It hath been objected That then having but an Estate for life the same Estate is drowned by the descent of the Fee-simple so as now the Estate limited by the Will is void To which it may be answered That although now upon the matter it be void yet Ab initio it was not so for it became void by matter of later time scil by the descent of the Fee-simple for if one of the daughters had died without issue before the death of Robert so as the house of such daughter should have come to the said Robert and the other sister there is no coparcenary for the son hath all the Fee and the moyety of the same is executed and the other moyety expectant and the sister hath a moyety for life and then the Devise not void Also here are not two survivors so nothing is to be divided and therefore the Law shall say that the house of Robert is descended scil the Fee of it to the daughter of Christian and Joan and so Iudgment was given against the husband who claims to be Tenant by the Curtesie of the whole Messuage CLXXII Wye and Throgmorton 's Case Pasc 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Bond by Wye against Throgmorton The Condition of the Obligation was to perform Covenants in a pair of Indentures And the
That William Heydon was seised of the lands and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeoffa pas the parties were at issue and it was found by special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased the Lands to the Defendant for years and afterwards he made a Deed of Feoffment to the same Lessee of the same Lands in Fee by the words of Dedi concessi with a Letter of Attorney within the said Deed to make Livery to the Lessee and the Deed of Feoffment was delivered to J. to deliver the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same accordingly The Lessee delivered the same to the Attorney named in the Deed who made Livery accordingly And it was moved by the Council of the Plaintiff That upon all this matter here is not any Feoffment And by Walmesly Serjeant This Deed so delivered took its effect presently as a confirmation and then the Livery and Seisin comes too late for as soon as the said Deed was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave to it its operation to this effect To vest the Fee and the Freehold in the Lessee by way of confirmation See for that Littl. 532 533. But the whole Court was of a contrary opinion for it is in the election of the Lessee to take the Conveyance as a Feoffment or as a confirmation And here it appeareth upon the Deed that the intent of both parties was That the Lessee should take by way of Feoffment and not of confirmation for otherwise to what use should be a Letter of Attorney inserted in the Deed And here the Lessee hath liberty to make his election how he will take either by Feoffment or by confirmation which election he hath determined by the acceptance of the Livery And by Anderson If tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter of Feoffment and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorney named in the Charter who makes Livery accordingly here is a good Feoffment and a discontinuance and afterwards after many motions made and day given to shew cause Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should be barred CCXLII. Rooke and Denny 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN an Action upon the Case by Rooke against Dennis for misusing of the Plaintiff's Horse by occasion of which misuse the said Horse became blind of one eye and gall-back'd The Plaintiff counted That the said Horse was stolen by three Felons after whom the Plaintiff made fresh suit and that the Felons were apprehended and attainted at his suit because Iustice Windham Hetley's Rep. 64. Rolls 809. More 572. Hetley's Rep. 64. and that the said Horse came unto the hands of the Defendant who misused it Ut supra The Defendant said that before that and the said Attainder of the said Felons the said Felons had waived the said Horse within his Manor in which Manor he had waife and estray c. And it was holden by the Court that the same was no Plea without traversing the fresh suit whereof the Plaintiff hath declared for by the fresh suit the property of the Plaintiff in the said Horse was preserved and so upon that misuser of the Horse by the Defendant an Action well lyeth and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly CCXLIII Pretiman and Cooke 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Ejectione firmae The Case was Ante 129. 1 Cro. 52. 3 Len. 180. That one Hawkins was seised of three Messuages in Bury and had issue Robert a son and Christian and Joan daughters and by his Will devised his three Messuages to his wife for life the remainder of one of them to Robert his son and his heirs and the remainder of another of them to Christian his daughter and her heirs and the remainder of the third Messuage to Joan his daughter and her heirs And farther willeth That if any of his said three issues should die without issue of his or her body that then the other surviving shall have Totam illam partem betwixt them equally to be divided The Devisor died the wife died one of the daughters died having issue the son died without issue the sister surviving entred into the whole part of Robert the son and died her husband held in the land as tenant by the Curtesie and the question was If the surviving daughter should have all the part of him that died without issue or she and the issue of the other daughter Coke The survivor shall have the whole And he said that the Devisees have an Estate in tail for the Fee doth not vest in them for it is incertain which of them shall survive but when one surviveth then he shall not have for life but in Fee for the words Totam illam partem goe as well to all the Estate as to all the things A. tenant for life the remainder to B. in tail the remainder to the right heirs of A. A. grants Totum statum suum both the Estates pass and the Grant includes the whole See 41 E. 3. Fitz. Br. 541. In Ravishment of Ward supposing the ravishment of two daughters Quarum maritagium ad ipsum pertinet and it was challenged because he doth not say Maritagia but the challenge was not allowed and he said That if a man deviseth his land wholly to A. that he hath a Fee-simple See the Case H. 28 Eliz. the Case between Higham and Harwood And Coke said That they had by this Devise a Fee-tail with a Fee-simple Expectant each of them severally in the Messuage to them limited Golding Each of the Devisees hath an Estate-tail in the Messuage to them devised and but an Estate for life in the Messuage which is to accrue upon the death without issue c. For no Estate is limited expresly nor what Estate the survivor shall have for here are not any words which do import a Fee-simple as according to Littleton imperpetuum or to do what he will with c. See for that 22 E. 3. ad Terminum qui praeteriit but here are onely bare words of which no farther construction can be made but for life And as to the words Totam illam partem the same doth not extend farther than if he said Partem suam And he said that nothing vests in him who survives for there ought to be two to take by the survivor or otherwise nothing shall accrue to the survivor for the words of the Devise are aequaliter inter eos dividend and that which accrues by survivor shall be divided betwixt two otherwise nothing shall accrue And if it cannot survive to two then it shall descend to the issue of the sister who is dead and to the surviving daughter and they shall be tenants in common and not joint-tenants Clench These words Totam illam partem go onely to the house and not to the Estate in it which Shute granted If both the daughters had survived Robert they should have Fee
demurred and it was moved that the Traverse was not good but the Defendant ought to say that the Plaintiff did not require him modo forma but the Exception was not allowed but the Traverse was holden good by the whole Court and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff VI. Elizabeth Dormer 's Case Trinit 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench ELizabeth Dormer was indicted upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy and Exception was taken to the Indictment 1 Len. 241. because that these words of the Statute were omitted out of the Indictment viz. non habens aliquam rationabilem causam But the Exception was not allowed for Wray chief Iustice said That upon conference betwixt himself and all his companions it was resolved by them That those words need not be put into the Indictment but are to come on the other side Another Exception was taken to the Indictment That she being of the age sixteen years refused to come to any Church contra formam Statut. 1 Eliz. in malum exemplum c. contra formam Statuti in hujusmodi casu editi provisi and the Statute of 1 Eliz. doth not speak of sixteen years but the same is mentioned in the Statute of 23 Eliz. Fenner was of Opinion that the last Contra formam Statuti should be referred to the Statute of 23 Eliz. Wray contrary and that it should be referred to the Statute of 1 Eliz. It was adjourned VII Cranmer 's Case 16 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That Thomas Cranmer 1 Anders 19. More Rep. 100. 1 Len. 196. 3 Len. 20. Dyer 309 310. late Archbishop of Canterbury made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life without impeachment of Waste and after his decease to the use of his Executors for twenty years and after the twenty years to the use of his Son and Heir in tail And afterward Thomas Cranmer was attainted of Treason and dyed so as he could not make Executors but dyed intestate without any assignment Office Executors 118. Note the limitation was to his Executors and Assigns Queen Mary claimed the term limited as aforesaid and granted the same over the Heir in tail entred and Leased the same for years the Patentee entred and the Lessee of the Heir of the Tenant in tail brought Ejectione firmae Manwood All the doubt of this case is If the said term was in Tho. Cranmer so as he might forfeit it And he conceived that the said term was in Tho. Cranmer and that he had not power onely to dispose of it but also had possession of it 11 H. 4. 186. Scire facias 67. And Br. Annuity 17. Such a Grant is good and effectual and if he do not grant it his Executors shall have it and yet the term was not limited to him but he shall have it by implication of Law. 39 E. 3. A Lease was made to one his Heirs and Assigns during his life and one year after the Executors shall have the said term after the death of the Lessee yet the said term was not limited to him 7 E. 3. A Lease made for term of live and a year after in that case the term is conjoyned unto the Estate for life by the act of the Grantor himself and there is a difference when the Remainder is joyned to the particular Estate by the act of the Grantor and by any Purchase Grant or any act after for in the first case the Remainder shall be executed but in the latter not A Lease for life the Remainder in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of Tenant for life he in the Remainder in tail dyeth without issue in the life of Tenant for life now the Fee is executed to the Freehold c. and the Heir shall not have a Scire facias where such conveyance is made by Fine See 17 E. 3. 29. In a Cui in vita A. Executor of B. came and said that the Land in demand was Leased to the said B. for the term of his life the Remainder for the term of eight years to his Executors and prayed to be received and they were received See 19 E. 3. A Lease was made for life to A. the Remainder to his Executors for twelve years the Lesse for life died the Executors died there it is agreed that the Executors of the Executors should have an Action of Covenant if they be ousted And see 20 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 31. A Lease is made to A. for life and if A. dieth within twenty years that his Executors shall have the term until the end of such term and in a Quid juris clamat against A. he saved his term by protestation which proves that the term was quodam modo in him 49 E. 3. A Lease for life unto A. the Remainder to his Heirs and Executors for twelve years and afterwards the Lessor confirms the Estate of the Lessee for life to have and to hold the Land to him for life and thirteen years over to his Executors the Lessee deviseth the term and the Devise holden good which proves that the term was in him Harper Iustice contrary Many cases put before may be answered for in the said case the term is limited to begin immediately and not by way of Remainder or after the death of the Lessee and then the Executors in the life of the Testator are not known nor able to seek any thing by the name of Executors and therefore that term shall take its beginning in the life of the Testator But in the Case at Bar the term is limited to the Executors after the death of the Testator Co. 1 Inst 54. b. and the Executor takes the term as a Purchasor and he hath it not as a Chattel of the Testator but as his own Chattel And in the Case of Receipt before cited the Executor shall be received as Executor for the term was limited to him as Executor And here the Statute of 27 H. 8. 1 Cro. 666. is to be considered for it extends as well to Chattels as to Freehold and the Statute doth execute the possession to the use limited for years as for life or in Fee and here the use is limited to the Executors and not to the Testator and therefore it shall not be otherwise transferred And therefore if a man seised in the Right of his Wife discontinueth and afterwards the Discontinuee makes a Feoffment in Fee unto the use of the said Husband and Wife for their lives in that case the Wife shall not be remitted for the Statute doth transfer according to the use and the use was limited for their lives therefore they shall not be in of another Estate Dyer chief Iustice to the same intent The Feoffor i. Thomas Cranmer limits all the uses and therefore he shall not have that which he hath limited and it is in the nature of a Reservation which shall be taken strictly and very strong against him who
remain in the Feoffees who are put in Trust with it and therefore have interest in the Lands until all the Trusts be performed and therefore the second Wife was advised by her Council to make her Entry in name of the surviving Feoffee and the interest which the Feoffees have in the interim untill the execution of all the uses is a Fee-simple determinable for the whole interest is not devested or driven out of the Feoffees untill the whole Trust be accomplished i. untill all the uses limited upon the Feoffment are executed and have their full perfection And whereas it hath been alledged on the other side That upon the second Feoffment nothing passed out of the Feoffees for which it shall not be said in Law their Livery but that the Attorney shall be said the sole Disseisor As to that I conceive That whatsoever was lost in the Feoffees passed by that Livery If he in Reversion upon an Estate for life makes a Charter of a Feoffment and a Letter of Attorney to make Livery of seisin without words ad expellendas omnes c. if Livery be made by force thereof the Fee-simple shall pass And he cited a Case which was argued before all the Iustices of England reported by himself 2 and 3 Ma. 131. Divers Leases for years were made of the Demeans of an Abby after which the Reversion was granted to the Countess of Richmond for life after which King Edw. 6. granted the Reversion in Fee to the Earl of Warwick who made a Feoffment of all to certain persons to the use of his eldest Son and his Wife for her Iointure with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery and seisin the Attorney made Livery accordingly and by that Feoffment and Livery it was adjudged that the Fee-simple did pass So in our Case upon this second Feoffment a Disseisin is done to D. the first Wife and yet the right of the Feoffees doth pass thereby and although it shall not be taken in Law their Livery yet it shall be adjudged their confirmation because they have joined in the Deed and that shall bind their right to establish the same in the new Feoffees as if the Disseisee join in a Feoffee by Deed with the heir of the Disseisor And as to that which hath been objected that because at the time of the Feoffment the Feoffees had not any thing c. and therefore nothing shall pass and they have likened to the Case where the Father is disseised and the Son and heir doth release to the Disseisor the same shall not bind the heir after the death of his Father The same is not like our Case for there is a great difference betwixt a Release and a Feoffment for if the Son disseise the Father and maketh a Feoffment in Fee in the life of his Father notwithstanding that he had not any right at the time of the Feoffment yet he is bound XXVI Thurkettell and Tey 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 342. 1 Cro. 110 111. IN Debt by John Thurkettell against Edw. Tey and Mary his Wife Executrix of Robert Thurkettell the Case was That Agnes Thurkettell Mother of Robert the Testator devised certain Lands to Robert and afterwards devised 40 l. to the Plaintiff John upon condition that the said John Cum requisitus esset acquietaret retaxaret praedict Roberto omnes actiones reales personales querelas c. praedict 40 l. per dict voluntat legatis tantummodo exceptis Agnes died Robert made two Bonds to John The first was endorsed to pay 20 l. parcell of the said Legacy within a year after the death of the said Agnes so as the Plaintiff release according to the will of the said Agnes The second Obligation was with the same condition to pay 20 l. residue of the said Legacy within two years after the death of the said Agnes upon condition to release ut supra and all this matter was pleaded in barr And farther That Robert required the said John to make the Release c. which he refused and they were at issue upon the request and it was found for the Plaintiff i. Quod dict Robert. non requisivit c. upon which Verdict Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff upon which the Defendants brought Error because it appeareth upon the Record here quod Billa praedict prosecuta fuit infra duos annos post mortem dict Agnet sic ante diem solutionis For the second Bond see 46 E. 3. 28. by Finchden and Persay and see there by Persay That if my Writ be brought before the day of payment and doth depend in suit till after the day of payment that my Writ is made good for at all times the Defendant was my Debtor And afterwards in the principal Case the Iudgment was affirmed in the Exchequer-Chamber and note that the day of payment did incurr pendent the Writ XXVII Lightfoot and Butler 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was said in this Case by the Solicitor General That if one holdeth of the Queen as of her Manor he shall not have the privilege of the Exchequer for that cause But if the King grants Tithes and thereupon reserveth a Rent nomine decimae and a Tenure of him there he shall have the privilege The principal Case was Co. 4. Inst 118 119. that one of the parties claimed the Lands in question as his Freehold but holden of the Queen as of such a Manor and the other claimed it as Copyhold holden of the same Manor And the Freeholder did suggest in the Exchequer That the demands of the Manor are not indifferent Clark Baron If it be so this Court shall have jurisdiction Manwood If the matter pass against you wrongfully wherefore may you not have an Assise And the Case of Beaumorris was cited but I remember not to what purpose i. The Mayor and Commonalty of Beaumorris were Patrons of a Chantry and they and the Chantry Priest made a Lease for years by Indenture in the end of which was this Clause In cujus rei testimonium tam the Priest quam the Mayor and Commonalty have put their common seal and it was moved that there was not any seal for the Priest for he could not have a common seal with the Mayor and Commonalty Clark Twenty men may seal with one seal and they may also seal with one seal upon one piece of Wax onely and that shall serve for them all if they all lay their hands upon the seal together Manwood They may all seal with one seal but upon several pieces of Wax Gent when many are parties to a Deed the words are Sigilla omnia which cannot be aptly said in this Case where all seal upon one piece of Wax XXVIII Barns and Smith 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer EManuel Barns Executor of Barns late Bishop of London 3 Len. 171. brought Debt for arrerages of Rent reserved upon a Lease for years of certain Mines demised
he said Misnosmer shall be tried where the Writ is brought c. So Ne unque administer as Executor c. Manwood Here the Lease is said to be made at Durham in a place certain if now there be not any other local thing said which might draw the trial elsewhere it shall be tried at Durham where the Lease is made An Infant makes a lease for years rendring Rent and afterwards re-enters and avoids his Lease by reason of his nonage and Title is made against him by the Lease upon which he pretended nonage it shall be tried where the Lease was made and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXIX Ross and Morrice 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench EDward Ross was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Edward Morrice 1 Cro. 108 109. and George Manly Defendants who made Conusance as Bailiffs to Jerom Weston The Plaintiff declares of the taking of two Geldings 20 Decemb. 29 Eliz. at Nayland in the County of Suffolk in a certain place called Nayland-Court-Meadow And the Conusance is that the place where was a Freehold of the said Jer. Weston c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance shewed That long time before Sir Christopher Danby was seised of 30 acres of Meadow in Nayland whereof the place where c. and Leased the same by Indenture to Thomas Calton 19 Maii 31 H. 8. Habendum from the Feast of the Annunciation 1553. for the term of 45 years Who 1 E. 6. assigned his Interest to Edw. Ross the Plaintiff's Father who 1 Maii the said 1553. entred and 11 Eliz. granted his Interest to Bamford and Mascal who entred and were possessed Sir Christopher Danby died seised of the Reversion 13 Eliz. and the same descended to Thomas Danby his son and heir 14 Eliz. Mascal died Bamford 15 Eliz. granted to the Plaintiff Habendum from the 17 of March 1583. for three years which expired 26 Eliz. Bamford entred and afterwards Thomas Danby granted the Reversion to Edw. Rockwood in Fee to which the said Bamford Attorned and the Plaintiff by force of the said Lease put in his Cattel c. The Plaintiff Replicando said That long time before that Danby had any thing Jeofry Lord Scroop had issue of his body Henry Lord Scroop and died And that one John Guntwarby was seised of the said Manor of Nayland whereof c. in Fee by his Charter 25 E. 3. gave to the said Henry Lord Scroop the same Et haeredibus corpore suo exeuntibus who had issue Stephen who entred and died seised having issue John who entred and died seised having issue Thomas who entred and 3 H. 7. suffered a Common Recovery to the use of himself and his heirs The Recoverers enfeoffed Thomas seised also of many other Lands and had issue Ralph Jeofry Alice Elizabeth and Margery and afterwards died seised Ralph Lord Scroop entred and thereof did enfeoff divers persons unto the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and the heirs males of the said Ralph and afterwards the said Ralph being possessed of the said Charter of entail made ut supra by Guntwardy 7 H. 8. Devised that the Feoffees should be seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and if they died without issue of the body of the said Ralph the said Jeofry then living that then the Feoffees should be seised to the use of the said Jeofry being his Vncle for his life and after his decease ad usum Rectorum haeredum in perpetuum secundum antiquam Evidentiam inde ante factam with an averment that the said Ralph at the time of the said Devise and of his death was possessed of the Charter of Entail made by the said Guntwardy and that the said Charter was the most ancient Evidence of the said concerning the said Manor Ralph died without issue possessed of the said Charter by which the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to his use for life and after to the use of the said Jeofry for life and after his decease of the right heirs of the body of Henry Lord Scroop lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and the said Charter and of the residue of the Manors to the use of the said Jeofry and his heirs Eleanor died after whose decease the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of the said Jeofry right heir of the said Henry Lord Scroop of his body begotten and of the other lands to the use of the said Jeofry in Fee Jeofry died without issue by which the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery Cosins and heirs of the body of the said Henry Scroop c. And of the heirs of the bodies of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and Charter as to the said Manor of Nayland and of the other Manors to their use in Fee And afterwards the said Alice took to husband James Strangways who had issue Thomas Elizabeth took to husband Fitz Randolph who had issue Elizabeth Dorothy Agnes Alice Margery took to husband Danby who had issue Sir Christopher Danby named in the Bar and afterwards all the said husbands and their wives died by force of which the said Feoffees were seised of one part of the said Manor of Nayland in three parts to be divided to the use of the said Thomas Strangways and of another part to the use of the four daughters of the said Elizabeth and her husband Fitz Randolph and of another such part to the use of the said Christopher Danby and of their heirs in Tail and of the other lands to the use of them in Fee in degree of Coparcinary Elizabeth the eldest daughter of Fitz Randolph took to husband Shirley Dorothy her sister took to husband Eshe Agnes took to husband Maynel and Alice took to husband Dranfield Thomas Strangways had issue James and died And afterwards partition was made by which to James Strangways were allotted lands in Kent and agreed that the Feoffees should be seised of the said lands to the use of the said James and his heirs and to no other use To Sherley and Elizabeth his wife lands in Essex were allotted and agreed upon the partition that the Feoffees should be seised to the use of them c. in Fee c. And to Danby the said Manor of Nayland in tail by reason of the Devise and Charter aforesaid as to the said Manor of Nayland and of other lands in Fee. And afterwards 23 E. 8. notice was given to the Feoffees of the said partition and averred that the partition was equal c. and that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said partition untill 27 H. 8. and confessed the Lease made by Danby to Calton and all the assignments set forth in the Bar to the Avowry and farther shewed That Thomas Danby
14. but contrary in a Writ of Habere facias seisinam or in a Liberate for in these Writs there are not such words and therefore although they be not retorned Execution done by virtue of them is good enough See 11 H. 4. 212. If the Sheriff by force of an Elegit doth deliver the moyety of the Land and doth not retorn the Writ if the Plaintiff will plead a new Action of Debt the Defendant may plead in Bar the Execution aforesaid although the Writ be not retorned nor doth remain upon Record and it is not like unto the Case of Partition made by the Sheriff for that must be retorned because that after the Retorn of it a secondary Iudgment is to be given scil Quod Partitio praedict firma stabilis remaneat in perpetuum firma stabilis in perpetuum tenetur says the Book of Entries 114. And Egerton the Solicitor-General cited a Case to be lately adjudged betwixt the Earl of Leicester and the Lady Tanfield Earl of Leicester and Tanfields case That such an Execution was well enough although the Liberate was not retorned The second point was Admitting that it be a good Execution If the Executors being in possession of the Manor and suffering the Conusor to hold a Court there and saying the words aforesaid in the presence of the Lord who is Conusor if the same do amount unto a Surrender or not And it was the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice That it was not a Surrender for that here the words are not addressed to the Conusor who was capable of a Surrender but to other persons And it is not like unto the Case of 40 E. 3. 23 24. Chamberlains Assise where Tenant for life saith to him in the Reversion That his Will is that he enter upon the Land the same is a good Surrender because here is a person certain who may take the Land But in our case it is but a general speech and therefore it shall not be a Surrender LXVI Baskervile and Bishop of Hereford 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit brought by Walter Baskervile against the Bishop of Hereford and others the Plaintiff counted That Sir Nicholas Arnold Knight was seised of the Advowson in gross and granted the same to the said Baskervile and others to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Richard Arnold his Son in tail Proviso That if the said Nicholas died his Heir being within the age of twenty three years that then the Grantees and their Heirs should be seised to themselves and their Heirs until the said Richard had accomplished the said age Sir Nicholas died Richard being but of the age of fourteen years by force whereof the Grantees were possessed of the said Advowson c. and afterwards the Church became void and so it appertained to them to present Exception was taken to the Count by Serjeant Gawdy because the Plaintiff had not averred the life of Richard upon whose life the interest of the Plaintiff did depend and he compared the same to the Case of the Parson which had been adjudged where the Lessee of a Parson brought an Ejectione Firmae and it was found for him and in Arrest of Iudgment Exception was taken to the Declaration because the life of the Parson was not averred and for that cause the Iudgment was stayed Anderson Vpon the dying of Sir Nicholas Richard being but of the age of fourteen years an absolute Interest for nine years vested in the Grantees not determinable upon the death of Richard or rather they are seised of a Fee determinable upon the coming of Richard to the age of 23 years Rhodes and Windham Iustices contrary and that here is an Interest in the Grantees determinable upon the death of Richard within the term for if Richard dieth without issue within the term the Remainder is limited over to a stranger And as to the Exception to the Count it was argued by Puckering Serjeant That the Count was good enough for although the life of Richard be not expresly added yet such an averment is strongly implied and so supplyed For the Count is Quod dictus Nich. obiit dicto Richardo being of the age of fourteen years non amplius by force of which the Plaintiff was possessed of the said Advowson quo quidem Nich. sic possessionato existente the Church voided and possessed he could not be if not that the said Richard had then been alive and that is as strong as an Averment See 10 E. 4. 18. In Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleaded That A. was seised and did enfeoff him to which the Plaintiff said That long time before A. had any thing B. was seised and leased to the said A. at will who enfeoffed the Defendant upon whom B. re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff at will by force whereof he was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass and that was allowed to be a good Replication without averring the life of B. who leased to the Plaintiff at will for that is supplied by the words scil virtute cujus the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass See also 10 H. 7. 12. In an Assise of Common The Defendant made Title that he was seised of a House and a Carve of Land to which he and all those whose Estate he hath c. had common appendant and doth not say That he is now seised of the House but the exception was disallowed for seisin shall be intended to continue untill the contrary be shewed LXVII Morgan and Chandler 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt for Arrerages of Rent by Morgan against Chandler It was found by special Verdict That the Land out of which c. was assured by an Act of Parliament to the Marchioness of Northampton for the term of her life the remainder to the Lady Bourcher her daughter and the heirs males of her body the remainder to King H. 8. in Fee And it was ordained by the same Act Quod omnes concessiones dimissiones Anglice Grants and Leases factae vel in posterum fiendae by the said Marchioness of the Lands aforesaid per script Indentat dict Marchio bonae validae in Lege erunt durante termino c. The Marchioness made a Lease for 21 years to Kenelm Throgmorton rendring 10 l. Rent who assigned the same to the Defendant The Lady Bourcher died without Issue the Marchioness died and if the Lease should now bind the Queen was the Question And it was moved by Clark of Lincoln's-Inn That it should for the King was party to the Act of Parliament and those Estates for life in Tail and in Fee are all as one Estate and derived out of one Estate and the Estate of the King is bound with the Lease and it was moved by Broughton That the Lease should not bind the Queen and so by consequence not her Patentee and he
had also bona catalla felonum fugitivorum and at the payment the Lord St. John claimed the money But all the Barons of the Exchequer were clear of Opinion That the Lord St. John could not have the money for the place of payment nihil operatur but the Obligation is the substance which came to the Lord of Northampton within the Isle of Ely. Popham the Queens Attorny claimed the money for the Queen for the Lord of Northampton cannot have it for by the general words of bona catalla felonum things in Action do not pass but by express words they well pass otherwise not And therefore day was given to the Lord of Northampton to shew his Letters Patents LXXXII Ards and Smith 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. Rot. 2737. In the Common Pleas. 3 Co. 8. EDward Ards brought a Replevin against Smith and Reading the Defendants made Conusance as Bailiffs to Robert Chamberlain and shewed That one A. was seised of the Manor of Keney in Fee whereof the place where is parcel and so seised gave the said Manor to Richard Chamberlain and Sibil Fowler and to the Heirs males of the said Richard Richard and Sibil intermarry and have issue Edward Richard dieth Sibil dyeth Edward hath issue Leonard and dieth Leonard hath issue Francis and dieth Francis hath issue Robert in whose Right the Conusance is made and dieth Robert entreth The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance sheweth That one B. was thereof seised and thereof enfeoffed one Cottesford then Master of Lincoln College and the Fellows thereof after which the said Leonard Son and Heir male of the said Edward 25 H. 8. did release to the said Master and Fellows with warranty the said Robert in whose Right the said Conusance is made being Heir male of the said Robert and demanded Iudgment if against that warranty c. The Defendants confess the Gift before to the said Richard and Sibil and that they had issue the said Edward but farther shewed That after the death of the said Richard Sibil and Edward her Son leased the said Manor for years to one Mascal who entred and was possessed Edward suffered a common Recovery unto the use of the Recoverors who entred and ousted the Lessee and enfeoffed the said B. who enfeoffed the said Master and Fellows the Lessee re-entred Sibil died Leonard Son and Heir apparent of Edward released to the said Master and Fellows with warranty Edward died Leonard died and thereupon a Demurrer was by the parties and the matter was If this Recovery being suffered by him in the Remainder in tail upon an Estate for life the Recoverors entring upon the Lessee for years of the Lessee for life and putting him out and afterwards the Lessee for years re-entring If now any Estate did remain in the College after the Re-entry which might work a Release Snag Serjeant argued That a sufficient Estate did remain in the College upon which a Release might enure i.e. an Estate to begin after the death of Sibil and the expiration of the term for years and although rei veritate Edward was not Tenant of the Freehold at the time of the Recovery yet such an exception doth not lie for the Issue and to that purpose he cited the Opinion of Fairfax 12 E. 4. 14. Shuttleworth Serjeant contrary This Recovery works nothing but by way of Estoppel and Conclusion and therefore the issue in tail may well disclose the matter and avoid such Recovery and the better Opinion in the Case cited before 12 E. 4. is That such a Recovery against such a person is utterly void which see there by â—ittleton Choke and Brian 14 E. 4. 2. and also 28 Ass 17. and Dyer 8 Eliz. 252 253. Land conveyed to the Husband for life the Remainder to the Wife in tail the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Husband and Wife The Husband and Wife suffer a common Recovery the Husband hath issue and dieth and afterwards the Wife dieth the issue shall avoid the Lease and Recovery See also the Case betwixt Hare and Snow Plow 20 Eliz. 514. where a common Recovery was had against Tenant in tail and his Wife whereas in truth the Wife had nothing in the Land whereof the Recovery was suffered It was holden that the issue in tail or any other person might shew the truth of the matter for he shall not be bound by any Estoppel which his Father hath admitted by joyning in Voucher with his Wife for he is not subject to the Estoppel and therefore it was holden That if the Wife in such case might sue Execution to have in value yet the Son in tail might oust him of it So 8 H. 4. 122. a Praecipe is brought against Tenant in tail who prays in aid of a stranger as Tenant for life who enters into the aid and bars the Demandant and afterwards the Tenant in tail dieth his issue is at large to claim the Estate-tail although the mouth of his Father was estopped as to it So Tenant in tail brought a Quod ei deforceat and counted upon an especial tail whereas in truth it was a general tail and recovereth and dieth the said Recovery shall not conclude the issue See 33 H. 6. 18. And in our Case when the Recoverors enter by force of the recovery the same is a wrong to the Lessee for years and also to the Tenant for life for the one is ejected and the other disseised and therefore the Re-entry of the Lessee doth defeat all the Estate which was in the College under that Recovery and here the Entry of the Lessee for years shall avoid all the Estate which was conveyed to the College by the Recoverors See 44 E. 3. 30 31. Bassingborn's Assise Land is given to A for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to C. in Fee A. aliens in Fee the Ancestors collateral of him who hath the Fee doth release to the Alienee with warranty B. enters here the whole warranty is lost and all the first Estate is recontinued So in our Case by this Entry of the Lessee the whole Estate of the College under the Recovery is defeated so as nothing remains in the College upon which the Release can enure and then there is no warranty in the Case And as the Case is here Edward who suffered the Recovery dieth before the descent of the warranty by the death of Leonard by whom the Release with warranty was made by the death of which Edward the Interest which the College had in the said Manor by the said Recovery and the Estoppel of it was determined and utterly gone and then the warranty descending afterwards cannot attach upon the possession which was at the time of the warranty made which was by the conclusion which by the death of Edward is determined and removed by an Eign Title i. the Entail As if Tenant in tail doth discontinue the Discontinue is disseised Tenant in tail releaseth with warranty to the
Disseisor the Disseisee entereth in the life of Tenant in tail who afterwards dieth the warranty works nothing for the cause aforesaid And also he put this Case Tenant in tail of Land grants a Rent-charge in Fee and an Ancestor collateral releaseth to the Grantee with warranty and dieth the Tenant in tail dieth now the issue is bound but if Tenant in tail dieth before him who maketh the Release now the Rent is determined by the death of Tenant in tail and then the warranty cannot attach upon it At another day the Case was moved and conceived in these words scil Tenant for life the Remainder in tail Tenant for life leaseth for years a Recovery is had against him in the Remainder in tail living Tenant for life the Recoverors enter and oust the Lessee for years the Son and Heir of him in the Remainder in tail releaseth with warranty to him to whom the Recoverors have assured the Lands the Lessee enters he against whom the Recovery was had dieth the Releasor dieth c. It was holden that the Entry of the Lessee before that the warranty had attached upon the possession which passed had avoided the warranty And the Lord Anderson conceived That the Recovery should not prejudice the issue in tail but that the issue shall Fauxifie the same And if Tenant in tail be disseised and so disseised suffereth a common Recovery his issue shall not be barred quod fuit concessum per omnes And afterwards another matter was moved scil That the Release is pleaded to be made to Lincoln College by the name of Custodi sociis Scholaribus Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia where the true name of the College as is confessed by the Record in the Plea pleaded is Custos sive Rector Socii Scholares Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia c. It was adjourned See this Case reported 3 part Lincoln College Case LXXXIII Hall and the Bishop of Bath 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HAll brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Bath and others The Incumbent pleaded Quod ipse nihil habet nec habere clamat c. nisi de praesentatione Georgii Sidenham militis not named in the Writ and demanded Iudgment of the Writ upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was argued by Drew Serjeant for the Plaintiff That the Writ was well brought without naming the Patron for if a Quare Impedit be brought against the Patron and Incumbent and the Patron dieth 1 Leon. 45. pendant the Writ the Writ shall not abate 9 H. 6. 30. It might be that the Plaintiff did not know nor could tell who presented the said Incumbent but he findeth the Incumbent a Disturber by his Incumbency and if of necessity such Patron ought to be named then if such a Vsurper should die before the Writ brought he which hath cause of Action should be remediless And by Anderson and Periam the Writ is good enough for the reason aforesaid And Anderson put this case If A. wrongfully by Vsurpation doth present and his Clark is received and afterwards A. having gained the Patronage grants it over to B. Against whom shall the Quare Impedit be brought Walmsley Against B. which Anderson doubted LXXXIV Hughe 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Formedon the Writ was That A. Dedit Aliciae filiae suae and to J.S. and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten and it was shewed in abatement of the Writ That the name of the Wife is put before the name of the Husband To which it was said by the Court that if such a Writ be brought against the Husband and Wife and the name of the Wife be put before the name of the Husband the Writ shall abate and if in the Case at Bar it had appeared That the Donees at the time of the Gift were Husband and Wife upon such a matter disclosed the Writ should abate but that doth not appear plainly to the Court. LXXXV Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE It was holden by the Court 1 Cro. 567. 3 Cro. 224. Post 189. That if a Writ of Dower be brought against an Infant who loseth by default at the Grand Cape that he may reverse the same by a Writ of Error but where an Infant appeareth by Guardian and afterwards loseth by default there he shall never avoid it for if any default be in the Guardian the Infant shall recover against him in a Writ of Deceit And afterwards the Iudgment in the first case was reversed LXXXVI Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer-Chamber NOTE In the Exchequer-Chamber before the Lord Chancellour The two chief Iustices and the chief Baron a Writ of Error was cast upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer and it was agreed Quod propter absentiam Dom. Thesaurarii Angliae They ought not nor could receive the said Writ and the Statute of 31 Eliz. doth not help the matter for that extends but to discontinuances which before the Statute many times hapned for the not coming of the Chancellour or Treasurer and not to give Conusance in a Writ of Error in the absence of the Treasurer c. LXXXVII Lacy and Fisher 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin by Lacy against Fisher The Defendant pleaded that the place where c. is called Spicold and holden of the Manor of Easthall by certain Rent and made Conusance as Bailiff of the Lord of the said Manor and issue being joined hereupon It was tried by the Iury of the Visne of Spicold and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the issue was mis-tried For the Visne ought to have been of Spicold and Easthall also Web and Richmond's Case And a Case was cited to have been adjudged accordingly betwixt Webb and Richmond M. 31 Eliz. in the same Court. LXXXVIII Corbet 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That an Action of Debt was brought by original Writ against an Administrator in another County than where the Administrator was dwelling and before notice of that suit he paid divers other debts of the Intestate due by specialties so as he had not Assets to pay the debt in demand having Assets at the day of the Teste of the original and now the Defendant appearing pleads the same special matter and concluded And so nothing remained in his hands And it was holden per Curiam to be a good Plea See 2 H. 4. 21 22. LXXXIX Sir William Pelham 's Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer 1 Co. 41. THE Case short put was this A. Tenant for life of a Messuage c. the remainder in tail to B. with divers remainders over A. by Deed indented and enrolled bargained and sold the Messuage c. so conveyed to Sir William Pelham in Fee who afterwards suffered a common Recovery thereof in which A. is vouched and so a common Recovery is had and executed and
was both against the common Law and also against all Conscience These matters coming to the knowledge of the Iustices and the mischiefs thereupon following being very frequent and it appearing that the Tenant in tail was a dangerous fellow and that there was no safe dealing with him they took consideration of them and considering also with themselves That Lineal Warranty and Assets and Collateral Warranty without Assets did bar the Entail upon this consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries So as by that means Tenant in tail hath Potestatem alienandi as he hath at the Common Law and by this means right was done to the Common Law because its authority was restored and thereby injury was done to no man But as for Tenant for life he never had Potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the recovery shall stand in force untill after the death of Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is alive Truly if the Law should be such great mischiefs would follow For then great Iointresses the Widows of great persons having assurances to them of great and stately Houses and of Lands furnished with Timber of great yearly value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit waste and the same should be dispunishable which would be an intolerable mischief and so he concluded that the suffering of a Recovery was a forfeiture and Iudgment Trin. 21 Eliz. was given and entred accordingly XC Noon 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer DEBT was brought in London against one as Executor and upon fully administred pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who assigned the same to the Queen whereupon a Scire facias issued out of the Exchequer against the Defendant into the County of Dorset The Serhiff retorned Nulla bona c. which Scire facias was upon a Constat of goods in another County It was agreed by all the Barons that the Debt was well assigned to the Queen And also that the Scire facias might issue forth of another Court than where the Record of the Iudgment remained and that upon a Constat of goods in another County than where the Writ is brought or where the party is dwelling he may well have a Scire facias in another County But the Retorn was challenged because contrary to the verdict As in a Replevin No such beast is not a good Retorn but Averia elongata or Nullus venit ex parte querentis ad monstrand averia And here the Sheriff might have retorned Devastavit which well stands with the Verdict 5 H. 7. 27. But as to that it was said by the Barons That it is true that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ was brought is concluded by the Verdict to make any retorn contrary to it but the Sheriff of another County shall not so be but the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought ought to retorn Devastavit c. and thereupon the Plaintiff shall have Process into another County But the Question farther was If a Scire facias upon Testatum shall issue into another County before that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought had retorned a Devastavit for some conceived That a Devastavit where the Writ was brought ought first to be retorned and then upon a Testatum Process should issue forth into any County within England But others were of opinion That without a Devastavit retorned upon a Testatum Process might be sued forth immediately into any other County Williams said If I recover goods by Action brought in Midd. I may upon a Testatum have a Capias into any foreign County XCI Western and Weild 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN a Writ of Accompt brought in London the Defendant pleaded Never his Receiver c. which was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgement given that the Defendant should accompt Afterwards the Defendant brought his Writ of Privilege and if the same should be allowed after Iudgment was the Question Coke It shall be allowed for the Defendant hath not surceased his time This Iudgement to accompt is not properly a Iudgment for no Writ of Error lieth upon it before the accompt be ended Manwood Regularly after Iudgment no privilege shall be allowed but that is to be intended of a Iudgment ended but here notwithstanding this Iudgment the Action is depending and therefore he conceived that the privilege should be allowed in this case It was objected That then the Plaintiff should be at great mischief for he should lose the advantage of his Trial for he must begin again and plead again and have a new Trial. Clark the Plaintiff shall have benefit of his former Trial by way of Evidence XCII Brian and Cawsen 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Rot. 1353. 3 Len. 115. IN an Action of Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen That William Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the custome of the Manor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he devised them in this manner i. I bequeath to John Th. my House and Land in M. called Larks and Sone To Steph. Th. my House and Land called Stokes and Newmans and to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said John Stephen or Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their bodies lawfully begotten then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their Heirs in manner aforesaid to give and sell at their pleasure but if it fortune one of them to die without issue of his body lawfully begotten Then I will that the other brothers or brother have all the said Houses and Lands in manner aforesaid and if it fortune the three to die without issue in like manner Then I will that all the said Houses and Lands be sold by my Executor or his Assigns and the money to be given to the poor The Devisor dieth John Stephen and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without issue John and Stephen are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath issue J. and surrenders all his part of the whole and his Estate therein to the use of Stephen and his heirs who is admitted accordingly Stephen comes of full age John the father dieth Stephen dieth without issue John the son as cosin and heir of Stephen is admitted according to the Will and afterwards dieth without issue The Wives of the Plaintiffs are heirs to him and are admitted to the said Lands called Larks and Sone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcell of Lands where c. by force whereof they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done and it was found That A. sole Executor died intestate and that Cawsen
Son living his Father cannot take as heir i. by limitation as Heir to his Father because that none can be said or held Heir to his Father as long as the Father be alive yet by way of Devise the Law shall favour the intention of the party and the intent of the Devisor shall prevail But all the Court was strongly against it and held that as well in Case of Devise as of Grant all is one Whereupon the Tenant produced Witnesses who affirmed upon their Oaths That the Devisor declared his meaning concerning the said Will That as long as his eldest Son had issue of his body that the Daughters should not have the Land but the Court utterly rejected the matter and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XCV the Countess of Linnox Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN this Case it was said by Manwood chief Baron That whereas the Cistercians c. had a Privilege that they should not pay Tithes for their Lands quas propriis manibus excolant but their Fermors should pay Tithes and now by the Statute of 31 H. 8. they are dissolved That the Queen and her Fermors should be discharged of such Tithes as the spiritual persons were for the Queen cannot excolere ergo her Fermors shall be discharged and so long as the Queen hath the Freehold her Fermors shall have such Privilege although she Leaseth for years or at Will But if the Queen granteth over the Reversion then the Fermors shall pay Tithes More Rep. 915. XCVI Golding 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case against Gloding the Case was 1 Len. 296. 1 Cro. 50. Noy 18. A Feme sole being Tenant for life by Devise of Lands Leased the same for years to begin after her death and afterwards made another Lease 18 Octob. for twenty one years to the same Lessee to begin at Michaelmas before and the Pleading was Virtute cujus quidem dimissionis and the Lessee entred Crast Sanct. Mich. which was before the making of the Lease And upon the Grant of these two Leases the consideration of Assumpsit was grounded in an Action of the Case thereupon and six hundred pounds damages given And now this was moved in Arrest of Iudgment Coke for the Plaintiff Where two Considerations are laid down in the Declaration although that the one be void yet if the other be sufficient the Action upon the Assumpsit lieth and damages shall be taken accordingly And the Grant upon the Assumpsit was That both the Leases should be assigned to the Defendant and the Plaintiff hath declared accordingly although that one of the Leases be void And the Agreement was That the Plaintiff should assign totum statum titulum interesse suum quae habet in c. It appears here in the Pleading That the Lease was made the eighteenth of October and the Lessee did enter and was thereof possessed Crast Mich. which was before and so the Lessee then entering was a Disseisor But by Coke the same is not a Disseisin although that the Lessee entreth before the Lease made for there was a communication of a Lease although the Lease was not made before the eighteenth of October and peradventure it was by assent of the Lessor in which case it cannot be a Disseisin but be it a Disseisin yet in as much as he hath assigned all his interest quod ipse tunc habuit the Consideration is answered and he hath also delivered both the Indentures of Demise and hath granted all that which he might grant be such Grant void or good it is good Consideration enough as to us Egerton Solicitor contrary In every Action upon the Case upon a Promise there are three things considerable Consideration Promise and Breach of Promise As to the Consideration in our Case the Grant of the Lease which is to begin after the death of the Lessor is merely void And as to the second Consideration it appeareth That the Lessor at the time of the making of the Lease had but a Right for he was disseised for he who was afterwards the Lessee entred before he had any Lease made unto him and so here is not any consideration to ground the Assumpsit upon But admit that there be a consideration yet the Action doth not lie For 19 Eliz. a difference was taken by the Iustices scil When in the Declaration in an Action upon the Case two or more considerations are laid and are not collateral but pursuant As if I owe you an hundred pounds and I say That in consideration that I owe you 100 l. and in consideration that you shall give me 10 l. I promise to pay unto you the said hundred pounds which I owe you If you bring an Action upon the Case against me for the hundred pounds and lay in your Declaration both considerations although you do not pay me the ten pounds yet the Action lieth But where the considerations are not pursuant but meerly collateral and do not depend the one upon the other As in consideration that you are of my Councel and you shall ride with me to York I promise to give to you an hundred pounds there both considerations ought to be performed or otherwise the Action doth not lie and so here in the principal Case the considerations being collateral they both ought to be performed Afterwards upon consideration had of the Case by the Court Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and it was said by Coke That there was not any Disseisin in the Case but he who entred was Tenant at sufferance by reason of the precedent communication XCVII Curtise and Cottel 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was this That one Bonham was seised of a Manor within which there were divers Customary Lands demisable by Copy for three lives The Lord of the Manor did demise some of those Lands to three Sisters Habendum to them for their lives successive for the Fine of 100 l. by them paid and they being seised accordingly the eldest Sister who was Tenant in possession took to Husband one Chapman after which the said Lord by Indenture leased the same Land to the eldest Sister the Remainder to the Husband the Remainder to the second Sister and no Agreement was made thereunto by the second Sister by Deed before or after the making of the Indenture but four days after the Lease made she agreed to it in the Country and then took to Husband Curtise and they entred claiming the said Land upon which Entry the Action was brought The point was That when the Lease by Indenture was made to the eldest Sister at which time no agreement was made by the second Sister who was in Remainder yet when after she agreed If by that Agreement her Right to the Copihold were extinct or not so as the interest of the eldest Sister being gone by the acceptance of the Estate by the Indenture the second Sister might come and claim
her customary interest as it were paramount the interest of the eldest Sister which she claimed by the Indenture Glanvil The customary interest of the eldest Sister is extinct upon this matter by reason of her agreement to it afterwards Where an Estate is given to one by a lawfull act it shall be adjudged in the party before agreement until it be disagreed unto and if the party do once agree he cannot afterwards disagree unto it If an Estate be lawfully made to a Copyholder but for years his whole interest in the Copyhold is determined and that a Freehold cannot be waived in pais but onely by matter of Record See 13 R. 2. Joynt-tenants 13. A Charter of Feoffment was made to four and Seisin was delivered to three of them in the name of them all and afterwards the fourth Feoffee came and saw the Deed and said That she would not have any thing in the Lands but altogether disagree unto it and it was that that disagreement by word in pais did not devest the Freehold out of her But when the party doth disagree in a Court of Record there the Freehold is out of the party ab initio and if he once agree he shall not disagree afterwards See Littl. Sect. 648. Tenant in tail enfeoffeth his Son and Heir apparent and another and Livery and Seisin is made to the other according to the Charter of Feoffment in the name of the Son also the Son not knowing of it nor disagreeing to the Feoffment the other Feoffee dieth the Son neither occupies the Lands nor takes the profits of them during the life of his Father the Father dieth the same is a Remitter to the Son because the Freehold is cast upon him and there is no default in him and therefore he is remitted But upon an illegal act is otherwise for if A. disseise B. to the use of C. in such case nothing is in C. before an express Agreement for the Disseisin was an unlawfull act And in this Case at Bar it doth not appear that the eldest Sister is dead and therefore the Right of the second Sister cannot now come in question Shute Iustice If the second Sister at the time of the making of the said Indenture had agreed unto it then it had been a full extiguishment but by an agreement afterwards it is not good Gawdy Iustice The remainder is in consideration of the Law and the Estate of the first Sister is not so determined that any can take advantage of it for the Lord against this Lease by Deed indented cannot enter or claim any thing and the second Sister although she hath not agreed yet she cannot enter during the life of her elder Sister for her Remainder takes effect in possession after the death of her said Sister But if any should take advantage of it it should be the Lord if his Deed indented did not stand against him And afterwards Iudgment was given against the younger Sister Clench Iustice was of another Opinion viz. That the Entry of the younger Sister notwithstanding that her elder Sister was alive was lawfull Quaere of that XCVIII Wellock 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A Parson in consideration of twelve pence granted to one of his Parishioners That he should hold his Lands discharged of Tithes It was holden by the whole Court That the same was no good Discharge being without Deed as a Lease of his Tithes But it was holden If the Parson afterward sueth the Parishioner for Tithes against the same Grant and Promise the Parishioner may have an Action upon the Case against the Parson upon his Promise although he cannot plead the Grant as a Lease XCVIII Lawson and Hare 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 178. A Replevin by Lawson against Hare who avowed for a Leet Fee and shewed how that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the Hundred of C. have used to hold a Leet once every year and that at each time when such Leet hath been holden the Inhabitants within the said Leet have used to pay to the Lord of the Leet 16 d. for a Leet Fee and that the Lords of the said Leet have used to distrain for the same and shewed farther that 5 Julii 26 Eliz. he held there a Leet c. The Plaintiff replied Absque hoc that they had used to distrain and issue being joyned it was found for the Defendant It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because that the Defendant had entitled himself to a Leet by an Estate in the Hundred and did not shew a Deed of it which was said he ought to have done as is 11 H. 4. 48. And of such opinion was Anderson and Windham Iustices Periam and Rhodes Iustices contrary as this case is and that the Avowant need not shew a Deed But if the hundred it self had been in question then a Deed ought to have been shewed But here the Avowant entitles himself to one thing scil a Leet and a Leet Fee by reason of the Hundred and it is sufficient for him to say That he is seised of the Hundred c. although it be by disseisin for if he hath possession of the Hundred be it jure vel injuria he shall have also all things incident thereunto for the possession of the Hundred draws to him the Leet and the Leet the Leet Fee. But admit in this case a Deed ought to be shewed 1 Cro. 217. 245. we are to see if the same be helped by the Statute of Jeofailes which extends to defaults in form in Writs Original or Iudicial Counts Declarations Plaints Bills c. 18 Eliz. cap 14. and such defects are thereby helped And by Anderson although that the Avowant be Quasi an actor yet in Rei veritate he is Defendant For although that he is to have retorn of the Cattel if it be found for him yet he who fueth the Replevin is the Plaintiff and if the Defendant will justifie the distress and not avow he is meerly Defendant and not a Plaintiff or Actor no more than in a Praâ—cipe quod reddat The Tenant voucheth and recovereth in value he cannot be said Plaintiff or Defendant and the Avowant cannot be Nonsuit as the Plaintiff But Windham and Periam were of a contrary opinion For Avowry is in lieu of a Declaration and the Plea of the Plaintiff to the Avowry is not called a Replication but a bar to the Avowry But admit the Avowry be within the Statute then if the Statute of Jeofailes there extend to help it And Anderson conceived that it did But the Plaintiff might have demurred upon the Avowry for the not shewing the Deed and Iudgment should have been given for him but when he hath traversed and the issue found against him now it shall be intended that Avowant hath a Deed although he hath not shewed the same Another Exception was taken because it is said in the Avowry That the said Leet
Law doth admit the oath of the party in his own cause as in Debt the Defendant shall wage his Law Periam That 's an ancient Law but we will not make new Presidents for if such oath be accepted in this Case by the same reason in all cases where is secrecy and no external proof upon which would follow great inconveniencies and although such an Oath hath been before accepted of and allowed here yet the same doth not move us and we see no reason to multiply such Presidents The Declaration is that the Plaintiff was robbed of 10 l. de denariis ipsius querentis and upon the Evidence it appeareth That the Plaintiff was the Receiver of the Lady Rich and had received the said money for the use of the said Lady and exception was taken to it by Shuttleworth but it was not allowed for the Plaintiff is accomptable to the Lady Rich the said money And it was agreed that if he who was robbed after he hath made Hue and Cry doth not farther follow the thieves yet his Action doth remain CX Large 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Len. 182. THE Case was A. seised of Lands in Fee devised the Lands to his wife until William his son should come to the age of 22 years and then the Remainder of part of the Lands to his two sons A. and John The Remainder of other part of his Lands to two others of his said sons upon condition That if any of his said sons before William should come to the age of 22 years shall go about to make any sale of any part c. he shall for ever lose the Lands and the same shall remain over c. And before his said son William came to the age of 22 years one of the other sons Leased that which to him belonged for 60 years and so from 60 years to 60 years until 240 years ended c. Bois A. and J. are joynt-tenants of the Remainder and he said That the opinion of Audley Lord Chancellor of England is not Law scil where a man deviseth Lands to two and to their heirs they are not joynt-tenants as to the survivor but if one of them dieth the survivor shall not have the whole but the heir of his that dieth shall have the moyety See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 29. And he said That this Lease although it be for so many years is not a sale intended within the Will and so is not a Ioynture 46 E. 3. One was bounden that he should not alien certain Lands and the Obligor did thereof enfeoff his son and heir apparent the same was held to be no alienation within the Condition of the Obligation Of the other side it was argued The remainder doth not vest presently for it is incertain if it shall vest at all for if William dieth before he cometh to the age of 22 years it was conceived by him that the Remainder shall never vest for the words of the Will are Then the Lands shall remain c. 34 E. 3. Formedon 36. Land is devised to A. for life and if he be disturbed by the heir of the Devisor that then the Land shall remain to D. Here D. hath not any remainder before that A. be disturbed It was farther argued that here is a good Condition and that the Devisee is not utterly restrained from sale but onely untill a certain time scil to the age of William of 22 years And it was said that this Lease is a Covenous Lease being made for 240 years without any Rent reserved As such a Lease made for 100 years or 200 years is Mortmain as well as if it had been an express Feoffment or Alienation But it was said by some Antea 36 37. that here is not any sale at all nor any lease for the Lessor himself hath not any thing in the Land demised As if a man disseiseth a Feme sole and seaseth the Lands and afterwards marrieth the disseisee he shall avoid his own Lease 5 E 3. One was bound that he should not alien such a Manor the Obligor alieneth one Acre parcell of it the Obligation is forfeit See 29 H. 8. Br. Mortgage 36. A. leaseth to a religious house for 100 years and so from 100 years to 100 years untill 800 years be encurred the same is Mortmain Vide Stat. 7 E. 1. Colore termini emere vel vendere And in the principal Case if the Devisee had entred into a Statute to the value of the Land leased by the intent of the Will the same had been a sale and such was the opinion of the whole Court and by the Court the word in perpetuum shall not be referred to the words precedent but unto the words following scil in perpetuum perdat the Lands And if a custome be in the case that the Infant of the age of 15 years may sell his Lands if he make a Lease the same is not warranted by the custome And afterwards it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Lease made as before was a sale within the intent of the Will of the Devisor CXI Brooke 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench APpeal of Burglary was brought against Brooke who was found guilty and before Iudgment given the Plaintiff died And now Egerton moved that Iudgment should be given for the Queen upon that verdict or at least that the Declaration in the Appeal should be in lieu of an Indictment and that the Appealee be thereupon arraigned and put to answer the same For if the Appellant had been Nonsuit or released the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen Coke God hath now by the death of the party delivered the Defendant and it is not like where the Plaintiff releaseth for there it is the default of the Act of the party but here it is the Act of God and he held it for a rule That where auterfoits acquit is a good Plea there also auterfoits convict shall be a good Plea And it was holden in Sir Tho. Holcroft's Case Sir Thomas Holcroft's Case That where the party is convicted at the suit of the Queen there the Appeal doth not afterwards lie Wray If the Appellant dieth before Verdict the Defendant shall be arraigned at the suit of the King But if his life hath been once in jeopardy by Verdict he conceived that it shall not again be drawn into danger and some were of opinion that the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen upon the whole Record and plead auterfoits acquit and that they said was the surest way CXII Ognel and Paston 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer .. 1 Cro. 64. CLement Paston was Defendant in an Action of Debt brought against him by George Ognel upon an Escape and the Case was this Francis Woodhouse was bound in a Recognizance to the said Ognel Whereupon Ognel sued forth a Scire facias and upon two Nihils retorned had
also of Statutes We cannot deny but that we have Lands of the Conusor and of the Gift of the Conusor our Ancestor whose Heir we are who was indebted to the Queen and yet we are not within this Statute Was or shall be indebted shall not be intended after the Gift made for if he first convey his Land and afterwards becomes indebted the same is not within the Statute and where a mischief is to be remedied by a Statute the remedy in exposition of the Statute is to be applied according as the mischief doth require Shall be is to be intended of future Debts after the Statute and in our case the Father was not Receivor or other Officer to the Queen And if this Statute should be so construed the Father might take 10000 l. for the Marriage of his son and assurance of Lands unto him and then if he will acknowledge a Debt to the Queen he should defeat the whole which should be a very great mischief The words are By Gift after the Debt acknowledged to the Queen And he cited the Case 19 Eliz. Plow 191. betwixt Ludford and Gretton upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. the words of which are That whatsoever Warrant hereafter to the Chancellor of England addressed the day of the delivery of the same it be entred of Record in the Chancery and that the Chancellour make Letters Patents upon the same Warrants bearing date the day of the said delivery in the Chancery and not before and all Letters Patents made to the contrary shall be void And the Case was That a Warrant was directed to the Chancellour for the making of Letters Patents and delivered to him before the making of them but the day of the delivery was not entred of Record c. And it was holden that notwithstanding that the Letters Patents were good for the mischief at the Common Law intended to be reformed by that Act was not the post-dating of the Letters Patents but the ante-dating and therefore that ought to be principally taken into consideration which mischief being understood the words of the said Statute are to be applied to it ipsae etenim Leges cupiunt ut jure regantur i. with an Equity according to the Mischief and not always according to the precise words and in that case it is sufficient if the Letters Patents bear date after and not before the delivery of the Warrant and that was the matter intended to be reformed Also as our Case here is we are not within this Statute for the words are Of the Gift of his Ancestour but here the Son hath not the Lands of the Gift of his Ancestour but rather by the Statute of Vses and so he is in the Post and not in the Per by his Ancestour for here the Fine was levied to divers persons unto the Vses aforesaid and here the Gift was not a mere gratuity to his Son but in consideration that he should marry the Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston and also the Father was the King's Debtor after the Gift and not before Popham Attorney-General to the contrary The letter of the Statute is with us for he comes in of the Gift of his Ancestour who was indebted to the Queen and although that the Gift was by way of use yet the precedents in the Common-Pleas and other Courts are That he may declare of the Feoffment of such a one although it was by way of use and he said If A. be bound to enfeoff B. of such Lands if he maketh a Feoffment to the use of B. and his Heirs he hath well enough performed the Condition and if the Case should not be within the Statute then should that branch of the Statute be idle and to no purpose For if the Ancestour be seised and becometh indebted to the Queen and after makes a conveyance ut supra the same is provided for by the first branch of the Statute For the Land is liable to the Recognizance or Obligation made to the King and that they shall be as effectual as a Statute Staple and reason requires that the son who comes in by mere gratuity of his Ancestour should be charged And it was a common practice before the making of that Statute That the King's Officers would convey their Lands to their children and then become the King's Debtors for the remedy of which mischief the Statute was made and the Statute of 27 Eliz. doth not respect the Heir because he is Heir but as a purchasor onely and that upon good consideration Coke If any fraud can be found in our Case then without doubt we should be within the Statute but being upon good consideration it is out of the Statute nor was there any purpose in the father when he made the said Conveyance to become the King's Debtor or Officer to him for if there were then he is within the Statute also the Gift had been a mere gratuity c. And afterwards at another day the Case was moved by Coke and he said That here is not any Gift because it was in consideration of Marriage and then no gift for it is an old Proverb What is freer than gift Egerton The father giveth to his son and heir the same is within the Statute and yet here is consideration scil of blood Coke contrary Where the father giveth to his younger son or to his daughter which is not his heir and of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron And afterwards as Coke reported the son and his Lands were discharged CXV Amner and Luddington 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Error 3 Len. 89. 8 Co. 96. ERror was brought in the King's-Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. The Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased unto Pierpoint for ninety nine years who devised the same by his Will in this manner I bequeath to my Wife the Lease of my House during her life and after her death I will that it go amongst my Children unpreferred Pierpoint died his Wife entred and was possessed virtute legationis praedict and took Husband one Fulshurst against whom one Beswick recovered in an Action of Debt 140 l. upon which Recovery issued forth a Fieri facias and upon that a Venditioni Exponas upon which the Sheriff sold the said term so devised to one Reynolds Fulshurst died his Executor brought Error to reverse the Iudgment given against the Testator at the Suit of Beswick the Wife did re-enter and sold the Land and died Alice an unpreferred Daughter of Pierpoint did enter and upon that matter found by special Verdict in the Common-Pleas the entry of Alice was adjudged lawfull upon which Iudgment Error was brought in the King's-Bench And it was argued upon the words of the Devise because here the House is not devised but the Lease it self scil all his interest in the thing devised And it is not like unto the Case betwixt Welchden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plow 519.
upon the floor there so as vi ponderis it fell down To which the Defendant hath said That the walls were ruinous in occultis partibus and doth not answer to the surcharging scil Absque hoc that he did surcharge it Clark Baron It is a general Rule That every material thing alledged in the pleading ought to be traversed confessed and avoided which the Defendant hath not done here but he would excuse himself through the default of another and answer nothing to that with which he himself is charged And afterwards Iudgment was given in the Court of Exchequer for the Plaintiff Whereupon afterwards the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber where the Case was argued again But there the Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer was affirmed See this Case reported short in Popham's Reports lately published CXVII Linacre and Rhode 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Co. Rep. Blomfield's Case 3 Len. 230. THE Case was That Linacre was bound in a Statute and his body taken in Execution and the Sheriff voluntarily set him at large and afterwards the Conusee sued Execution of the Lands of the Conusor who thereupon brought an Audita Querela It was moved by Yelverton Serjeant That by that voluntary discharge of him by the Sheriff the whole Execution was discharged for the Execution is intire See 15 E. 4. 5. Where the Conusee in a Statute Merchant hath the body and lands of the Conusor in Execution and afterwards the Conusee surrendreth his Estate which he hath by Extent now the Execution of his body is discharged and the Conusor shall have a Scire facias or Audita Querela to discharge his body So if three Conusors be in Execution and the Conusee doth discharge one of them the same is a discharge of them all and in the principal Case the body is the principal and therefore the discharge of the principal part of the Execution is the discharge of the whole Hammon Where the Conusee himself dischargeth the Execution in part it is good for the whole but where discharged by the Sheriff Nihil operatur Anderson If the Conusor dieth in Execution yet the Conusee shall have Execution against his Heir of his land for the having of the body in Execution is not any satisfaction to the party for his body is but a pledge untill the money be paid and there is no reason that the act of the Sheriff should discharge the Execution Windham to the same intent And if the Conusee sueth Execution and hath the body of the Conusor in Execution this day he may the next day sue Execution of the lands and the next day after of the goods and if the Conusee doth discharge the body the whole Execution is discharged and it is true That if A. recovereth against B. in an Action of Debt and B. is taken by a Capias ad satisfaciendum and afterwards the Sheriff permitteth B. voluntarily to escape here B. is discharged although it be not the act of the party for there the Plaintiff had a full Execution which is not here for in Case of Execution upon a Statute-Merchant the Execution by the body is not the full Execution and therefore although the Sheriff hath discharged the body yet the Conusee may have Execution of the goods and lands but not of the body and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff That the Audita Querela did not lie and that Execution might be sued of the goods and lands but not of the body CXVIII Webbe and Mainard 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Ejectione firmae The Case was Walter Goldsmith seised of certain lands made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life and after to the use of John his eldest son in Fee Proviso That after his death his said son shall pay unto his younger son William 30 l. by 3 l. per ann at the Feast of St. Michael untill the entire sum be paid and if he fail of payment then to the use of the said William and his heirs Will. Goldsmith the Feoffor dieth the money is not paid but afterwards the said younger son makes an Acquittance and thereby acknowledgeth the Receipt of the said money according to the Proviso John dieth Now if the younger son may enter And first if the younger son be concluded by that Acquittance to say that the 30 l. was not paid And if he be not concluded Then if because that the words are but words of limitation the younger brother hath Title of Entry and then if this Entry be bound by the descent from John to his Heir or if John by continuance of the possession after the breach of the Proviso be a Dissesor or not were Questions propounded to the Court which the Court took time to consider of yet it was then said That the use was settled in William and the possession executed unto it but not such a possession upon which an Assise or Trespass lieth CXIX Willis and Jermine 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King's Bench. Rot. 647. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict 1 Cro. 167. Roll Tit. Estate 830. That the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Leased the Land where c. to Jermine rendering Rent to be paid at their Chapter-house at Exeter and for default of payment that such Lease shall be void and cease and that the said Jermine conveyed his interest to the Defendant and afterward the Rent was demanded at the Chapter-house but not paid and afterwards The Dean and Chapter by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary of Exeter where they are incorporate by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary in Exeter make an Indenture of Lease for forty years in their Chapter-house to Willis and thereunto put their seal in the Chapter-house and made a Letter of Attorney to another to enter and to make Livery of the said Deed which was done accordingly it was moved by Harris Serjeant That this Lease made in manner c. is not good for the Corporation is misnamed i. of Exeter for in Exeter but the Court disallowed that Exception for there is not any material variance and so it was said it hath been ruled And he said that for another cause the Lease is not good for when the Dean and Chapter in their Chapter-house make this Indenture of Lease Davis Rep. 42. and set their Chapter-seal to it It was their Deed presently without other delivery and then Jermine being in possession at the time of the putting of the seal to it they were out of possession thereof and so the new Lease void because they were not in possession at the time of the making of it for no delivery is necessary to the Deed of a Corporation but the date of the sealing of it makes it a perfect Deed and then the delivery of the same by the Attorney is of no effect Wiat to the
the Lessee entred 29 Sept. which is before the Term begins For the words of the Habendum are From the Feast of St. Michael therefore the Feast of St. Michael is no part of the Term and then was the Defendant a Disseisor and the day after the Term began which cannot alter his Estate but that he continueth a Disseisor and then he is not in by force of the said Lease and so no Rent can be due Williams As the Declaration is here the same is not any disseisin for the Plaintiff set forth in his Declaration That the Lessee the Defendant hath occupied the Land demised the whole year and so hath not admitted any Disseisin it being in his election to make it a Disseisin or not Clench Iustice Be it a Disseisin or not or be it that the Defendant entreth or not he is to pay the Rent Gawdy The Lessee is a Disseisor and continueth a Disseisor and yet Debt lieth against him for the Rent by reason of the privity of Contract which see Rysden's Case 24 H. 8. Dyer 5. And so in our Case Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXII Monings and Worley 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 561. Error IN Debt upon an Obligation brought by Mary Worley against Monings in the Common-Pleas The Condition was That if Mary Worley the Plaintiff in the said Action doth not depart out of the service of the Defendant without license of the Defendant Monings nor marry her self but with his consent Then if the Defendant shall pay to the said Mary within twenty eight days after demand by her made of Monings at his house at Waldersey 100 l. That then c. And the Defendant in the said Action pleaded That the said Mary the Plaintiff in the said Action 4 Maii 30 Eliz. departed out of his service without licence The Plaintiff Mary by Replication said That 6 Septemb. the same year she departed out of his service with licence and that 4 Octob. after she demanded the said 100 l. at Waldersey aforesaid and he refused to pay it Absque hoc that she departed out of his service 4 Maii 30 Eliz. without licence and the Writ bare date 18. of October next after the demand And it was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given for her in the Common-Pleas and now a Writ of Error is brought by Monings Tanfield The Iudgment ought to be reversed for always the Replication in such cases ought to contain sufficient Cause of Action and sufficient breach of the Condition or otherwise the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment although that the Issue be found for him as 7 E. 4. 31. In trespass for taking of goods of A. and B. A. pleads Not guilty B. justifies the Plaintiff makes Title to the goods by a gift B. traverseth the gift and it is found for him against the Plaintiff A. is found guilty Now although A. be found guilty yet the Plaintiff shall not have judgment against him for it is found that he hath not any Title to the goods As in Debt upon a Bond against A. and B. A. pleads Non est factum B. pleads the release of the Plaintiff and it is found the Deed of A. and that the Plaintiff hath released to B. the Plaintiff shall never have Iudgment for upon the Verdict it appears that he hath not cause of Action And here in the Replication there is not a sufficient breach shewed of the Condition for although that Mary hath not departed from the service of the said Defendant yet the same is not material but the Defendant had twenty eight days after the demand to pay the 100 l. but the same is not so here for the Plaintiff hath prevented the Defendant for the demand is alledged to be 4. Oct. and the Writ bears date 18. Octob. the same year and so the Defendant had not his time allowed him Gawdy The issue is taken upon the departure out of his service so as the demand is not now material and therefore the alledging of the same is surplusage and shall not hurt And the Defendant hath pleaded in Bar the departure of the Plaintiff out of his service upon which he relieth and the demand set forth in the Replication is not to be regarded as to prejudice the Plaintiff As 3 Ma. Dyer 115. Lessee for years covenants that he will not cut any Trees The Lessor assigns the breach of the Covenant in succidendo twenty Oaks The Lessee pleads that he did not cut the twenty Trees nor any of them The Iury found that the Defendant had cut down ten Trees The Plaintiff upon that Verdict shall have Iudgment for the rest is but surplusage and more put in issue than there needs to be Fenner It is not any full Plea to say That the Plaintiff did not depart out of the service of the Defendant 4 Maii for if she departeth at any other time she shall not recover for which cause she ought to have pleaded That she continued in his service untill such a day and then she departed with his licence and the inducement to the traverse ought to be sufficient matter otherwise it is not a full Plea nor the Traverse is not good And if it be surplusage yet if it be not matter against her self it makes the Plea naught which see 1 H. 7. 29. 6 H. 7. 16. Gawdy conceived that the Iudgment was well given for the Defendant was at his liberty to plead the departure of the Plaintiff without his licence or to stand upon the demand And now although he pleads the departure yet the demand is not confessed And afterwards the Iudgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas was affirmed CXXIII Bashpool 's Case 27 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was this The Father seised of Lands Stiles Rep. 148. is bound in an Obligation and deviseth his Lands to his Wife untill his Son cometh to the age of twenty one years the remainder to the Son in Fee and dieth and no other Lands descend or come to the Son from his Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in that case at his Election might wave the Devise and take by descent or è contra See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But Gawdy and Shute Iustices 3 Len. 118. were of opinion That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent Clench contrary CXXIV Bennet and Shortwright 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was 1 Cro. 206. The Defendant sued the Plaintiff in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in kind and now the Plaintiff prayed a Prohibition and suggested That they had used in the said Parish time out of mind c. to take the tenth Sheaf in satisfaction of Tythe of Corn c. and in those years in which the Plaintiff had supposed the subtraction of his Tythes he had severed the tenth Sheaf from the nine parts and the Parson would not take
And the Statute doth not respect the way of carriage but that altogether and to all intents it be the distance of four miles betwixt the place where c. and the said Town of Rye and here it is not material which is the common and usual way to Rye for carriages but the nearness of the place where c. Quomodocunque is the matter and therefore the Defendant ought to have pleaded That the place where c. is every way distant four miles from Rye and as to that that he hath answered four miles with 4000 paces the same is well enough for although he doth not answer the direct the words yet if he doth answer in effect it is well enough for 1000 paces and a mile are all one in substance Wray The distance shall be accounted the nearest way not as a Bird may fly CLII. Wellock and Hammon 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Co. 20. 1 Cro. 204 205. THis Case is reported by Sir Edw. Coke in his 3 Reports See the principal case there Here is a Limitation and not a Condition for if it should be a Condition it should descend to the Heir at the Common Law which is the Devisee and so shall be extinct in his person and then the restraint is of no effect for there shall be then no means to compell the Heir who hath the Land to pay the Legacies nor have the Legatories any remedy to compell the son to pay the Legacies which shall not have effect if it be not taken by way of Limitation and to that intent Scholasticas Case was cited 15 Eliz. Dyer 317. And this word paying in a Devise shall never be construed to be a Condition And it was holden by the Iustices That where a man deviseth lands to his younger son paying such a sum unto such the Devisee hath a Fee-simple and if he do not pay the monies accordingly his Estate shall determine by the same Limitation and shall go to the heir without any other limitation and the quantity of the monies be it great or small is not material And they were of opinion also that here the monies were not payable but upon request Coke 2 Cro. 56 57. 1 Roll 439. If a man be bound to perform Covenants and one Covenant is to pay Legacies there he needs not pay them without a demand But where one is expresly bounden to pay such a Legacy there he must pay it at his peril And he said That the Case 28 H. 8. Dyer 33. is not Law for there it is holden by Fitz-herbert and Baldwin That where land was devised unto the Prior and Convent of S. Barthol Ita quod reddant annuatim Decano Capitulo Sancti Pauli 5 l. and they fail of payment of it that their Estate shall cease and the Dean and Chapter c. shall have c. such conditions void And that upon one Fee-simple another Fee-simple cannot be limited For by Coke Common experience is otherwise That upon a Fee-simple determinable another Fee-simple may be limited which Gawdy Iustice granted And as to the principal Case Iudgment was given with the limitation CLIII Parker and Harrold 's Case Pasc 28 Eliz. Rot. 485. In the King 's Bench. 3 Len. 142. IN Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff and Defendant be now joyntly seised of the Office of the Register of the Court of Admiralty If the Defendant shall permit the Plaintiff to use the said Office and take the profits of it wholly to his own use during his life without lett or interruption done by him that then c. The Defendant Pleaded That the custome of the Realm of England is That the Lord Admiral for the time being might grant the said Office and that such grant should be good but for the life of the Grantor antea 103. and shewed farther That the Lord Clinton Lord Admiral granted the said Office unto the Plaintiff and the Defendant and died and that the Lord Howard was appointed Lord Admiral and that he 27 Eliz. granted the said Office to one Wade who ousted and interrupted him before which time the Defendant did suffer the Plaintiff to enjoy the said Office and to take the profits of it upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law Coke argued for the Plaintiff That the Plea of the Defendant is not good for he hath not entitled the Lord Admiral to grant the Office for he hath said That the custome of the Realm of England is and that cannot be good for it cannot be tried for a Visne cannot be from the Realm of England Also if it lie through all the Realm then the same is Common Law and not custome which see Br. Custome 59. and see 4 5 Ph. Ma. 152 153. an express Case of the same Office and there he prescribed Per consuetudinem in Curia c. and also that such grant is good but during the life of the Admiral who granteth it Also he doth not answer to any time after the grant of the Admiral Howard for if we were lawfully put out by Wade yet the Defendant against his Bond shall not put us out or interrupt us As 5 E. 4. 115. In a Quare Impedit against an Abbat and the Incumbent who make default upon the distress upon which a Writ was awarded to the Bishop for the Plaintiff upon which the Bishop retorned That the Incumbent had resigned of which he hath given notice to the Prior and lapse incurred and the Bishop collates the former Incumbent and then this Writ came to him Now although the Incumbent be in by Title yet he is bound by the Iudgment So here although the Defendant hath another Title and the former Title of the Plaintiff be determined yet against his own Bond and Deed he shall not put out the Plaintiff c. And the Court was clear of opinion That Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff but afterwards the Cause was compounded by order of the Lord Chancellour CLIII Bedel's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was 3 Len. 159. That A. leased to B. certain Lands for 40 l. per ann and a stranger covenanted with A. that B. should pay unto him the 40 l. for the Farm and occupation of the said Lands A. brought an Action of Covenant the Defendant pleaded That before the day of payment the Plaintiff ousted B. of his Farm It was moved by Godfrey that it was no Plea because this is a collateral sum and not for Rent issuing out of Land Also the Defendant is a stranger to the Contract for the Farm But the opinion of the Court was to the contrary for the Defendant hath covenanted that the Lessee shall pay for the said Farm and occupation 40 l. so it is as a conditional Covenant and here is Quid pro Quo and here the consideration upon which the Covenant is conceived scil the Farm and the occupation
Covenant wherein the breach was assigned was That if R. W. Brother of the Plaintiff should say Make assurance of such a Manor to the Defendant as the Council learned of the said Defendant should advise Then if the Defendant pays unto the Plaintiff 50 l. the Obligation to be void The Defendant by advice of Council demanded a Release with Warranty c. And by Periam and Windham The same is not any Assurance but a means to recover in value Anderson contrary That it was a Collateral Warranty c. CLXXIII Cropp and Hambleden 's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 48. IN Trespass by Cropp against Erasmus Hambleden upon the special Verdict the Case was That one Martin Hastings was seised of the lands where c. in the right of his wife for the life of the wife and that they both did Lease unto the Defendant for years rendring Rent payable at the Feast of S. Michael and the Feast of the Annunciation c. with clause of re-entry if the Rent be behind by a Month after any of the said Feasts and after the feast of S. Michael 26 Eliz. and before the Month expired the Lessee the now Defendant sent his servant unto the house of the Lessor for to pay to him the Rent then due the servant went unto the house of the Lessor and there asked for him to whom it was answered by one Mary Briggs daughter of the wife of the Lessor who there dwelt in the said house with her mother that the Lessor was not at home for which the said servant delivered the said Rent to the said Mary requiring her to deliver the same over to the Lessor upon his retorn to the house in the name of his servant Mary reserved the said Rent and upon the retorn of the Lessor at his house told him all the matter aforesaid and that the servant of the Lessor the Defendant had required her to tender the said Rent to the Lessor in the name of the Defendant and thereupon offered and tendered to him the said Rent and the Lessor refused it And the Iury found That the third half year before the tender mentioned before the Lessor commanded the said Mary to receive the Rent then due who did accordingly and that the next half year then following the said Mary did receive the said Rent without commandment of the Lessor but after the Lessor agreed unto it and that the immediate half year before this tender in question the Defendant paid the Rent then due to the Lessor himself who received it And it was the opinion of Wray chief Iustice that this tender was good and it is not like unto the case of an Obligation for there the Obligee cannot have an Action of Debt before the last day but here the Lessor might have distrained or have had an Action of Debt before the Month expired and so the Lessor is bound by this tender and by Gawdy Iustice This tender cannot be said a tender by a stranger for here Mary came in privity of the servant of the Lessee and as it is found by Verdict Mary tendered it to the Lessor as being requested by the servant of the Lessee And afterwards upon consideration had betwixt the Iustices themselves the Iustices viz. Clench Gawdy and Wray for Shute was then sick it was clearly resolved against the Plaintiff and that the said tender as it is found in the Verdict is a good and sufficient tender and the Lord Wray delivered the reason as before and farther said That if the said Rent had been reserved payable at the feasts aforesaid or within a Month after each of them there the tender as above had not been good nor should bind the Lessor for in such case the Lessor could not distrain or have an Action of Debt for the said Rent before the Month expired And this is a case of extremity and deserves no favour and here is no mischief to the Lessor for he might have had his Rent in due time if he would and his captious refusal shall not avail him And Iudgment was given accordingly CLXXIV Bostock and Covert 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas BOstock and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Covert son and heir of her former Husband who pleaded That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of Lands amounting to the number of 300 Acres and held the same by Knights-service and died seised after whose death by virtue of the Statute of 34 and 32 H. 8. he entred into 100 Acres of the said Lands as the third part of the said Lands descended and held the same in severalty being the third part of the clear yearly value of the whole discharged of a Dower and that the Wife ought to have all her Dower out of the two parts devised And Anderson said That the Plea was not good for the heir who will take advantage of the Statute in that point ought to enter generally as Tenant in common with the Devisee and then in a Writ of Dower it is a good Plea so if after his entry as Tenant in common Partition be made betwixt him and the Devisee such a Plea is good but here he hath entred severally into a third part distinct from the residue and so hath ousted the Devisee of a third part severally for which cause he cannot have advantage of this Plea To which the rest of the Iustices Non contradixerunt CLXXV Sir John Southwel 's Case Pasch 37 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 147. SIR John Southwel of the County of Lancaster 7 Julii 19 Eliz. made a Conveyance of his Lands to divers Feoffees and their Heirs upon condition that they should find him and his Wife and so many persons in his house c. prefer his Daughters in marriage pay his debts c. And if there fell out at the years end upon accompt made by the Feoffees any surplusage that then at the end of every such year they should answer such surplusage as should then remain in their hands unexpended of the Rents and profits of his said Lands with clause of revocation c. Afterwards the said Conveyance being in force came the Statute of 23 Eliz. concerning Recusants upon which Statute the said Southwel is now endicted and afterwards upon a Commission issuing out of the Exchequer to the Sheriff of Lancaster to enquire of the Lands of the said Southwel although against the said Conveyance it was given in Evidence That after the said Conveyance the said Sir John Southwel had granted Trees from off the said Lands and had received Fines and Incomes for Leases c. yet the Iurors charged to enquire would not find that the said Sir John Southwel had any Lands c. And by special command from the Queen it was referred out of the Exchequer to all the Iudges of England If the Lands of the said Sir John Southwel conveyed as aforesaid were subject to the said
in fact so as he might have an Assise or an Action of Trespass Antea 210 1 Cro. 920. Ow. 96. So the Law is now taken A. deviseth his Lands to B. and dieth and a stranger entreth and dieth seised before any Entry by the Devisee now is the Devisee without remedy And here in our Case the Intruder hath not gained any possession in the Lands by his intrusion no more than if the King gives Lands to one in Fee and before the Patentee enters a stranger enters now cannot the Patentee grant it over if he doth not reduce the Estate by Entry See Dyer 9 and 10 Eliz. 266. P. 20 Eliz. in Curia Ward Garbery's Case acc The Queen seised of the Manor of Beverley a stranger erected a Shop in a vacant plat of the Manor and afterwards took the profits of it without paying any Rent for the same to the Queen and afterwards the Queen granted the Manor to the Earl of Leicester and he never entred into the said Shop nor took any Rent for the same and afterwards the Occupier of the Shop died in possession and his Son and Heir entred and the better opinion was that the same was not a descent against the Patentee because at the first it was not a disseisin against the Queen Another Question was moved as to a path-way then in question And the Iury found that one side of the path-way was the Land of the Parson of the Church and the other side the Church-yard and prayed the opinion of the Court therein to whom the interest of the path-way did belong to which it was said by the Court That that ought to be found by the Verdict For although that both be the Freehold of the Parson yet the soil of the path-way might be conveyed by an express Grant unto another But the Court seemed to incline that the soil of the path-way did belong to him who had the Lands on both sides and that is the Case as well of a high-way as of a path-way And it is also good Evidence to prove such matter Who hath used to cut down the Trees or to cleanse the way CLXXXIII Wiseman 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Court of Wards 6 Co. Weeden Baldwin's Case IN the Court of Wards before the Lord Treasurer Master of the Wards Wray chief Iustice Anderson and Periam Assistants to him the Case was That Wiseman was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service in Capite had issue by a former Wife who died and made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of her who should be his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of himself and of his issue of the body of such Wife to be begotten the remainder over Wiseman took a Wife and had issue and died If now living the Wife the issue shall be in Ward was the question It was argued by Coke That he shall not be in Ward And first it was agreed of both sides and also by the Iustices That it was a remainder and not a reversion and that at the Common Law the descent of a remainder during the Estate for life doth not entitle the King unto Wardship and there we are to see if upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. the last branch of it where two or more persons hold any Lands of the King by Knights-service jointly to them and the heirs of one of them and he that hath the Inheritance thereof dieth his heir being within age in every such Case the King shall have the Ward and marriage of the body of such heir so being within age the life of the Freeholder or Freeholders of such Lands notwithstanding See 33 H. 6. 14. That the father to prevent Wardship may alien and take to him and his son and the heirs of the father which mischief was intended to be remedied by the said Statute But these words shall not in construction thereof extend farther than the words especially because they cross the Common Law and go to charge the Inheritance of others and therefore they shall be taken strictly and not by equity as the Statute of West 2. cap. 40. Cum quis alienat jus uxoris suae concordat est Quod de cetero secta mulieris aut ejus haeredis non differatur propter minorem aetatem haeredis qui warrantizare debuit that Statute is taken strictly for if the Vouchee voucheth over the second Vouchee shall have his age Quod vide 18 E. 4. 16. Also the Stat. of West 1. enacts That where the Disseisor dieth seised the Disseisee shall have his Writ upon the Disseisin against the heir of the Disseisor of what age soever he be So the heirs of the Disseisee yet it is holden 9 E. 3. If the Disseisor leaseth for life and dieth and the Lessee be impleaded and makes default after default upon which the heir of the Disseisor prayeth to be received being within age he shall have his age notwithstanding the said Statute which shall be taken strictly because it controlls the Common Law and chargeth the Inheritance of the Subject So upon the Statute of West 1. cap. 39. That none shall vouch out of the line upon that Statute although the Tenant to the Action against whom the Praecipe is brought is bound by the Statute yet Tenant by receit is at large and he may vouch at the Common Law 2 H. 7. 2. 16 H. 7. 1. for these Statutes go in abridgment of the Common Law and therefore shall be taken strictly Now according to this Statute it is of the same nature as the other before remembred and therefore shall not be extended in construction beyond the Letter As Sir Rowland Hill's Case Grandfather father and son the grandfather seised of Land ut supra makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the son in Fee The grandfather dieth the father dieth the son shall not be in Ward Causa qua supra For this Statute shall not be construed by equity and by it the words thereof Preferment of children shall not extend unto the childrens children but to the children onely of the King's Tenant who makes the Conveyance And the words in this Statute or otherwise shall not be intended to other persons than are remembred in the Statute There was a Case late where the Statute was construed in such a manner Quod vide 18 Eliz. 345. Thornton's Case A Lady seised of Lands in chief made Conveyance of her Lands for the advancement of her bastard-daughter the same Conveyance is not within the Statute See also the Lord Powes's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. So in the Case of Sir Hugh Calverley the Law was taken That where the Husband dieth seised in the right of his Wife and they levy a Fine unto the use of the Husband and Wife for the advancement of the Husband such Conveyance and disposition is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Popham contrary And as to
the Case of making this Statute it was not to overthrow a foundation as it hath been said but it was rather a gratuity of the Subjects to the King for his bounty towards them for whereas by the Statute of Vses Vses were executed in possession so as the Subjects could not dispose of their Lands by their Wills as before the Vses Now by this Statute the King was pleased to give his Royal assent to an Act by which Lands might become devisable in respect of which the Subjects added to this Act the last clause to give him Wardship where it did not lie before by the Common Law and that as a recompence from the Subjects for the King's bounty and therefore it ought to be construed beneficially for the King. And to prevent covin and fraud was not the scope of this Statute For if three purchase Lands unto them and to the heirs of two of them now it is uncertain whose heirs shall inherit for non constat which of them shall survive and therefore no covin is averrable in such case and yet if the survivor of two to whom the Fee is limited dieth his heir within age such heir shall be in Ward So if such Lands be given to two and to the heirs of him of those two who shall first come to the Church of Paul Now it is uncertain which of them shall first come to the Church of Paul yet if he who first cometh to the Church of Paul dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward which Cases prove that covin and fraud were not the cause of making this Statute but onely the thankfulness of the Subjects unto the King for his bounty as abovesaid for if this Act had not been made the Subjects should not have power to dispose of their Lands for the advancement of their children but all should descend So as now the King hath lost the Wardship and Primer seisin of two parts of the Lands of his Tenant and hath also lost the averment of covin which he had by the Common Law where Estates were made by the King's Tenant for advancement of their children In respect of which losses the Subjects gave unto the King Wardship in case where the Lands continue in jointure as to that which hath been said That this Statute shall not be taken by equity I conceive the contrary the words of the Statute are In every such case i. e. In every like case not onely where two or more persons hold jointly to them and the heirs of one of them but also in every the like Case as the Case now in question and in every Case where the life of him who hath the Freehold is the sole impediment quo minus the heir hath not the Land by descent in Demesne And it may be resembled unto the Statute of Marlbridge of Collusion which speaks of Leases for years Quas tradere voluerint ad terminum annorum and yet a Lease for life or Lease for years is within the said Statute for the Statute was made in restraint of an ill liberty that the Tenants had by the Common Law in prejudice of their Lords which see 4 E. 6. 53. Plow 59. And as to the word otherwise that may be construed for payment of his Legacies And as to equity enlarging the Statute speaks where many hold and to the heirs of one yet if two hold to them and the heirs of one of them the same is within the Statute And as to Equity restraining he puts this case Land is given to the Husband and Wife and the heirs of the body of the Wife who have issue the Wife dieth the issue within age he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute but because that other matter That the Estate for life in the Husband is an impediment Quo minus he shall be in Ward It is a maxim of the Common Law That the father shall have the Wardship of the son and heir apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within the Letter of the Statute So if Lands be given to my Villain and to another and to the heirs of my Villain who dieth seised his heir within age I seise the Villain and claim the remainder he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute But I conceive in our Case the King shall have two Wards Simul semel the heir general of Wiseman and the issue in tail the heir general by the Common Law by reason that his father was the King's Tenant who disposed of his Lands for the advancement of his children and therefore the Queen shall have the third part in Ward And also the heir special shall be in Ward for that part of the Statute And it is no new thing to have two Wardships for one and the same Lands As 14 H. 8. of the heir of Cestuy quae use and also of the Feoffee and if the Tenant dieth seised having issue a daughter who is his heir the Lord seiseth the daughter and marrieth her and afterwards a son is born he shall have the Wardship also of him So of the heirs of the Disseisor and Disseisee and he said If Lands holden in chief be leased for life the remainder to A. in Fee A. dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward and that by reason of these words in the Statute In every such case it is not the same Case but the like Case for if he who hath the Fee dieth so as the Freehold survives to the other now the Estate becomes as an Estate for life the remainder over It was adjourned CLXXXIV The Lord Howard and the Town of Walden 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer More Rep. 159. Post 162 163. BEtwixt the Lord Howard and the Town of Walden the Case was That the King made a Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster Tenend in feodi forma reddend inde sibi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. The question was How and of whom the Tenure should be It was argued by Plowden That it should be holden of the King as of his Dutchy he said The King is not bounden by the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum but here upon this Feoffment the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy All Grants of the King notwithstanding that they be of Lands yet they savour of the person of the King and his Prerogative being wrapt up in his person shall guide the disposition of the land and he said that this Tenure shall be implyed by reason and in respect of his person And the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum extends to Tenants onely Libere tenentes magnatum aliorum but the King is not Libere tenens alicujus magnat 32 H. 6. 21 22. The King hath an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy to which
being void he presents he may repeal his presentment and he vouched divers presidents of Grants of the King of such lands to hold of him as of his Dutchy and sometimes of others And the King by his Dutchy seal may give lands in Mortmain and the King under his Dutchy-seal hath made divers Corporations within his Dutchy And although this Rent be a new thing never parcel of the Dutchy yet because it is issuing out of the Dutchy lands and reserved thereout shall be of the same nature and accounted parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy If before the Statute of West 3. one seised of lands on the part of his mother made a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services and died the Seignory should go to the heir on the part of his mother and should be descendable as the land it self in lieu of which it came And if Tenant in tail now after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the Statute rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be expounded such heirs which are inheritable to the land according to the entail Manwood chief Baron Demanded of Plowden this Question The King makes a Feoffment in Fee of lands of his Dutchy Is the same a matter of Record who answered yes Manwood Truely no for then there needed not any livery Egerton Solicitor argued to the contrary and he argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. and 1 H. 7. of the separation of the Dutchy of Lancaster from the Crown which see in the Comment 215. in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster by which Acts the possessions of the Dutchy were devested out of the body Politick of the King and vested in his body natural and are as their corporal holding in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster being a Subject who if he had made a Feoffment the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King Ergo so shall it be in the case where the King himself makes a Feoffment and he cited a Case put in the end of the Dutchy Case 4 Eliz. 223. The Queen made a Feoffment of lands of the Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of her in Capite the Feoffee shall hold of her in Capite as of her Crown of England The case went farther the King after this Feoffment granteth the Fee-farm the Question is If the Rent reserved upon this Feoffment shall pass by such grant or not and he said That this Rent is not parcel of the Fee-farm but rather a collateral charge upon the land for in all cases where there is a Tenure expressed in fait or implyed in Law there the rent reserved after shall not be parcel of the Tenure but a Rent in gross by it self As in our case Tenend in feod firm makes a Tenure therefore the Reddend after shall not make the sum reserved parcel of it 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dominis Capital rendring the rent of 20 l. that Rent is a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Tenure King E. 6. granted to Cranmer Archbishop and his heirs Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's-fee Reddend 6 l. per ann Cranmer in Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of his son in tail the remainder to the use of the right heirs of Cranmer made a Fee who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder to his right heirs Escheats to the King and so the Seignory is extinct but it was adjudged That the Rent was in esse and not extinct by the Escheat of the remainder for it was not parcel of the Seignory So here in our case Another matter was moved If this Rent being a new thing created de novo and not parcels of the possessions of the Dutchy 1 H. 4. nor 1 H. 7. shall be accounted in Law in the right of the Crown or of the Dutchy and if of the Crown then it cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal and the Statute of 1 H. 4. speaks of such Lands and Tenements which were to his Ancestors Dukes of Lancaster but this Rent never was in them c. and the Queen cannot enlarge the possessions of her Dutchy by her own Act and therefore if J. S. being Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat and saith that he holdeth for life the remainder to the King in Fee in the right of his Dutchy now this remainder is vested in the King in the right of his Crown and not in the right of his Dutchy for it is onely an Estoppel So the Villein of the King in the right of his Dutchy purchaseth lands the King seiseth he shall have the lands in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy If the King giveth Common out of his lands parcel of his Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee of the lands out of which the Common is granted and afterwards the Commoner dieth without heir the King shall have the same in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy So although the rent doth follow the nature of the lands out of which it is issuing yet it is not so to all intents and he said That by the Statute of 2 3 Phil. Ma. the King could not enlarge the possessions of the Dutchy and therefore by the said Act authority is given for to annex possession unto the Dutchy by Letters Patents And there is another clause in the said Statute That if any part of the possessions of the Dutchy have been aliened or granted unto any subject and are reverted to the Crown by Escheat attainder forfeiture purchase c. they shall be deemed and accepted parcel of the Dutchy which case proves That if the King makes a Feoffment of such lands the same is a Tenure in chief for if it were a Tenure of the Dutchy then upon Escheat it should be parcel of the Dutchy again without the help of that Statute Now this Rent being a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Seignory Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus successoribus suis aut Domino aut Dominis feodi when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it hath been moved that it was in the Election of the Feoffee to pay the Rent to the King or to the Lord Audley but that is not so for although the Law be so betwixt Subjects yet in case of the King it is otherwise for the King shall never be over-reached by an Election and therefore he shall pay the Rent to the King. It was adjourned CLXXXV The Executors of Sir William Cordel and Clifton 's Case Hill. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 59. THE Case was The Earl of Westmerland seised of a Manor whereof the Demeans were usually let for three lives by Copy
the Defendant Non parit actionem for there is not any consideration upon which it is conceived but is onely Nudum pactum upon which the Defendant could not have an Action against the Plaintiff And then here is not any sufficient consideration for the promise of the Defendant Mounson Iustice conceived that here the consideration is sufficient for here this counter promise is a reciprocal promise and so a good consideration for all the communication ought to be taken together Manwood Such a reciprocal promise betwixt the parties themselves at the match is sufficient for there is consideration good enough to each as the preparing of the Bows and Arrows the riding or coming to the place appointed to shoot the labour in shooting the travel in going up and down between the marks But for the Bettors by there is not any consideration if the Bettor doth not give aim Mounson A cast at Dice alters the property if the Dice be not false wherefore then is there not here a reciprocal Action Manwood At Dice the parties set down their monies and speak words which do amount to a conditional gift scil If that the other party cast such a cast he shall have the money CLXXXVIII Dunne 's Case 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DUnne possessed of divers goods in divers Dioceses died intestate at Bristow The Bishop of Bristow committed administration to Jones and his Wife who administred and afterwards the Bishop of Canterbury by reason of his Prerogative committed administration to Austen and Dunne and they brought an Action of Trespass against Jones and his Wife for taking of the goods of the intestate It was holden by Wray and Southcote 5 Co. 2 30. 1 Cro. 283. 457. that the Letters of administration granted by the Bishop of Bristow were void Gawdy and Jeofreys contrary for the granting of Letters of Administration de mero jure doth belong to the Ordinary and it might be that neither the Ordinary nor the parties to whom he granted the Letters of Administration had notice that the Intestate had bona notabilia in another Diocese and therefore it should be hard to make the Defendants Trespassors Exception was taken to the Declaration because it is shewed that the Archbishop of Canterbury by reason of his Prerogative committed Administration c. without shewing that the Intestate had bona notabilia c. but the Exception was not allowed for so are all the precedents as the Declaration is here which all the Clerks in Court did affirm and afterwards Exception was taken to the Bar because it is there pleaded that the Defendant had paid a certain sum of Money to one A. to whom the Intestate was indebted by Bond and did not shew how the Bond was discharged as by Release Acquittance cancelling of the Bond c. And that was holden to be a material Exception For the Defendants in such case ought to shew such discharge which is sufficient and by which the Plaintiffs may be discharged and for that cause the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXIX Kingwell and Chapman 's Case 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond by Kingwell against Chapman 1 Cro. 10. The Defendant pleaded that it was endorsed upon condition That where divers debates were betwixt the Plaintiff and one J. Brother of the Defendant the said Plaintiff and J. put themselves to the award of one Copston and the Defendant was bound by Bond to the Plaintiff that his brother should perform the award of the said Copston And the award was That the said J. should pay to the Plaintiff 30 l. viz. at the Feast of the Annunciation 20 l. and at Michaelmas after 10 l. and shewed that the said J. had paid the said 20 l. at the Annunciation and as to the 10 l. he pleaded That the said J. died before the said Feast of Michaelmas upon which there was a demurrer And by Wray Southcote and Gawdy Iustices the Bond is forfeit First because the sum awarded by the Arbitrament is now become a duty as if the condition of the Bond had been for the payment of it Secondly day is appointed for the payment of it 10 H. 7. 18. Thirdly the Executors cannot perform the condition But if I be bound by Bond to enfeoff the Obligee at such a day and before the said day I die my Executors shall not be charged with it for the Condition is become impossible by the Act of God for the Land is descended to the heir CXC Lodge 's Case 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Syderf Rep. 362. LOdge an Attorney of the Common-Pleas was indebted unto Booth in 34 l. payable at a day to come and Booth was indebted to Diggs in 40 l. Diggs according to the custome of London attached in the hands of Lodge 34 l. to be paid to him at the day as part of his debt of 40 l. Lodge brought a Bill of Privilege directed to the Mayor and Sheriff of London and that every person who had cause of Action against Lodge Sequatur ad Com. Legem c. Si sibi videbitur expedire c. At the retorn of which Writ Bendloes prayed a Procedendo And by Harper Iustice the privilege shall not be allowed because that this Attachment is by custome and not allowable here and if Lodge should have the privilege then is the other party without remedy And if an Attorney of this place be impleaded in London upon a Concessit solvere debit alterius he shall not have the privilege Manwood contrary For according to the Common Law Lodge owed nothing to Diggs but is his Debtor by a custome And as to the Case of Concessit solvere there the promise was to the party himself who brought the Action and he hath no other remedy but in the Case at Bar Diggs who is a stranger vexes Lodge who ows him nothing having remedy against his proper Debtor which Dyer granted and farther said That the privilege of this Court ought not to be impeached by any custome And the Prothonotaries cited a Case adjudged in the point That such a privilege was allowed in the Case of one Underhil and afterwards in the principal Case the privilege was allowed CXCI. Segar and Bainton 's Case 21 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 3 Len. 74. IN an Action of Trespass the Case was That King Hen. 8. an 27. of his reign gave the Manor of D. to Sir Edw. Bainton Knight and to the heirs males of his body Sir Edw. Bainton had issue Andrew his eldest son and the now Defendant his younger son and died Andrew Bainton covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore That the said Andrew Bainton would assure the said Manor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the use of the said Lord and his heirs and the said Lord in recompense thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Bainton in tail
Case 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dom. Capital Feod c. Reddend 10 s. Rent here because that the Tenure was reserved Capital Dom. feodi illius this Rent reserved is not parcell of the Tenure but a Rent in gross King Edward the sixth gave certain Lands to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's Fee Reddend inde 6 l. per ann Cranmer made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail the remainder to the right heirs of Cranmer who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder in Fee escheated to the King by which the Seignory is gone But it was adjudged that notwithstanding that escheat the Rent did remain for the Rent was not parcel of the Seignory Now this Rent being a thing newly created and not parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy in 1 H. 4. nor ever descended from any Ancestor of the King being Duke of Lancaster shall be accounted to be in the King in the right of his Crown and so cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal See the said Statute of 1 H. 4. and the King cannot enlarge the said Dutchy nor the possessions thereof beyond the possessions which were of the Dutchy at the time of the making of the said Acts As if J. S. seised in Fee is impleaded and he saith that he holds the Lands in demand for life the remainder to the King in the right of his said Dutchy now the said remainder is vested in the King not in the right of the said Dutchy but in the right of his Crown The Villain of the King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster purchaseth Lands the King seizeth he shall be seised thereof in the right of his Crown and not of the Dutchy The King grants Common out of certain Lands parcel of his said Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the said Lands to another the Grantee of the Common dieth without heir so as the Common escheats to him now he shall have the Common in the right of the Crown and not of the Dutchy so although it is said That the Rent shall follow the nature of the Land out of which c. yet the same is but to some intents and not to every intent See the Statute of 2 and 3 Phil. Ma. cap. 20. by which it is enacted That all the Lands which have been granted or severed from the Dutchy to any person or persons and after such grant have come or reverted to the King in possession reversion or remainder or otherwise by attainder escheat forfeiture c. shall for ever be united to the said Dutchy and shall be adjudged and esteemed as part and member of the same which proves that such Lands were not holden of the King as Duke of Lancaster but as King for if they had been holden of the Dutchy upon the escheat they should be parcel of the Dutchy again without help of that Statute See the special Reservation Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet c. Now when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it was in the Election of the Ter-tenant to whom he would pay the Rent if it had been in the Case of a common person but it is otherwise in the Case of the King As if A. holdeth of two several Lords by owel Feoffment and dieth his heir within age the Lord which first gets the Ward shall have him but in the Case of the King it is otherwise Plowden The King is not bound by the Statute of West 3. But in this Case in the making of this Feoffment with this Tenend Reddend the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy for all grants of the King savour of the person of the King and then his Prerogative wrapt in the person shall guide the same and see the Statute of West 3. extends to all who make Feoffments Tenend de Feoffatoribus but the King is not Tenant to any one And if the King be seised of an Advowson in the right of his Dutchy and the same becomes void and the King presents to the same he may repeal his presentation and he vouched divers precedents of Patents made to many great Lords to hold of the Dutchy and also to hold of others And the King by his Dutchy-seal may give Lands in Mortmain And he argued That this Rent although newly created yet in so much as it came and accrued in respect of the Land which was parcell of the Dutchy it should be accounted also parcel of the Dutchy as if before the Statute of West 3. A. seised of Lands in Fee of the part of his father makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services c. the same Seignory shall go to the heirs of the part of the father in lieu of which the Seignory is come Tenant in tail after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the said Act rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be intended heirs in tail It was adjourned CXCVIII. Forster and Walker 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione firmae by Foster against Walker the Case was 3 Cro. 106. Shepherd's Touch-stonâ— of Conveâ—…ances 416. That Richard Meager was seised of a house in London and 6 E. 6. he devised the same to his Wife for life the remainder to John his son in tail the remainder to the Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors in London and died the Wife entred and died John died The Master Wardens and Commonalty of the Cordwaynors entred and leased the Plaintiff upon whom the heir general of the Devisor did enter The onely question was inasmuch as the Cordwaynors of London are incorporated by the name of Master and Wardens and Commonalty of Cordwaynors If this devise made to them by the name of Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors of London be good or not It was argued by Daniel that the Devise by the manner was good enough and he insisted much upon the favour which the Law gives to Wills and to Legatees in the Devises and construction of them even in Devises and Grants to Corporations and as to Grants to Corporations he cited the Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Decanus Capitulum sanctae individuae Trinit and they make a Lease leaving out these words sanctae individuae and yet held the Lease was good notwithstanding that for the words left out are not words of substance of the name but for the beauty and ornament of it But in the Case of Devise if the name be mistaken in matter of substance yet if upon the Devise the intent of the Devisor sufficiently appeareth it is good enough for the intent of the Devisor shall guide the Devise and
against a general Statute of which every one ought to take notice Periam When the Case was in the Common Pleas it was moved If of a sentence given by the high Commissioners an Appeal did lie and it was certified by Clark Doctor of the civil Law that it did for the Commissioners are as the Delegates of the Queen And as by the Canon Law one might appeal from the Delegates of the Pope unto the person of the Pope so now one may appeal from the high Commissioners to the person of the Queen See for that 24 H. 8. 12. Another Error was assigned because that the Commission gave authority to the Commissioners to adjudge upon confession of the party or upon the witnesses but here none of these two ways is found by the Verdict but sentence was given upon his Plea That he was sued in the Arches for the same cause and so they have not pursued their authority for the Act is That such Commissioners shall have authority by vertue of the said Act and of the said Letters Patents to exercise c. And they are directed by the Letters Patents that they shall proceed upon due proof had by confession or true witness to give sentence Periam Although they have not observed the due form prescribed unto them by the Letters Patents yet such sentence is not void Anderson If the party appeareth and will not answer it shall be taken pro confesso and he shall be condemned CCXVII Sir John Sand 's and Packsal Brocas 's Case Trin. 38 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIR John Sands brought an Action upon the Case against Packsal Brocas upon a Trover of goods and houshold-stuff The Defendant pleaded as to parcel that they were fixed to his Freehold in S. in Hampshire Absque hoc that he found them in other manner as to the part that the Plaintiff gave them to him at D. in Hampshire and as to the other part he pleaded Not guilty For the first part the Plaintiff caused it to be entred Non vult ulterius prosequi and took issue upon the two other and it was found for the Plaintiff by several Iuries in several Counties and damages and costs assessed by the Iuries and now the Defendant brought Error and assigned Error i. because the Plaintiff as to the first had entred Non vult ulterius prosequi which is a Non-suit and Non-suit in part is Non-suit in all Anderson It is a Question if this be a Non-suit The entry is Querens venit gratis concessit that as to the goods mentioned in the first Pleas Non vultulterius prosequi Ideo consideratum est quod nihil de iisdem versus the Defendant fiat est ille pleg in miseric the Defendant eat inde sine die Periam A Non-suit is when the Plaintiff is demanded and doth not appear but when he comes into Court and saith Quod non vult ulterius prosequi the same is a Retraxit Nelson Prothonotary Non-suit is upon default but here the Plaintiff appears and this is the usual form of entry of a Retraxit Another Error was assigned because both Iuries have assessed costs and Iudgment given according whereas the last Verdict ought to do it And where two Iuries are to try the issue the form of the entry after the first Verdict is Cesset executio untill the other issue be tryed Vid. 21 H. 6. 51. 36 H. 6. 13. Anderson Several issues cannot sever the costs although they may the damages for it is but one suit therefore but one costs and that is the reason that Iudgment shall not be given untill the last issue be tryed because that costs shall be but once assessed which was granted by the whole Court And by Periam The first Iury may assess costs for the whole suit Quod fuit concessum Coke Here are several Iudgments for the costs and although it be void for the later issue yet it is good for the first Periam How shall it appear unto us which Verdict was the first and which the last although that the one Verdict be entred of Record before the other the same doth not make that it was first given wherefore the whole shall be reversed CCXVIII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 224. A Man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his first son and his heirs The father and the Feoffees before issue for money by Deed give grant and enfeoff J. S. and his heirs who hath not notice of the use The Tenant for life hath issue and dieth the issue entreth Glanvile The use limited to the first son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and that the same is gone by their Livery See Plowden's Com. 340. And also he vouched the case of the Earl of Kent whereby the release of the surviving Feoffee a sleeping use was destroyed and could not afterwards be revived Harris The use may rise without entry of the Feoffees And he put a difference between uses created before the Statute and uses created after for in the first case they ought to enter and if they be disabled by any Act as in the case betwixt Gascoign and the Earl of Kent they shall never rise but in the later case all the authority and confidence is by the Statute out of the Feoffees and the uses contingent shall rise without aid of the Feoffees by the operation of the Law for the land is bound to the uses and charged with them As upon a Recovery in a Warrantia Chartae the land of the Defendant is charged pro loco tempore and according to the common experience in Conveyances for the payment of the Debts of the King as in the case betwixt Breden and Dennis The Debtor of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his heirs untill he makes default of payment of such a sum unto the King at such a day and upon default to the use of the King and his heirs Cooper There needs no entry of the Feoffees and he put the difference put before by Harris betwixt an use created before and an use created after the Statute And now the Feoffees have not any power to revive or destroy such cases but are onely as instruments to convey the uses for the use is created upon the Livery and is transferred by the Statute if the person to whom the use is limited be capable thereof at the time of the limitation thereof but if not the Law shall preserve the same and it cannot by any means be prevented And he put the case of Bro. Feoff to Uses 50. 30 H. 8. And there is a great difference betwixt an Vse limited before the Statute and after the Statute for now after the Statute the Feoffees have not any seisin whereof they may make a Feoffment And he put the case between Cheney and Oxenbridge Cheney leased to Oxenbridge for
Statute and it was moved If it should not be a good Indictment for the assault so as he might be fined for it and by Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court The Indictment is void for the whole for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and there the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. CCXXXV Mead and Cheney 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench MEad brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Cheney Executor of one Skipwith and recovered and upon a Fieri facias the Sheriff did retorn Devastavit and it was moved to have an Elegit and the Iustices would advise of it and afterwards at another day a Precedent was shewed to the Court of 17 Eliz. and thereupon the Elegit was granted CCXXXVI Tompson and Trafford 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 910. Poph. 8 9. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was That the Warden and Fellows of New College in Oxford 8 Eliz. leased a Mansion house in the Burrough of Southwark to one Standish for 21 years and afterwards 25 Octob. 21 Eliz. they demised the same Mansion house to the said Standish for 21 years to commence the Michaelmas after And the Stat. of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. and 18 Eliz. cap. 11. were also found And if this second Lease shall be said a Lease in Reversion and so be void by the Statute of 14 Eliz. was the Question Foster moved That it is a Lease in Reversion for the first Lease doth continue untill Michaelmas and so was the opinion of the Iustices of Assise at the trial Towse contrary For when Standish accepteth the second Lease the same is presently a surrender of the former Lease for he giveth power unto the Lessor for to contract for the house presently and to that purpose he cited Corbet's Case 8 Eliz. Coke It is a surrender presently for you cannot apportion the Term. It was adjourned CCXXXVII Wood and Avery 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DEBT upon a Bond by Wood against Avery the Condition was That where the Plaintiff had demised to the Defendant for term of years two Messuages c. If the Defendant at all times during the term shall maintain sustain and repair the said two Messuages with good and sufficient reparations that then c. And the Defendant pleaded That he had performed the Conditions in all but as to one Kitchin which was so ruinous at the time of the Demise that he could not maintain or repair and therefore he took it down and rebuilt it again in so short a time as he could possible in the same place so large and so sufficient in breadth length and heighth as the other Kitchin was and that the said Kitchin all times after the re-edifying of it he had sustained and maintained and well repaired and demanded Iudgment c. upon which Plea the Plaintiff did demurr in Law and by the Court the Plea were a good Plea if it were in an Action of Waste but here where he hath by his own Act tied himself to an inconvenience he ought at his perill to provide for it And here it was said That if the Condition be impossible the Bond is single contrary where a man is charged by an Act in Law. CCXXXVIII Bostwick and Bostwick 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas DOrothy Bostwick brought Dower against Bostwick an Infant Ante 59. and the Case was That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service of M. C. and by his last Will devised two parts of the Premisses to his Executors during the non-age of his heir and died his heir within age after whose death M. C. entred into the third part descended as Guardian in Knight's-service and the Executors into the other two parts upon which the Demandant brought one Writ of Dower against the Guardian to be endowed of the third part and another Writ of Dower against the heir within age in whom the Freehold of the two parts was The heir appearing by Attorney pleaded to issue which was found for the Demandant but the Iudgment was afterwards reversed because the heir being within age did not appear by Guardian but by Attorney for which cause she again brought a Writ of Dower against the heir and the Sheriff did retorn him summoned but the heir made default for which cause the Court was moved in the behalf of the Demandant to have the aid of the Court in this Case for if upon default of the Tenant a Grand Cape should issue forth and so a Recovery by default should follow the same would be Error which see 6 H. 8. Br. Liver Defaul 50. And therefore it was prayed that some person be appointed Guardian to the heir who may appear and plead for him for otherwise the Demandant is at great mischief for the Guardian now will not suffer the heir to appear in person And if the Widow now Demandant should stay for her Dower untill the heir should come of full age it would be a great mischief But by Walmesley Periam and Windham We cannot appoint a Guardian to the heir for his appearance here unless the heir be here in person in Court before us and he was appointed to be brought in person into Court. CCXXXIX Sir Anthony Denny 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas SIR Anthony Denny seised in Fee of the Manor of Chessam extending into Chessam and in the Town of Hertford and also of other Lands in Hertford by his last Will devised the Manor of Chessam to Henry Denny his son and heir in tail and his Lands in Hertford to Edward Denny his younger son c. It was holden by Walmsley Periam and Windham absent Anderson That the younger son should have that part of the Manor of Chessam which lieth in the Town of Hertford Another point in the Case was That upon the death of Sir Anthony and Office was found without any mention of this Devise for which cause the Queen seised and leased all the Lands so devised to a stranger during the minority of the heir The heir comes of full age and hath Livery of the whole and without any express entry leaseth the Lands for years rendring Rent the Lessee entreth and payeth the Rent to the heir the heir dieth the Lessee assigns over his term and the Rent is yearly paid to the right heir of Sir Anthony And how Edward Denny entred and per Curiam his entry is lawfull for if the heir entreth in this Case and many descents follow yet the Devisee may enter at any time for his entry doth not make any abatement or wrong but may well stand with the Devise for if the Devise be waved or the Devise doth defer the execution of the Devisee 1 Inst 111. a. 240. b. 3 Cro. 145. Ow. 86 87. it is reason that the heir enter and take the profits untill the Devisee entreth But if
in which was parcel demised and demiseable according to the custome of the said Manor by Copy in Fee whereof Langley was a Copiholder in Fee c. and the said Earl so seised enfeoffed divers persons of the said Manor unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Lord Lumley and Elizabeth his wife daughter of the said Earl and the heirs of their two bodies begotten who made a Lease of the said Customary lands by Indenture unto the Plaintiff for 100 years and the question was If by this Lease the lands be so severed from the Manor that the Copihold is extinct Walmesly took exception to the pleading for that Langley pleads That the custome within the Manor is That if any Copiholder seised of Customary lands of the said Manor dieth thereof seised having many sons That the youngest son shall inherit and he sheweth That the Lord of the said Manor granted to his father and his mother the said customary lands by Copy to have to his said father and mother and the heirs of his father c. And that his father died and that his mother survived him and died and he as youngest son according to the custome entred and he said That this custome set forth by the Defendant doth not maintain his entry For the custome intendeth but a general and immediate descent upon a Copy made unto a man and to his heirs but such is not the descent here for the wife surviveth during whose life the heir cannot enter nor is there here such Estate in the father of the Defendant unto whom the custome set forth in the Avowry can extend For the custome is alledged Where a Copyholder hath a Copyhold Estate to him and his heirs And here the Title of the Defendant is That a customary Estate was granted to the father and the mother and the heirs of the father so as this Estate is not within the Letter of the custome And to that purpose he cited the Case of Sir John Savage Sir John Savage's Case ante 109. late adjudged Where one entitled himself to a Copihold in this manner That within the Manor there is such a custome that if one taketh to wife any customary Tenant of the said Manor in Fee and hath issue by her he if he over-live such wife should be Tenant by the Curtesie and the Case in truth was That he married a woman who at the time of the marriage had not any Copihold but afterwards during the coverture a Copihold descended to her In that Case it was holden That no Tenancy by the Curtesie did accrue by that custome which did not extend but where the wife is a Copiholder at the marriage and a custome shall be in construction taken strictly and shall not be extended beyond the words of it And as to the matter in Law he said That by this Lease the custome was gone and then by consequence the customary Tenancy as to that land is determined for the Estate of the Copiholder is Secundum consuetudinem Manerii ad voluntatem Dom. And now by the Lease Langley cannot hold Secundum consuetudinem Manerii for now the services reserved upon the Copy and the advantages of Waste and other forfeitures are extinct so that if notwithstanding the Lease the customary interest should endure then such a Copiholder should hold this land discharged of all services c. in better Estate than any Freeholder at the Common Law and because the services in Law are discharge and cannot be recovered for that cause the customary interest is determined For the Case is 7 E. 4. 19. by Danby That the Copiholder shall have remedy against his Lord if he put him out for he payes a Fine when he enters but here during this Lease no Fine can be paid upon any descent c. and the Fine is the cause for which the Copiholder shall maintain his possession against the Lord But here no descent or surrender can be presented for there is not any Tenant who can do it See 21 E. 4. 80. by Brian As long as the Copiholder payeth unto the Lord the customs and services If the Lord putteth him out he shall have an Action of Trespass 42 E. 3. 25. If the Copiholder will not do his services the Lord shall seize the lands Dyer 100. 1 Cro. 35. And he resembled this Case to the case where the King grants lands probis hominibus de D. the same is a good Grant and that onely in respect of the Rent and for the reason of that it is a good Corporation But if the King releaseth the Rent the Corporation is dissolved and the Grant is become void Fenner Serjeant contrary and he said That by this Lease being the act of the Lord himself the customary interest is not determined c. And the whole Court was of clear opinion with Fenner That the Copihold did remain for otherwise by such practices of the Lords all the Copiholders in England might be defeated and if any prejudice be grown to the Lord by this act it is of his own doing and against his own act he shall not be relieved And by Periam Iustice The Lord by his act i. e. the making of the Lease hath destroyed his Seignory and lost the services as to this land And Windham Iustice said That the Lord himself had destroyed the custome as to the services but not as to the customary interest of the Tenant but the Lord Anderson was of opinion That the Rents and services do remain and if the Copiholder after such Lease committeth Waste that it is a forfeiture to the Lord and that will fall in evidence upon a trial although such Waste cannot be found by an ordinary presentment and the same Law which alloweth the Copiholder his Copihold interest against this Lease will allow unto the Lord his Rents and services and he said That the Lord shall have the Rents and services and not the Lessee Quod mirum against his own Lease See 33 Eliz. between Murrel and Smith now reported by the Lord Coke in his 4 Report fol. 20. CCLVIII. Russel and Broker 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RUssel brought Trespass against Broker 3 Len. 218. for cutting down of four Oakes The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. and that he is seised of a Messuage in D. And that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consuerunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad libitum suum capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in quolibet tempore anni but in fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is within the Forrest of c. and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de boscis c. per liberationem Forrestarii vel ejus Deputati prout boscus pati potest non ad exigentiam
petentis And upon that Replication the Defendant did demur in Law and the opinion of the whole Court was That Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff for if he should oust the Defendant of his prescription by the Law of the Forrest he ought to have pleaded the Law of the Forrest in such case viz. Lex Forrestae est c. for the Law of the Forrest is not the common Law of the Land and we are not bound to take notice of it but it ought to be pleaded or otherwise the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the prescription of the Defendant for here are two prescriptions one pleaded by the Defendant by way of Bar the other set forth by the Plaintiff in his Replication without any traverse of that with is alledged in the Bar which cannot be good but if the Plaintiff had shewed in his Replication Lex Forrestae talis est c. then the prescription of the Defendant had been answered without any more for none can prescribe against a Statute Exception was taken to the Bar because the Defendant had justified the cutting down of Oaks without alledging that there was not any underwood but the Exception was not allowed for he hath choice ad libitum suum Another Exception was taken because he hath not shewed that at the time of the cutting it was not fawning time Poph. 158. 2 Cro. 637 679. for at the fawning time his prescription did not extend to it and that was holden a good material exception but because the Plaintiff had replied and upon this Replication the Defendant demurred the Court would not resort to the Bar but gave Iudgment upon the Replication against the Plaintiff CCLIX Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A Black-Smith of South-Mims in the County of Middlesex took a Bond of another Black-Smith of the same Town that he should not exercise his Trade or Art of a Black-Smith within the same Town nor within a certain precinct of it and upon that Obligation the Obligee brought an Action of Debt in the Common-Pleas depending which the Obligor complained to the Iustices of Peace of the said County upon the matter against the Obligee upon which the matter being found by examination the Iustices committed the Obligee to prison and now upon the whole matter Puckering Serjeant prayed a Habeas Corpus for the said Obligee to the Sheriff of Middlesex and it was granted and Fleetwood Recorder of London being at the Bar the Court told him openly of this matter That by the Laws Iustices of Peace have not Conusance of such offences nor could meddle with them for their power is limited by their commission and the Statutes and the Recorder did much relye upon the opinion of Hull 2 H. 5. 5. But by the clear opinion of the whole Court although this Court being a high Court Owen 143. 2 Cro. 596. might punish such offences appearing before them on Record yet it did not follow That the Iustices of Peace might so do But as to the Bond the Court was clear of opinion that it was void because it was against Law. Ante 34. CCLX Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Justicies issued forth to the Sheriff of H. for the Debt of 40 l. and the Plea was determined before the Vnder-Sheriff in the absence of the Sheriff and it was now moved by Puckering Serjeant If a Writ of Error or a Writ of false Iudgment did lie in that Case And first the opinion of the Iustices was That the Sheriff himself in his person ought to hold Plea of a Justicies and if he maketh a Precept or Deputation to another the same is meerly void 34 H. 6. 48. And see the said Case abridged Fitz. Bar. 161. and it was said That a Justicies is not an Original Writ but a Commission to the Sheriff to hold Plea ultra 40 s. and upon a Iudgment given upon a Justicies a Writ of false Iudgment lieth and not a Writ of Error See for that 7 E. 4. 23. And it was the opinion of Anderson chief Iustice That such Iudgment is utterly void and Coram non Judice CCLXI Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE by Anderson chief Iustice That if Cestuy que use 3 Len. 196. 4 Inst 85. Kel 41. after the Statute of 1 R. 3. leaseth for years and afterwards the Feoffees release unto the Lessee and his heirs having notice of the Vse that this release is unto the first Vse But where the Feffees are disseised and they release unto the Disseisor although they have notice of the Vse the same is to the use of the Disseisor and that was the Case of the Lord Compton and that no Subpoena lieth against such a Disseisor See 11 E. 4. 8. CCLXII Hamper 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench HAmper was indicted upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury 1 Cr. 147. 3 Len. 230. and in the body of the Indictment The Record was That he Falsa deceptive deposuit whereas the Statute is Wilfully and although in the perclose of the Indictment the conclusion is Et sic commisit voluntarium perjurium Yet the opinion of the Court was that the same doth not help the matter and for that cause the party was discharged For contra formam Statuti will not help the matter nor supply it and yet it was moved and urged That contra formam Statuti would help it and it was holden in this Case That if a witness doth depose falsly but the Iury doth not give credit to it nor give their Verdict against his oath although the party grieved cannot sue him yet he may be punished at the King's suit CCLXIII Moulton 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King ' s-Bench IT was moved by Coke That one Robert Moulton Tenant in tail 1 Cro. 151. having issue two sons Robert and John died seised and that Robert his son and heir levied a Fine thereof and afterwards levied another Fine and died without issue and John brought two several Writs of Error to reverse both the Fines and the Tenant to the Writ of Error brought upon the first Fine pleaded the second Fine in Bar of it and in Bar upon a Writ of Error brought upon the second Fine he pleaded the first Fine and the Court advised him to plead That the Fine pleaded in Bar was erroneous 7 H. 4. 107. where a man is to annul an Outlawry his person shall not be disabled by any other Outlawry CCLXIV Broccus 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas BRoccus Lord of a Manor covenanted with his Copiholder 1 Roll. 15. Pordage versus Cole 20 Car. 2. B. R. to assure to him and his heirs the Freehold and Inheritance of the Copihold and the Copiholder in consideration of the same performed did covenant to pay such a sum And it was the opinion of the whole Court That the Copiholder is not tied to pay the money before the Assurance made and the
John Mutton took to wife the now Tenant upon which Bar the Demandant did demur in Law. And it was argued by Jeofries Serjeant 13 Co. 48 49 54 55 56. 1 Co. 101. 3 Len. 253. That here the wife taketh nothing by this limitation because she was not capable thereof at the time of the limitation But if the use had been limited especially to John Mutton untill he took a wife and then unto the use of him and his wife for their lives the same had been a good use to the wife But in our Case the use is limited to the wife in praesenti and not upon a contingent and because the wife at the time of the limitation was not capable she shall never take after and yet it may be said That a joynt Estate may be in esse and yet to begin at several times as 18 E. 4. 12. A Feoffment is made to three and Livery is made to one of them and first one of them agrees to the Livery and a year after another agreeth and afterwards the third although they take nothing untill agreement yet when they have agreed the agreement shall have relation to the time of the Livery but in truth the reason thereof is because the Freehold shall be adjudged in them all untill they have disagreed And if a disseisin be to the use of A. B. and C. And first A. agrees to it and afterward B. and after C. although they took nothing untill agreement yet when they have agreed their agreement shall have relation to the time of the first disseisin and if in such case the Disseisor had made a Lease before agreement the party to whose use after agreeing shall avoid such Lease CCLXXXIV Stamford 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was A. took a wife and afterwards married Elizabeth Stamford living his first wife and by Deed gave part of his goods to the said Elizabeth and as to the residue of his goods being but of small value he made the said Elizabeth his Executrix and died she refused the Executorship for which the Ordinary committed Adminstration to B. Gawdy Serjeant asked the advice of the Court against whom the Action of Debt should lie for if the Creditor impleadeth the Administrator he hath not Assets if the Executrix her self she will plead that she hath renounced the Cxecutorship and that Administration is committed to B. And the opinion of Dyer Iustice was That the Gift is void by the Common Law and also by the Statute of 13 Eliz. and then if the Gift be void any way the Creditor may have an Action of Debt against the said Elizabeth as Executor of her own wrong And see that such a Gift is void by the Common Law 43 E. 3. 2. And by Manwood Iustice He who takes the goods of the dead shall not be charged as executor of his own wrong unless he doth something as Executor as to pay Debts make Acquittances c. See 41 E. 3. 31. 32 H. 6. 7. Dyer If one takes the goods of the dead and converteth them to his own use he is chargeable as Executor and so it hath been adjudged in the time of this Queen in the Case of one Stokes which was affirmed by Bendloes and Harper See now Co. 2 Part. 53. Reade's Case where no lawfull Executor or Administrator is there if a stranger takes the goods of the dead into his possession the same is a good Administration to charge him as Executor of his own wrong CCLXXXV Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Ante 178. THE Case was A man made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail and after to the use of his right heirs not having at the time of the Feoffment any son afterwards he suffered a common Recovery had issue a son who died in the life of his father having issue a son and afterwards he himself died It was holden by the Iustices in this Case That the son and heir of the son should not avoid this Recovery by the Statute of 32 H. 8. for there was not any remainder in him at the time of the Recovery had and the words of the said Statute are That such Recovery shall be void against such persons to whom the reversion or remainder shall then appertain i. e. at the time of such Recovery And it was said by one of the Serjeants at Bar That if lands be given to E. for life the remainder to B. in tail the remainder to C. in Fee B. dyeth his wife young with child with a son a Recovery is had against E. with the issue of C. and afterwards the son is born he shall not be helped by this Statute of 32 H. 8. for that remainder was not in esse at the time of the Recovery But it was holden in the principal Case That the heir might avoid the said Recovery by the Common Law for the recompence cannot extend to such a remainder which is not in esse CCLXXXVI Sidenham and Worlington 's Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 42. IN an Action upon the Case upon a Promise the Plaintiff declared That he at the request of the Defendant was surety and bail for J. S. who was arrested in the King's Bench upon an Action of 30 l. and that afterwards for the default of J. S. he was constrained to pay the 30 l. after which the Defendant meeting with the Plaintiff promised him for the same consideration That he would repay that 30 l. which he did not pay upon which the Plaintiff brought the Action the Defendant pleaded Non assumpsit upon which issue was joyned which was found for the Plaintiff Walmsley Serjeant for the Defendant moved the Court That this consideration will not maintain the Action because the consideration and promise did not concur and go together for the consideration was long before executed so as now it cannot be intended that the promise was for the same consideration As if one giveth me a Horse and a Month after I promise him 10 l. for the said Horse he shall never have Debt for the 10 l. nor Assumpsit upon that promise for there is neither contract nor consideration because the same is executed Anderson This Action will not lie for it is but a bare agreement nudum pactum because the contract was determined and not in esse at the time of the promise But he said it is otherwise upon a consideration of marriage of one of his cosins for marriage is always a present consideration Windham agreed with Anderson and he put the Case in 3 H. 7. If one selleth a Horse unto another and at another day he will warrant him to be sound of limb and member it is a void warrant for that such warranty ought to have been made or given at such time as the Horse was sold Periam Iustice conceived That the Action