Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
son_n	beget_v	body_n	heir_n	21,461	5	10.1458	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47718	The third part of the reports of severall excellent cases of law, argued and adjudged in the courts of law at Westminster in the time of the late Queen Elizabeth, from the first, to the five and thirtieth year of her reign collected by a learned professor of the law, William Leonard ... ; with alphabetical tables of the names of the cases, and of the matters contained in the book.; Reports and cases of law argued and adjudged in the courts at Westminster. Part 3	Leonard, William.	1686 (1686)	Wing L1106; ESTC R19612	343,556	345

of Bargain and Sale and he hath not election to take the Land by way of Livery But when all is in one Deed and takes effect equally together in such case the Grantee hath Election but here in this Case the Bargain and Sale the Deed being Inrolled doth prevent the Livery and taketh his full effect before And by Wray and Catline If he in the Reversion upon a Lease for years grants his Reversion to his Lessee for years by words of Dedi Concessi Feoffavi and a Letter of Attorny is made to make Livery and Seisin the Donee cannot take by the Livery for that the Lessee hath the Reversion presently XL. Mich. 14 Eliz. IN an Ejectione Firmae the Case upon Evidence appeared to be thus The Bishop of Rochester Anno 4 E. 6. Leased to B. for years rendring Rent and afterwards granted the Reversion to C. for 99 years rendring the ancient Rent To have from the day of the Lease without impeachment of Waste which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter But B. did not Attorn And for default of Attornment It was holden by the whole Court That the Lease was void for it is made by way of grant of a Reversion and to pass as a Reversion But by Catline If the Bishop had granted the Reversion and also demised the Land for 99 years it should pass as a Lease to begin first after the former Lease determined And as to the Attornment it was given in Evidence That B. after the notice of the Grant to C. spake with C. to have a new Lease from him because he had in his Farm but 8 years to come but they could not agree upon the price And the Iustices were of Opinion That that was an Attornment because he had admitted the said C. to have power to make a new Lease unto him Also the said B. being in Company with one R. seeing the said C. coming towards him said to the said R. See my Landlord meaning the said C. Bromley Sollicitor That is no Attornment being spoken to a stranger Barham contrary because he was present And it was held by the whole Court to be a good Attornment But it was holden That if the Attornment was not before that the Bishop was translated to Winchester That the Lease should be void and although that the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter was before the Attornment so as no Estate had vested in C. yet it is good enough for the assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient whether it be before or after by Catline Southcote and Whiddon Wray contrary XLI Mich. 14 Eliz. THe King seised of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant a Stranger presents and his Clerk is in by 6 months The King grants the Mannor with all Advowsons appendant to it to B. The Incumbent dieth The Grantee may present For the Advowson was always appendant and the Inheritance thereof passeth to the Grantee and is not made disappendant by the usurpation as in the case of a common person for the King cannot be put out of possession But the Patentee shall not have a Quare Imped of the first disturbance for that presentment doth not pass to him being a thing in Action without mention of it in his Grant. And if the Patentee bringeth a Quare Impedit of the second Avoydance he shall make his Title by the presentment of the King not making mention of the usurpation yet if the Bishop presenteth for Lapse in the case of a common person he ought to make mention of it for that is his Title to the Presentment c. XLII Humfrey and Humfrey's Case Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEtween Humfrey and Humfrey the Case was That the Defendant in Debt after Iudgment aliened his Land and the Plaintiff sued forth Execution upon the new Statute And the Court of the Request awarded him to the Fleet because that he sued forth Execution Whereupon the Iustices of the Common Pleas awarded a Habeas Corpus and discharged the Plaintiff It was said by Bendloes Serjeant That the Chancery after Iudgment could not enjoyn the party that he shall not sue forth Execution for if they do the party shall have his remedy as above XLIII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man seised of Copyhold Lands Deviseth a certain parcel of them to his Wife for life the remainder to his Brother and his Heirs And afterwards in the presence of 3 persons of the Court said to them I have made my Will and I have appointed all things in my Will as I will have it And afterwards he said And here I surrender all my Copyhold Lands into your hands accordingly And it was moved If all his Copyhold Lands should be to his Wife or by those which were specified in the Will. And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Surrender is restrained by the Will so as no more passeth to the Wife upon the whole matter but that which is mentioned in the Will and the general words shall not enlarge the matter XLIV Hill. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LAnds were devised to the Mayor Chamberlain and Governors of the Hospital of St. Bartholomew in London whereas in truth they are Incorporated by another name yet the Devise is good by Weston and Dyer which Manwood also granted because it shall be taken according to the intent of the Devisor And it was said by Weston If Lands be devised to A. eldest Son of B. although that his name be W. yet the Devise to him is good because there is sufficient certainty c. XLV Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A. seised of Lands deviseth the same to his Wife for life the remainder to his three younger Sons and to the Heirs of their bodies begotten equally to be divided amongst them by even portions and if one of them die then the other two which survive shall be next Heirs The Devisor dieth One of the Sons dieth and by Dyer and Weston Iustices The 3 Brothers were Tenants in Common in remainder But contrary it is where such a Devise is made between them To be divided by my Executors c. there they are Ioynt-Tenants until the division is made but here although the words are Equally to be divided the same is not intended of a Division in fact and possession but of the Interest and Title For if a Man bringeth a Praecipe quod reddat de una parte Manerii de D. in 7 parts to be divided it is not intended divided in Possession but divided in Interest and Title And it was said by the said Iustices That although one of the Brothers dieth the two surviving Brothers have his part by purchase and not by descent and they are Ioynt-Tenants of it And this was the Case of one Webster and Katherine his Wife the late Wife of John Bradbury XLVI Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Lessee for years of the

See the Case 14 Eliz. in Dyer L. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Tottenham and Bedingfields Case Owen Rep. 35 83. IN an Accompt by Tottenham against Bedingfield who pleaded That he never was his Bailiff to render accompt the Case was That the Plaintiff was possessed of a Parsonage for Term of years and the Defendant not having any Interest nor claiming any Title in them took the Tythes being set forth and severed from the 9 parts and carried them away and sold them Vpon which the Plaintiff brought an Action of Accompt And by Manwood Iustice the Action doth not lie for here is not any privity for wrongs are always done without privity And yet I do agree That if one doth receive my Rents I may implead him in a Writ of Accompt and then by the bringing of my Action there is privity and although he hath received my Rent yet he hath not done any wrong to me for that it is not my Mony until it be paid unto me or unto another for my use and by my Commandment and therefore notwithstanding such his Receipt I may resort to the Tenant of the Land who ought to pay unto me the said Rent and compel him to pay it to me again and so in such case where no wrong is done unto me Hob. 32â— I may make a privity by my consent to have a Writ of Accompt But if one disseiseth me of my Land and taketh the profits thereof upon that no Action of Accompt lieth for it is meerly a wrong And in the principal case so soon as the Tythes were severed by the Parishioners there they were presently in the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant by the taking of them was a wrong doer and no Action of Accompt for the same lieth against him And upon the like reason was the Case of Monox of London lately adjudged which was That one devised Land to another 1 Len. 266. and died and the Devisee entred and held the Land devised for the space of 20 years and afterwards for a certain cause the Devise was adjudged void and for that he to whom the Land descended brought an Action of Accompt against the Devisee And it was adjudged That the Action did not lie Harper contrary For here the Plaintiff may charge the Defendant as his Proctor and it shall be no Plea for the Defendant to say That he was not his Proctor no more than in an Accompt against one who holdeth as Gardian in Socage it is no plea for him to say that he is not Prochein Amy to the Plaintiff Dyer The Action doth not lie If an Accompt be brought against one as Receiver he ought to be charged with the Receipt of the Mony and an Accompt doth not lie where the party pretends to be Owner as against an Abater or Disseisor but if one claimeth as Bailiff he shall be charged and so it is of Gardian in Socage Latch 8. And it was agreed That if a Disseisor assign another to receive the Rents that the Disseisee cannot have an Accompt against such a Receivor LI. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte That this Case was ruled in the Court of Wards That where Tenant of the King of Lands holden by Knights Service in chief made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died his eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest Son comes of full age that the younger Son should sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate and value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversioner For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffee is in truth a Reversion for the Fee simple was never out of him because there is not any consideration as to that nor any Vse expressed And because Livery shall not be sued by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but he shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession and if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part the whole value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two parts the moiety of the value of a year as of a Reversion LII Oliver Breers Case 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards OLiver Breer who was Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of A. his eldest Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of the said A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the second Son of the said A. c. and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was holden by the Council of the Court of Wards That he should pay for his first Primer Seisin a third part as in possession and two parts as a reversion See the Case before LIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte 1 Roll. 626 This Case was moved to the Iustices in the Court of the Kings Bench A Man had Issue two Daughters by divers Women and being seised of Lands in Fee he made his Will and by the same Devised That his Wife should have the moyety of his Lands for years and that his eldest Daughter at the day of her Marriage should enter into the other moyety his eldest Daughter married and died without Issue And the Question was Whether her Vncle should have that moyety or the fourth part of the whole Land. Catline conceived and said That when the Devise which was made to the eldest Daughter that she might enter after certain years is not the Inheritance in her presently and the other words void So he said here That it is not a purchase in the eldest Daughter but both the Daughters should enter in Common as one Heir to their Father until the Marriage and then the Inheritance which was once settled in them should not be removed Southcote Iustice said There are no words of Limitation of any Estate that the Daughter should have after the Marriage and therefore the Devise was void and if he had limited that the Daughter after Marriage should have it for life the Fee-simple is vested in her before and then she cannot have it for life And he said That if a Lease be made to the eldest Daughter for years by the Father and afterwards

shall be taken in Iudgment of Law That the Executors have Assets to the value of the whole 100 l. And although the Executors were compelled by the Award to make the release yet it was their own act to submit themselves to the Arbitrament LXXVIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte It was Ruled by Kellaway and Wilbraham in the Court of Wards That where the Kings Tenant of Lands holden by Knight service in Capite made a Feoffment of the same Land to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died the eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest cometh at full age the younger shall sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate of the value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversion For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor is in truth a Reversion For the Feesimple was never out of him because there was not any Consideration as to that nor any use expressed And also because that Livery shall not be by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession And if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part of the full value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two other parts the moyety of the value of a year as a Reversion And at that time Breers Case was vouched which was Oliver Breers Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and after to the use of A. his Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of A. in tail and after to the use of the second Son of A. c. and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was ruled by the said Council of the said Court of Wards That he should pay for his Primer Seisin a third part of the Land in possession and two parts as a Reversion LXXIX Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 56. THe Case was A Man was seised of a Pasture in which was two great Groves and a Wood known by the name of a Wood And also in the same Pasture were certain Hedge-Rowes and Trees there growing Sparsim Leased the same by Indenture for years And by the same Indenture bargained and sold to the Lessee all Woods and Vnderwoods in and upon the Premisses And further That it should and might be lawful to the Lessee to cut down and carry away the same at all times during the Term. Harper Iustice The Hedge-Rowes did not pass by these words Hedge-Rowes sparsim Dyer The Hedge-Rowes shall pass for the Grant is general All Woods Mounson contrary For the words of the Grant may be supplyed by other words It was moved further If by these words the Lessee may cut them oftner than once And by Harper Manwood and Mounson He can cut them but once Dyer contrary And so it should be if the words had been Growing upon the Premisses And this word Growing although it sounds in the present Tense yet it shall be also taken in the future Tense if the word tunc had not been alledged for it is a word of restraint The Case which was argued in the Chancery 27 H. 8. where I was present was such The Prior of St. John of Jerusalem Leased a Commandry Provided That if the said Prior or any of his Brethren there being Commanders will dwell thereupon then the said Lease to be void It was doubted If that did extend to the Successors for the word Being is in the present Tense And yet it was holden by Fitzherbert That it should be taken in the future Tense and so extend to the Successors Otherwise if the words had been Nunc Being LXXX Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man seised of Lands in Fee devised 1 Len. 101. That his Wife should take the profits of his Lands until Mary his Daughter and Heir came to the age of 16 years And if the said Mary died That J.S. should be her Heir Manwood The Daughter after she hath attained the age of 16 years shall have the Land in tail For Devises ought to be construed according to the intent of the Devisor so far forth as any certainty with reason may be collected but no intent shall be taken against all reason and certainty It is certain That the Daughter shall not have the Land in Fee for that shall descend to her without any Devise And these words If she dieth cannot be intended a Condition for it is certain she shall die But if the words had been That after the death of Mary J.S. should be his Heir in such case Mary had had but an Estate for life for there it is limited what Estate she should have And when it is said J.S. shall be his Heir it shall be meant his Collateral Heir so as the Estate tail remains in the Daughter Mounson and Harper to the contrary and that she shall have but for life And by Mounson If Mary had been a stranger to the Devise she should take nothing And this Case was put by Barham Serjeant A Man deviseth 100 l. to his youngest Daughter 100 l. to his middle Daughter and another 100 l. to his eldest Daughter and that all these sums shall be levied of the profits of his Lands It was holden by the better Opinion of the Court in this Case That the youngest Daughter should be first paid and then the middle and then the eldest Daughter and that was said to be Coniers Case LXXXI Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The King granted to the Bishop of Salisbury That he should have Catalla felonum fugitivor ' and Fines and Amercements of all Tenants and Resiants within the Mannor of D. which Mannor the Bishop Leased for years and that the Lessee should have all profits and hereditaments within the same Mannor Manwood Iustice conceived That the Lessee should have the Post Fines For all things have a being somewhere although they be not visible As Rents Fines have their being in the Lands out of which they are issuing and that is in the Son of a Fine levied of the Land within the Mannor which is due by Land of him who ought to pay the Fine And this Fine is due be reason of the

that now the time before the forfeiture ought not to be accounted in this Case But the Orginal beginning of the Copyhold shall be holden to be 23 H. 8. when the Grant de Novo by Copy was made between which time and 8 Eliz. is an interval but of 47 years within which time a Customary Interest cannot be attached upon the Land And then before sufficient time encurred c. the Lord may well enter upon such a Tenant at Will For as yet there is not any Custom begotten by sufficient time to bind him It was also agreed by the Iustices That if the Lord of a Mannor is seised of an ancient Copyhold for forfeiture or by reason of Escheat and Lett the same at Will without any Copy for divers years one after the other that that is not any Interruption of the Customary nature of the Land but that the Lord may grant it again by Copy As to other parcel of the Land It was given in Evidence That at a Court lately holden at Northelman It was presented by the Homage there That Taverner the Plaintiff being a Copy-holder of the said Mannor had forged a Customary of the said Mannor containing divers false Customs pretending them to be true Customs of the said Mannor and that he had forged and put a Seal to it about which this word viz. Northelman is engraven And that he had procured divers Copyholders of the said Mannor to set their seals to it and that he said unto them That that Customary should be put into the Church of Northelman amongst the Charters and Evidences of the said Church And that he had now made his Copyhold as good as his Freehold And If the said Offence committed by the Plaintiff ut supra be a forfeiture of his Copyhold was the Question It was argued by Popham who was of Counsel with the Plaintiff That without further matter it was not any forfeiture And yet he confessed It is a forgery against the first branch of that Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 14. And so he said it was lately adjudged in the Star-Chamber But as to the point of Forfeiture he put this difference If the Lord demand his Services of his Copyholder there If the Copyholder upon debate between the Lord and himself sheweth forth such a forged Customary and Counterpleads the Demand of the Lord with it now it is a forfeiture for that the Inheritance of the Lord is thereby hazarded As if the Copyholder after the forfeiture keep it himself and doth not encounter his Lord in his demand with it in his services the same is not any forfeiture As if the Copyholder before any Rent be due saith That he will not pay any Rent to the Lord hereafter Or when a Court is to be holden That he will not after appear to do any Suit at the Court of his Lord c. But if his Rent being due he denyeth it Or when the Court is holden he saith That he will not do any Suit the same is a foreiture As it was lately adjudged in the Kings Bench in the Case between Sir Christopher Hatton and his Copyholders of his Mannor of Wellingborough So if a Copy-holder being with the other Copyholders charged upon Oath to enquire of the Articles of the Court-Baron and sufficient matter being given to them in Evidence to induce them to find a matter within their Charge and they or any of them obstinately refuse to find the same the same is a forfeiture of his Copyhold As it was adjudged in the Case of Sir Rich. Southwell Knight and Thurston Clench Iustice conceived That in the principal Case the Offence of the Plaintiff is not any forfeiture no more 1 Roll. 508. than if a Copyholder makes a Charter of Feoffment of his Customary Land and delivereth the same as his Deed to the party but doth not execute it by Livery the same is not any forfeiture It was argued by Gawdy Serjeant who was of Counsel with the Defendant to the contrary For he said That if a Copyholder will forge a Deed of Feoffment purporting That the Lord of the Mannor hath enfeoffed him of the said Customary Land notwithstanding that he keepeth such Charter himself without shewing it forth yet it is a Forfeiture At the length The Court wished the Iury to find the special matter and to refer the same to the Court Whether it was a Forfeiture or not In this Case another matter was moved viz. The Auncestor of the Plaintiff had purchased divers several Copyholds from several Copyholders by several Copies whereof he died seised Or committed several Offences by which he forfeited to the Lord all his Copyholds for which the Lord seised and granteth them again to his Auncestor wtih the Ancient Rent and to his Heirs Tenendum per antiqua servitia consueta c. And afterwards the same Copyholder commiteth Waste whether the same shall now trench to forfeit all the Copyhold Lands which were granted ut supra by one entire Copy Or only that which was before the seizure holden by the same Rent Et nihil ultra For these words Tenendum per antiqua servitia do not trench only to the Quantity of the Services but also to the Quality scil severally so as there shall be several Services as before As if A. be seised of Copyhold Land on the part of his Father and of other Copyhold Land on the part of his Mother and thereof dieth seised and his Son and Heir be admitted to it by one Copy and by one Admittance Now if that Son dieth without Issue the Copyholds shall descend severally the one to the Heir on the part of his Father and the other to the Heir on the part of his Mother c. And afterwards the Iury found the Special Verdict and the special matter ut supra c CLIX. Vincent Lee's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer 1 Inst 138. b. VIncent Lee seised of Lands in Fee had Issue 3 Sons F.G. and J and by his last Will in writing Devised That J. his Son should have the Land for the Term of 31 years without impeachment of Waste to the intent that he pay certain Debts and Legacies set down in his said Will The remainder after the said Term expired to the Heirs Males of the Body of the said J. begotten And further willed That if the said J. die within the Term aforesaid that then G. his Son shall have such Term c. and then also shall be Executor but made the said J. his present Executor and died J. entred by force of the Devise F. died without Issue by which the Feesimple descended upon J. who had Issue P. and died within the Term P. entred G. as Executor entred upon him and he re-entred upon which re-entry G. brought Trespass Pigott said That the Term by the descent of the Fee from F. to J. being the second Son of Vincent and Heir of F. is not extinct but only suspended It hath

of his Body after the decease of the said J.N. It was the clear Opinion of all the Iustices in this Case That by the said Indenture No use is changed in J N. nor any use raised to the said Son and Heir but that it is only a bare Covenant XIX Andrews and Glovers Case Trin. 4 Eliz. Rott 1622. IN Trespass by Andrews against Glover The Lady Mary Dacres being seised of the Mannor of Cowdam by her Indenture bargained and sold to the said Andrews all those her Woods More Rep. 15. Post 29. Winch. Rep. 5. Vnderwoods and Hedge-Rowes as have been accustomably used to be felled and sold standing growing being in upon and within the Mannor of Cowdam c. To have and to hold c. from the Feast of S. Michael last past during the natural life of the said Lady Mary And the said Andrews for himself his Heirs and Assigns doth Covenant and Grant to and with the said Lady her Executors c. to content and pay or cause to be contented and paid to the said Lady her Executors c. yearly during the said Term 10 l. By force of which Grant he cuts down all and singular the Trees Woods and Vnderwoods in the aforesaid Mannor growing at the time of the making of the Indenture aforesaid And afterwards the said Lady by her servants felled all the other Woods and Vnderwoods growing in the same Mannor after the said felling made by the said Andrews Whereupon Andrews bringeth Trespass And the Opinion of the Court was clear That after the Bargainee had once felled that he should never after fell in the same place where the first felling was made by force of the said Grant notwithstanding the Rent yearly reserved and notwithstanding the words of the Grant viz. To have and to hold during the life of the said Dame Mary Wherefore the said Andrews durst not Demur c. XX. 6 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. is bounden to B. in an Obligation to pay to B. 20 l. at the Feast of our Lady without limiting in Certain what Lady-Day viz. the Conception Nativity or Annunciation And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Deed should be construed to intend such Lady-Day which should next happen and follow the date of the said Obligation XXI Scarning and Cryers Case Mich. 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rott 1851. IN a Second Deliverance by Scarning against Cryer the Defendant makes Conusans as Bailiff to J.S. and sheweth More Rep. 75 That the said J.S. and at the time of the taking c. was Lord of the Mannor of A. Within which Mannor there was this Custom time out of mind c. That the Tenants of that Mannor and other Resiants and Inhabitants within the said Mannor or the greater part of them at the Court-Baron of the said Mannor at the Mannor aforesaid holden were used and accustomed to make Laws and impose Pains as well upon the Resiants and Inhabitants within that Mannor and the Tenants of the said Mannor there being as upon every Occupier of any Tenements within the said Mannor for good government there to be had and kept and for the preservation of the Corn and Grass there growing And that the said J.S. and all those whose Estate c. distringere consueverunt pro omnibus poenis sic forisfact per Juratores Curiae praed ex assensu dictor Tenent Inhabitant residentium ibid. in forma praedict assessis impositis tam super quibuscunque tenent Maner praedict aut inhabitantibus aut residentibus infra Maner illud quam super occupatoribus aliquor Tenementor infra idem Maner ' And further said That at a Court-Baron there holden That Coram Sectatoribus ejusdem Curiae by the Homage of the said Court then charged to present with the assent of other Tenants and Inhabitants of the said Mannor it was Ordained and Established That no Tenant of the Mannor aforesaid nor any of the Resiants or Inhabitants within the said Mannor nor any Occupier of any Tenements within the said Mannor from thenceforth should keep his Cattel within the several Fields of that Mannor by By-herds nor should put any of their Oxen called Draught-Oxen there before the Feast of St. Peter upon pain Quod quilibet tenens residens c. should forfeit 20 s. And further said That the Plaintiff at the time c. Occupied and had such a Tenement within the said Mannor And that at such a Court afterwards holden viz. such a day It was presented that the Plaintiff Custodivit boves suos called Draught-Oxen within the several Fields by By-herds contrary to the Order aforesaid by which the penalty of 20 s. aforesaid was forfeited Notwithstanding the said pain de gratia Curiae illius per quosd A. E. afferratores Curiae illius ad hoc jurat assess afferrat fuit ad 6 s. 8 d. And further he said That the place in which the taking c. is within the Mannor aforesaid And that A. B. Steward of the said Mannor extraxit in scriptis extra Rotulis Curiae praed the said pain of 6 s. 8 d. and delivered the same to the Defendant Bailiff of the said Mannor to Collect and Receive by force of which he required the said 6 s. 8 d. of the Plaintiff and he refused to pay it and so avoweth the taking c. And upon this Conusans of the Defendant the Plaintiff did Demur in Law And Iudgment was given against the Conusans 1. Because he pleaded That it was presented Coram Sectatoribus and doth not shew their Names 2. The penalty appointed by the By-Law was 20 s. and he sheweth it was abridged to 6 s. 8 d. and so the penalty demanded and for which the Distress was taken is not maintained by the By-Law and a pain certain ought not to be altered 3. He sheweth that it was presented that the Plaintiff had kept his Draught-Oxen and he ought to have alledged the same in matter in fact that he did keep c. XXII Dedicots Case 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. DEdicot seised of certain Customary Lands Dyer 210 251. Hob. 285. surrendred the same into the hands of the Lord to the intent that the Lord should grant the same de Novo to the same Dedicot for life and afterwards to Jane his Wife during the Nonage of the Son and Heir of Dedicot and afterwards to the said Son and Heir in tail c. Dedicot died before any new Grant Afterwards the Lord granted the said Land to the Wife during the Nonage of the said Heir the remainder to the Heir in tail the Heir at that time being but of the age of 5 years so as the said Wife by force of the said Surrender and Admittance was to have the said Lands for 16 years The Wife took another Husband and died And it was the Opinion of Brown and Dyer Iustices That the Husband should have the Lands during the Nonage of

they had not any Lands in the said Town but the said Mannor And the Ejectione firmae was brought of that Mannor in Kent and from thence the Visne came and all the special matter aforesaid was found by Verdict And Exception was taken to the Verdict because they have found generally That the Master and Scholars had not any thing in the said Town of Laberhurst but the said Mannor Whereas they ought to have said That they had not any thing in the said Town in the County of Kent For they could not take notice what Lands the Master and Scholars had in that part of the Town which was in the County of Sussex And of that Opinion the whole Court seemed to be But Quaere of it for it was adjourned XCVI Hinde and Lyons Case Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 70. Dyer 124. 2 Len. 11. IN Debt by Hinde against one as Son and Heir of Sir John Lyon who pleaded Nothing by descent but the third part of the Mannor of D. the Plaintiff replyed Assets and shewed for Assets That the Defendant had the whole Mannor of D. by descent Vpon which they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence to the Iury That the said Mannor was holden by Knights-Service And that the said Sir John the Ancestor of c. by his Will in writing Devised the whole Mannor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years And that at the age of his Son of 24 years his Wife should have the third part of the said Mannor for her life and his Son should have the residue And if that his said Son do die before he come to his said age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain to J.S. the remainder over The Devisor died The Son came to the age of 24 years The Question was If the Son had an Estate in tail for then for two parts he was not in by descent And it seemed to Dyer and Manwood That here was not any Estate in tail for no tail shall rise if not that the Son die before his said age and therefore the tail shall never take effect and the Fee-simple doth descend and remain in the Son unless that he dieth before the age of 24 years and then the Estate vests with the remainder over but now having attained to the said age he hath the Fee and that by descent of the entier Mannor and then his Plea is false That but the third part descended And a general Iudgment shall be given against him as of his own Debt And an Elegit shall issue forth of the moyety of all his Lands as well those which he hath by descent from his Ancestor as his other Lands And a Capias also lieth against him But Manwood Iustice conceived That if a general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such cause a Capias doth not lie although it lieth in case of a false Plea. 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 President where such an Action was maintainable against the Executors of the Heir XCVII Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A. seised of Lands in Fee 2 Len. 154. Hob. 285. Dyer 329. by his Will in writing granted a Rent-Charge of 5 l. per annum out of the same to his younger Son towards his education and bringing up in Learning The Question was If in pleading the Devisee ought to aver That he was brought up in Learning And it was holden by Dyer Manwood and Mounson Iustices That there needs no such Averment for the Devise is not Conditional and therefore although he be not brought up in Learning yet he shall have the Rent And the words of the Devise are Towards his bringing up And the Devisor well knew that 5 l. per annum would not and could not reach to maintain a Scholar in Learning Diet Apparel and Books And this Rent although it be not sufficient to such intent yet the Son shall have it And by Dyer Three years past such Case was in this Court scil Two were bounden to stand to the Award of certain persons Who awarded That the one of them should pay unto the other 20 s. per annum during the Term of 6 years towards the education and bringing up of such an Enfant and within two years of the said Term the Enfant died so as now there needed not any supply towards his Education Yet it was holden That the said yearly sum ought to be paid for the whole Term after For the words Towards his Education are but to shew the intent and consideration of the payment of that sum and are not the words of a Condition XCVIII Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit The Plaintiff declared That the Defendant was seised in Fee of the Mannor of Orchard alias Lydcots-Farm to which the Advowson is appendant and presented such a one c. And afterwards leased to the Plaintiff the said Mannor per nomen of the Mannor of Orchard alias Lydcots-Farm with the appurtenances for 21 years and the Church became void c. And the truth of the Case was That there is the Mannor of Orchard and within the said Mannor the said Farm called Lydcots Farm parcel of the said Mannor and the Lease was of the said Farm and not of the said Mannor and so the Advowson remained to the Lessor as appendant to the Mannor In this Case It was moved What thing the Defendant should traverse Dyer He shall say That the Advowson is appendant to the Mannor of Orchard absque hoc that it is appendant to the Farm of Lydcots But it seemed to Manwood That the Defendant shall say That the Advowson is appendant to the Mannor of Orchard and that the Farm of Lydcots is parcel of the said Mannor and that he Leased to the Plaintiff the said Farm with the appurtenances absque hoc that the Mannor of Orchard and the said Farm are all one For if he traverse the Appendancy to the Farm of Lydcots then he confesseth That the Mannor and Farm are all one c. But Dyer doubted of it XCIX Kirlee and Lees Case Mich. 19 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would marry the Daughter of the Defendant did promise to find to the Plaintiff and his said Wife convenient apparel meat and drink for themselves and two servants and Pasture also for two Geldings by the space of 3 years when the Plaintiff would require it And further shewed That Licet the Plaintiff had married the Defendants Daughter and that he had required the Defendant to find ut supra c. the Defendant refused c. The Defendant

Plaintiff had acquitted and discharged him of the Reparations Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Manwood The same is an Acquittal and Discharge of the Reparations as well for the time past as for the time to come by force of the said Covenant and amounts to as much as if he had Released the Covenant And it was moved If the Covenant being broken for want of Reparations If now that Acquital and Discharge or Release of the Covenant should take away the Action upon the Obligation which was once forfeited before And it was the Opinion of Manwood That it should not For if one be bound in an Obligation for the performance of Covenants and before the breach of any of them the Obligee releaseth the Covenants and afterwards one of the Covenants is broken the Obligation is not forfeited for there is not now any Covenant which may be broken and therefore the Obligation is discharged But if the Release had been after the Covenant broken otherwise all which Dyer and Mounson Concesserunt CVI. Mich. 20. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HVsband and Wife seised in the right of his Wife of certain Customary Lands in Fee he and his Wife by Licence of the Lord make a Lease for years by Indenture rendring Rent have Issue two Daughters The Husband dieth The Wife takes another Husband and they have issue a Son and a Daughter The Husband and Wife die The Son is admitted to the Reversion and dieth without Issue It was holden by Manwood That this Reversion shall descend to all the Daughters notwithstanding the half-blood For the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by Licence of the Lord is a Demise and Lease according to the Order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the Devise the possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder For his possession is Customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be said the possession of the other and therefore there is no possessio fratris in this Case But if he had been Guardian by the Custom or this Lease had been made by surrender There the Sister of the half-blood should not inherit And Meade said That the Case of the Guardian had been so adjudged Mounson to the same intent And if the Copyhold descend to the Son he is not Copyholder before admittance 1 Len. 174 175. but he may take the profits and punish Trepass c. CVII Hinde and Lyons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 11. Dyer 124. Ante 64. DEbt by Hinde against one as Son and Heir of Sir John Lyon who pleaded Nothing by descent but the third part of the Mannor of D. The Plaintiff replyed Assets And shewed for Assets That the Defendant had the entire Mannor of B. by descent Vpon which they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence to the Iury That the Mannor was holden by Knights-Service and that the said Sir John the Ancestor of the Defendant by his Will in writing devised the whole Mannor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years And that at the age of the Son of 24 years his Wife should hold the third part of the said Mannor for the Term of her life and his Son should have the residue And if his Son do die before he come to the age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain over to J.S. the Remainder over to another The Devisor died the Son came to the age of 24 years Dyer and Mounson Iustices conceived That here was not any Estate tail and then for two parts he is not in by descent For no Estate tail shall rise unless that the Son dieth before his said age and therefore the Tayl never took effect and the Feesimple descends and remains in the Son if not that he dieth before the age of 24 years and then the whole vests with the Remainder over but now having attained the said age he hath a Fee and that by descent of the whole Mannor and then his Plea is false that but the third part descended And a general Iudgment shall be given against him as of his own debt And an Elegit shall issue forth of the moyety of all his Lands as well those which he hath by descent from the same Ancestor as of his other Lands And a Capias lieth also against him But Manwood Iustice conceived That if a general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such case a Capias doth not lie although in case of a false Plea it lieth But Dyer held the contrary And the Writ against the Heir is in the debet detinet which proves That in Law it is his own Debt And he said That he could shew a President where such an Action was maintainable against the Executor of the Heir CVIII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Seised of Lands in Fee Devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease she to give the same to whom she will Latch 9,39 had issue two Daughters and died The Wife granted the Reversion to a stranger and committed Waste And the two Daughters brought an Action of Waste It was holden by the Iustices That by that Devise the Wife had but an Estate for life but she had gained authority to give the reversion by his Will to whom she pleased And such a Grantee should be in by A. and his Will For A. had given expresly to his Wife for life and therefore by Implication she should not have any further Estate But if an express Estate had not been appointed to the Wife by the other words an Estate in Feesimple had passed CIX Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lessor Covenanted with his Lessee That the Lessee should enjoy the Lands demised without any lawful Eviction And afterwards upon a Suit depending in Chancery by a stranger against the Lessor for the Land demised The Chancellor made a Decree against the Lessor and that the stranger should have the Land. It was moved If that Decree were a lawfull Eviction by which the Covenant was broken It was holden by the Lord Dyer That the same was not any Eviction For although that in Conscience it be aequum that the said stranger have the possession yet the same is not by reason of any right paramount the title of the Lessor which was in the party for whom it was decreed CX The Marquess of Northamptons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. PArre Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bouchier the Heir of the Earl of Essex 1 Roll. 430. who levied a Fine of the Land of the said Lady Sur Conusans de droit c. with a Grant and render to them for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the Lady And afterwards by Act of

confirms it is a void Confirmation And 7 E. 6. Br. Grants 154. A Man possessed of a Lease for 40 years grants so many of the said years which shall be to come at the time of his death it is a void Grant for the incertainty Afterwards Shuttleworth moved another point viz. The Plaintiff hath declared of a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. The Defendant shews in Evidence a Lease for years to him made 14 Januarii the same year which is 13 days after the Trespass whereof the Plaintiff hath declared and it shall not be intended that the Plaintiff had another Title than that which he hath alledged and forasmuch as he hath not disclosed in himself any Title Tempore transgressionis the Plaintiff should punish him in respect of his first possession without any other Title And although it may be Objected That where the Defendant hath given in Evidence That Williamson leased to the Defendant that is not sufficient and the words subsequent 14 Januarii are void as a nugation and matter of surplusage Truly the Law is contrary for rather those words ante Transgressionem shall be void because too general and shall give way to the subsequent words after the videlicet because they are special and certain As the Case late adjudged The Archbishop of Canterbury leased three parcels of Land rendring Rent of 8 l. per annum viz. for one parcel 5 l. for another 50 s. and for the third 40 which amounts to 9 l. 10 s. It was adjudged That the videlicet and the words subsequent concerning the special reservation of the Rent was utterly void because contrary to the premisses which were certain viz. 8 l. and that the Fermor should pay but 8 l. according to the general reservation but in our case the words precedent are general i. e. ante Transgressionem and therefore the words subsequent which are special and certain shall be taken and the general words rejected As in Trespass the Defendant pleads That A. was seised of the Land where and held it of the Defendant and that the said A. 1 die Maii 6 Eliz. aliened the said Land in Mortmain for which he within a year after viz. 4 Maii Anno 7 Eliz. entred now the same is no bar for upon the evidence it appeareth that the Lord hath surceased his time and the words within the year shall not help him for they are too general and therefore at the subsequent words viz. c. Cook on the Defendants part took Exception For it appeareth here upon the Evidence of the Defendant which is confessed by the Demurrer of the Plaintiff That upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot punish the Defendant for this Trespass for he was not an immediate Trespassor to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff hath declared upon a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. And it is given in Evidence on the part of the Defendant and confessed by the Plaintiff c. That 22 Eliz. Cordell Savell levied a Fine to Williamson by force of which the said Williamson entred and was seised and so seised 14 Januarii 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant Now upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot have Trespass but the Defendant for Williamson was the immediate Trespassor to him for he entred 22 Eliz. And at length after deliberation had of the premisses by the Court The Court moved the Plaintiff to discontinue his suit and to bring de novo a new Action in which the matter in Law might come into Iudgment without any other Exception But the Plaintiff would not agree to it Wherefore it was said by Wray Chief Iustice with the consent of his Companions Begin again at your peril for we are all agreed That you cannot have Judgment upon this Action CXXVI Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his younger Son in tail and after to the use of the Heirs of his body in posterum procreand and at the time of the Feoffment he had Issue two Sons and after the Feoffment had Issue a third Son The younger Son died without Issue Vpon a Motion at the Bar it was said by Wray Iustice That after the death without Issue of the second Son the Land should go to the third Son born after the Feoffment for this word in posterum is a forcible word to create a special Inheritance without that it had been a general tail CXXVII Smith and Smith's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LAmber Smith Executor of Tho. Smith brought an Action upon the Case against John Smith That whereas the Testator having divers Children Enfants and lying sick of a mortal sickness being careful to provide for his said Children Enfants The Defendant in Consideration the Testator would commit the Education of his Children and the disposition of his Goods after his death during the minority of his said Children for the Education of the said Children to him promised to the Testator to procure the assurance of certain Customary Lands to one of the Children of the said Testator And declared further That the Testator thereupon Constituted the Defendant Overseer of his Will and Ordained and appointed by his Will That his Goods should be in the disposition of the Defendant and that the Testator died and that by reason of that Will the Goods of the Testator to such a value came to the Defendants hands to his great profit and advantage And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff And upon Exception to the Declaration in Arrest of Iudgment for want of sufficient Consideration It was said dy Wray Chief Iustice That here is not any benefit to the Defendant that should be a Consideration in Law to induce him to make this promise For the Consideration is no other but to have the disposition of the Goods of the Testator pro educatione Liberorum For all the disposition is for the profit of the Children and notwithstanding That such Overseers commonly make gain of such disposition yet the same is against the intendment of the Law which presumes every Man to be true and faithful if the contrary be not shewed and therefore the Law shall intend That the Defendant hath not made any private gain to himself but that he hath disposed of the Goods of the Testator to the use and benefit of his Children according to the Trust reposed in him Which Ayliffe Iustice granted Gawdy Iustice was of the contrary Opinion And afterwards by Award of the Court It was That the Plaintiff Nihil Capiat per Billam CXXVIII Amner and Luddington's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. 2 Len. 92. 8 Co. 96. And the Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased to one Peerepoint for 99 years who devised the same by his Will in this manner viz. I Bequeath to my Wife the

laid in a person in such sort as it may be laid and therefore in this Case forasmuch as the seisin cannot be shewed by the hands of the Inhabitants it ought to be layed in the Lord. See 4 H. 6. 29. Br. Avowry 71. In a Recordare the Defendant avowed because the King is seised of the Castle of C. in jure Ducatus sui Cornub. to which he had 20 s. Rent out of the Town of D. Solvend annuatim at Michaelmas of which Rent the King and all the Dukes of Cornwal aforesaid had been seised time out of memory c. by the hands of the Inhabitants of the same Town c. and the same was holden a good Avowry For although that seisin ought to be laid in some person certain by his hands yet in that case it is good enough For the seisin by one of the Inhabitants is the seisin of them all And in the principal Case by Periam and Walmesley It was agreed That the seisin here was well enough confessed For when the Plaintiff hath taken Issue That they have used to distrain all other matters are holden confessed because that the Plaintiff hath not saved them to him by protestation Which Rhodes granted Another Exception was taken to the Avowry because that the Leet by it is supposed to be holden in July therefore void which see Magna Charta 35. But it was holden by Anderson Windham and Rhodes That by reason of this Prescription the Court is well holden in July notwithstanding the said Statute of Magna Charta and it might be holden at what day he pleased For his Liberty and Election is not restrained by the said Statute and such is the common experience And note the words of the same Statute Ita quod quilibet habeat Libertates suas quas habuit vel habere consuevit tempore Regis H. avi nostri c. vel quod postea perquisivit c. And Rhodes conceived That the said Statute is to be intended of Turns only and not of Leets Which see 24 H. 8. Br. Leet 23. in the end of the Case But by Periam A Leet cannot be holden but according to the said Statute for to that purpose was the said Statute made But if a Leet hath been time out of mind c. holden at any other day than that which is limited by the Statute it is a good prescription and it is saved by the Statute The Prescription is That he and all c. have used to hold a Leet once in a year and hath not shewed when the said year begins for it may be that a Leet hath been holden there in this year before July and then this is a void Leet and so no Leet-Fee due and of that Opinion was Periam viz. That the Avowant ought to have shewed the beginning and end of the year viz. That he held the said Leet pro uno anno finito such a day for it may be he hath holden two Leets in one year But it was said by the other Iustices That that shall come on the other side for prima facie it shall be intended that it hath been but once holden in the same year until the contrary be shewed And Note by Anderson and Rhodes If the King grants to one a Leet to hold semel quolibet anno without saying At the Liberty of the Grantee the Grant is good and the Grantee may hold it at what day he pleaseth CCXXXII Putnam and Cook 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 129.193 1 Cro. 52. IN Ejectione Firmae It was found That one Hawkins was seised of 3 Messuages in Bury in Fee and had Issue Robert his Son and Christien and Joan Daughters 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 Christien and her Heirs the remainder of the third to Joan and her Heirs And further willed That if any of his said Issues died without Issue of his body that then the other surviving should have totam illam partem c. between them equally to be divided The Devisor died The Wife of the Devisor died Joan died having Issue Robert died without Issue Christien entred into the whole Messuage of Robert and died and her Husband held in as Tenant by the Curtesie Cook The surviving Child shall have the whole and the Issue of Joan shall have nothing And he conceived That by this Devise they have an Estate in tail for the Fee is not vested in them for that it is incertain which of them shall survive but when one doth survive then he shall have the Fee for these words totam illam partem go to the whole Estate as well as to the whole Land. If I Devise my whole Land to J.S. he hath a Fee. And he conceived That the three had an Estate in tail with a Fee expectant each severally to the House limited to him Golding contrary Each of them 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 might appear what Estate they shall have by the Survivor c. I grant the Case which Perkins denies but Littleton affirms scil A Devise of Lands to one 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 these words totam illam partem the same is all one as if he had Devised totam illam without partem Also he conceived That where one only survived no estate further vested for there ought to be two to take by the Survivorship for the words are aequaliter inter eos dividend And then if it cannot accrue by Survivor then it shall descend And if it had accrued by Survivor they should thereof have been Tenants in Common and not Ioynt-Tenants by reason of these words aequaliter dividend Clench Iustice The words totam illam partam go to the House and not to the Estate in it Shute to the same intent If both the Daughters had survived they should have Fee in the House of Robert but not by the Will but by descent in Coparcenery Also when two are dead the Son and one Daughter then it cannot be decided therefore the Will as to that is void and then the Common Law shall take place and put the Messuage to the Issue of one Daughter as to the Sister surviving Gawdy Iustice Here is but an Estate for life in the survivor It hath been Objected That then being but an Estate for life that Estate is drowned by the descent of the Feesimple 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 inition it

sue in what Court he will in any of the Kings Courts of Record And in this Case the Queen is quodam modo a party For she is to have the moyety And so this cause is not meerly betwixt party and party c. CCLXXXV Willoughby's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 117. WIlliam Willoughby and two other were Endicted That where the Parson of the Church of D. and all his predecessors have used to have Common in such a place The said Defendants Willoughby and others had enclosed the same and that enclosure was upon their own Land. It was moved That upon this matter they ought not to have been endicted but the party grieved was put to his Action As where a presentment is made of a Disseisin See 27 Ass 20. And it was the Case of one Marden 29 Eliz. upon the stopping of a High-Way upon his own Land and if it were upon other Land it were not material for it is but an Impeachment to take Common which cannot be Vi et armis c. Also this Endictment is Recorded and Certified as found before Iustices of Assize and Gaol-Delivery and they cannot take such presentment And although the Iustices of Assize and Gaol-Delivery were in rei veritate also Iustices of Peace yet the Endictment being recorded and certified to be taken before them in quality of Iustices of Peace shall not help it for the Court shall not respect any Authority but that which appears upon the Record And for these Causes the parties were discharged CCLXXXVI Gates and Hollywell's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man having Issue two Sons devised That his eldest Son with his Executors should take the profits of the Lands until his younger Son should come to the age of 22 years and then the younger Son should have the Lands to him and his Heirs of his body It was the clear Opinion of all the Iustices That the eldest Son should have a Feesimple in the Lands until the younger Son came to the said age of 22 years CCLXXXVII Cony and Beveridge's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 146. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Case was That the Plaintiff Leased to the Defendant certain Lands in the County of Cambridge rendring rent And afterwards the Defendant became bounden to the Plaintiff in an Obligation for the payment of the said Rent upon which Bond the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the County of Northampton To which the Defendant pleaded payment of the Rent without shewing the place of payment and upon that they were at Issue And it was found by Nisi prius in the County of Northampton for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That the Issue is mis-tryed for here the payment of the Rent being pleaded without shewing the place of payment it shall be intended that the Rent was paid upon the Land which is in the County of Cambridge and there the Issue ought to be tryed See 44 E. 3. 42. And it was the Opinion of Anderson Chief Iustice That no Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for the Cause aforesaid But Rhodes and Windam Iustices were of a contrary Opinion For it doth not appear That the Issue is mis-tryed because that no place of payment is pleaded and it may be for any thing that is shewed That the Rent was not paid in the County of Northampton CCLXXXVIII The Blacksmith's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Blacksmith of South Mimmes in the County of Middlesex took an Obligation of another Blacksmith of the same Town upon Condition that he should not exercise the Trade or Art of a Blacksmith within the same Town nor within a certain precinct of the same And upon that Obligation the Obligee brought an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas depending which Suit the Obligor complained to the Iustices of Peace of the County against the Obligee upon which the matter being found against him 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 hat it And Fleetwood Recorder of London being at the Bar the Court openly admonished him of that matter For by the Law Iustices of Peace have not Conusans of such Offences nor can entermeddle with them for their power is limited by the Commission and the Statutes And the Recorder relyed much upon the Opinion of Hull in 2 H. 5. 5. But it was said by the Court Although that this Court be a high Court to punish such Offences appearing before them of Record yet it doth not follow That the Iustices of Peace may also do so But as to the Obligation it self the Court was clear of Opinion That the same was void and against the Law. CCLXXXIX Russell and Broker's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 209. IN Trespass for cutting down of 4 Oaks 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 Consueverant rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad Libitum suum Capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in Quolibet tempore anni unless in Fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is in the Forrest of D. c. And that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. habere Consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de Boscis c. per Liberationem Forestarii aut ejus Deputati prout Boscus pati potuit non ad exigentiam petentis And upon that Replication the Defendant demurred in Law. And it was the clear Opinion of the Court That Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff For if he would have ousted the Defendant of his Prescription by the Law of the Forrest he ought to have shewed the Law of the Forrest in such Case Lex forestae talis est For the Law of the Forrest is not the Common Law of the Land and we are not bounden to take notice of it but it ought to be pleaded Or else 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 which is set forth in the Bar which cannot be good But if the Plaintiff had shewed in his Replication Lex forestae talis est 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 hath justified the cutting down of Oaks without alledging That there was not any Vnderwoods But that Exception was not allowed for he hath his Choice ad libitum suum Another Exception was taken

the acknowledgment of a Deed to himself A. 184. No Action or Indictment lies against one for an offence done as Judge A. 295 323 324. Upon a Justicies the Sheriff in person is Judge else all is coram non Judice B. 34. If Justices of Assise and Gaol-Delivery can take an Indictment of Trespass B. 117. A Justice of Peace cannot commit one for making a Contract against Law B. 210. What Indictment cannot be taken before Judges of Assise and Gaol-Delivery C. 216. Iusticies None but the Sheriff himself can hold Plea thereby B. 34. No Capias in Execution thereupon B. 86. Iustification By a Constable in false Imprisonment for that the Plaintiff would leave her Child to the Parish A. 327. By Prescription for a Way the Defendant must shew a quo ad quem locum certain the Way leads B. 10. By the Bailiffs of a Corporation to imprison any Subject at their pleasure for a misbehavior not good B. 34 35. If the Constable plead that he set one in the Stocks for not Watching he must aver that the party dwells in his Parish C. 208 209. K. King. See Prerogative WHat is given to the King by a Statute of Attainder which gives all rights c. A. 272. Not necessary to summon the King for matter in the Kings Bench for he is there always present A. 325. Quid operatur by assignment of a Debt to the King B. 31 55 67. C. 234. A Bond for performance of Covenants may be assigned to the King but no Execution before the party be warned B. 55. The Kings Widow cannot Marry without the Kings consent B. 141. If he may alter the Tenure notwithstanding the Stat. Quia emptores terrarum B. 151 163. C. 58. Takes nothing but by Record B. 206 207. No usurpation puts the King out of possession of an Advowson C. 17 18. What Debts may be assigned to the King B. 55. C. 234. L. Law. LEX Idumaea quid C. 264. Lex mercatoria is a publick Law and the Judges take notice so of it C. 264. Lex non praecipit inutilia If it appear the Plaintiff cannot have the thing demanded the Writ shall abate A. 330 331. Leases Power to make Leases by Stat. not pursued C. 72. Made be vertue of a power reserved to make Leases for 21 years shall not be to commence post â—xpirationem c. A. 35. Of Sheep and a Farm A. 42. What kind of property the Lessee hath in the Trees A. 49. Without Impeachment of Wast how construed Ibid. Excepting Woods Timber-Trees c. if the Soil it self is excepted A. 116 117 247. Where a Licence to occupy amounts to and shall be pleaded as a Lease A. 129. Covenant that the Covenantee shall enjoy c. is a good Lease Contra that a Stranger shall c. A. 136. For years may commence in futuro A. 171. Upon a Lease for years in remainder there must be Attornment Ibid. What words amount to a Lease A. 178. By Baron and Feme not good without Deed A. 204. For years if the Lessee so long live and if he die within the Term the remainder to J. S. The remainder is void A. 218. C. 154. Where an uncertain commencement may be ascertained by the entry or election of the Lessee A. 227. B. 1. Must have an end and beginning certain A. 245. C. 86. Lease for life cannot commence in futuro unless by way of remainder A. 275 276. None can take by it but those who are party to the Deed A. 287 288. What are void what only voidable A. 307. One Man exposuit ad culturam his Land to two the two have no Estate A. 315. To commence after a former if the former were void ab initio or since the first shall begin presently B. 11. What is a Lease for years or at will B. 78. By a several Habendum to commence after the expiration of several former Leases whether the new Lease begin till all the other be expired B. 106. Lease for so many years as J. S. shall name is good if he name in the life of both parties C. 86. Lease out of a Lease for so many years as shall be to come at the Lessors death Ibid. Lease of Lands by Lessee for years worth 8 l. per annum until the Lessee levy 100 l. what interest is left in the Lessee C. 157. Lease for 60 years and if the Lessee die within the Term that then his Executors shall have until the end of the Term C. 196 197. Leet Who is Judge there and what things are incident to a Leet A. 217 218. When to be holden by the Common Law and by the Statute B. 74. Legacy What is a good assent by an Executor to a Legacy A. 129 130. C. 6. Not payable without demand A. 17. Where and what election shall make one who is Executor and Legatee to be in by the Devise or as Executor A. 216. Payable to an Infant at his full age his Executor may sue for it before the time of his age A. 278. What Devise is a Legacy what not B. 119 120. Lieu and County Where Plea shall be ill after Verdict for want of alledging a place B. 22 76 77 146 147. C. 10. Where necessary in an Indictment B. 183. No place necessary where a Feoffment or Lease for life was made B. 31 32. Where the taking of the profits of Lands is alledged it must be said to be done at the Vill where the Lands lie N. 238. Limitation of Estates To A. and B. his Wife for years if they or any of their Child or Children live so long A. 74. What words make a Condition what a Limitation A. 167 168 244 245 298 299. B. 38 114. To the Feoffor for life and after his death to his Executors for 20 years in whom the Term is vested B. 5 6. C. 21 22. To A. for life and if A. die within 20 years to his Executors for so many years B. 6 7. C. 21 22. One having Issue a Son and a Daughter by several venters Devised to his Son and the Heirs of the Body of the Father how adjudged B. 24 25 26. Mannor of O. in S. use limited of all Lands in O yet the Mannor passeth not B. 47. The moiety of Lands to his Wife for years and his eldest Daughter to enter into the other moiety and the Daughter married and died without Issue having another Sister C. 25 26. To J.S. and his Issue imposterum procreand the present Issue take nothing C. 87. Lands given to A. for the Life of C. and B. the death of either determines the Estate C. 103. Grant to two habend moiety to one and moiety to the other good But grant of two Acres habend to two habend one to one and the other to the other is void C. 126. Limitation of Time. If a Corporation must alledge Seisin within the time limited by the Statute in real Actions A. 153. Livery of Seisin Made before enrolment

In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 27. THe Case was That the Bishop of Exeter leased certain Lands in the County of Devon for years rendring Rent payable in Exeter aforesaid with Clause of Re-entry and the Bishop of Exeter had a Palace in Exeter aforesaid It was the Opinion of the Iustices in this Case That the Rent ought to be demanded at the said Palace and not elsewhere And if that the Lessee come to the Common Gate of the said Palace and there tender the Rent it is a good tender without more be the Gate shut or open notwithstanding that the Bishop be within the Palace and that neither he nor any of his Servants be at the Gate for to receive it for the Lessee is not tyed to open the Gate of the Palace if it be shut nor to enter into the Palace if it be open X. Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. COpyhold Land was surrendred to the use of the Wife for life the remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the Husband and Wife The Husband entred in the right of his Wife It was the Opinion of the Iustices in this Case That the remainder was executed for a Moyety presently in the Wife and the Husband of that was seised in the right his Wife and the Wife dying first that her Heir should have it 1 Roll. Lane and Pannel's Case But if the Husband had died first his Heir should have had one Moyety XI Joscelin and Sheltons Case Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. More Rep. 13. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration that the Son of the Plaintiff would marry the Daughter of the Defendant assumed and promised to pay to him 400 Marks in 7 years next ensuing by such portions And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff It was Obiected in Arrest of Iudgment That one of the said 7 years was not incurred at the time of the Action brought c. and that appeared upon the Declaration so as the Plaintiff had not cause of Action for the whole Mony promised And for that cause the Writ was abated by the Court by award although it was after Verdict See Br. Title Action upon the Case 108. XII 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. IN an Assise against 4. they were at Issue upon Nul Tenant del Franktenement nosme en le brief And it was found by the Assise That two of them were Disseisors and two Tenants And after Verdict and before Iudgment one of those who were found Tenants died And that was moved in Arrest of Iudgment But it was not allowed of by the Court Because the parties had not day in Court to plead it But it was said That after Iudgment given a Writ of Error lieth In the Time of Queen Elizabeth XIII Canons Case 1 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. UPon an Evidence to a Iury in the Common-Pleas 1 Roll. 839. Vpon an Issue there this Deed was given in Evidence viz. Sciant praesentes futuri Quod Ego Richardus Canon filius haeres Richandi Canon Dedi Concessi hac praesenti carta mea Confirmavi Willielmo Compton Militi Omnia Terr Tenementa c. ad usum mei praed Richardi Joannae uxoris meae pro termino vitae absque impetitione Vasti ac etiam rectorum haered mei praefat Richardi assignatorum meorum post decessum mei praefat Richardi Joannae uxoris meae Et si contingat me praefat Richardum obire sine exitu de Corpore meo procreato Tunc Volo quod omnia dict Terr Tenementa remaneant Tho. fratri meo rectis haeredibus de Corpore suo procreatis haeredib assignat eorum And it was the Opinion of the Iustices That a good Estate tail was by that Deed limited to the said Richard in use after the death of his Wife XIV Holt and Ropers Case 2 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Holt against Roper the Case was J. Abbot of W. Leased to T.M. Knight a Close of Land in B. for 44 years Post 242. 243. who thereof possessed was attainted of misprision of Treason and so forfeited to the King who seised the same The Abbot and his Covent surrendred 31 H. 8. the King Leased the same to Roper for 21 years and died King Ed. 6th in the fourth year of his Reign Leased the same to one Philips To have and to hold after the Term to T.M. ended for 21 years Roper surrendred to Queen Mary who Leased the same again to Roper for 30 years In this Case It was adjudged That the Lease made to Phillips was utterly void for that the King was deceived in his Grant For the Lease made to F.M. was long time before determined by extinguishment in the Person of the King who had it by forfeiture upon the Attainder of T.M. and the Statute of 1 E. 6. Cap. 8. shall not help that Lease notwithstanding the Non-recital or Mis-recital of Leases made before For here is not matter of recital but matter of Estate and Interest which is not well limited for the Commencement of it i. the Lease to Phillips For there is not any certainty of the Commencement of it For that Lease cannot begin after the Surrender of Roper for the words of the Limitation of the beginning of it cannot serve to such Construction XV. 2 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Term for years is devised to A. The Executors of the Devisor entred into the Land devised to the use of the Devisee It was the Opinion of the Court That the same was a sufficient possession to the Devisee XVI 3 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TWo Coparceners were of a Reversion the one of them granted his Interest in it by Fine to another It was holden in that Case That the Conusee should have a Quid juris clamat for a Moyety of the said Reversion XVII Mich. 4 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lessor mortgaged his Reversion in Fee to the Lessee for years and at the day of Mortgage for payment of the Mony he paid the Mony It was holden in this Case That the Lease for years was not revived but utterly extinct XVIII Mich. 4 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. J.N. Cestuy que use in tail 14 H. 8. by Indenture between him on the one part and J.S. of the other part In Consideration of a Marriage between his Son and Heir apparent and Joan Daughter of the said J.S. to be had Covenanted with the said J.S. That neither he nor any of the Feoffees seised to his use have made or hereafter shall make any Estate Release Grant of Rent levy any Fine or do any other Incumbrance whatsoever of any of his Mannors Lands c. But that all the said Mannors c. shall immediately descend or remain to his said Son and the Heirs

the Enfant Hob. Rep. 281. for the Wife had her said Estate to her own use and then her Husband surviving her should have it and that without any admittance for that he is not in of any new Estate but in the Estate of his Wife as Assignee And it was said by them That if a Copyholder be for years and maketh his Executors and dieth that the Executors should have the Term Co. Case of Copyholders and that without any Admittance Weston contrary in that case as to the Executors XXIII Tindall and Cobbs Case 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAste was brought by Tindall Knight against Jeoffery Cobbe Esquire and the Plaintiff declared of a Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton and of the moyety of a Wood called Wolverton-Wood The Defendant pleaded That Robert Winckfield before the Waste supposed was seised of and in tertia parte alterius Medietatis of the said Mannor and of and in tertia parte alterius Medietatis of the aforesaid Wood and held the same insimul pro indiviso with the Plaintiff and that the said Robert Winckfield by his Deed sold to the Defendant omnes omnimodas arbores subboscos suos crescent in praedict tertia parte alterius medietatis praedicti bosci ad libitum ipsius Galfridi succidend and so justified the cutting down of 300 Oaks in which the Waste is assigned with this that he will aver That the aforesaid 300 Oaks were the third part only in numero precio medietatis omnium arbor subboscorum at the said time when the Waste is supposed to be done and demanded Iudgment if Action And divers Exceptions were taken to the Count 1. He sheweth Vaugh. Rep. 175. that the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor was per nomen c. and doth not shew that the demise was by writing and if not then he cannot plead it by a per Nomen 2. The Waste is assigned in digging of Clay in 100 Acres of Lands parcel Medietatis Maner de Wolverton and hath not shewed in what Town the Land is For he hath shewed before the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton in Wolverton 3. He shews the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton and of other Lands and assigns the Waste in cutting down Oaks in quodam bosco vocat Wolverton Wood parcel praemissorum and that cannot be for this Wood cannot be parcel of the Mannor of Wolverton and of the other Lands also And for these Causes the Count by the whole Court was holden to be insufficient XXIV Stamfords Case 7 Eliz. Dyer In the Common Pleas HUgh Stamford seised in Fee had Issue A. his eldest Son and B. his younger Son A. had Issue George and Elizabeth by divers Women Hugh made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of George in tail and afterwards to the use of A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of Hugh Hugh dieth A. dieth George levieth a Fine to the use of himself in tail the remainder over to B. in Fee and dyeth without Issue It was holden by Bendloes Carell Kelloway both the Bromleys and Kingsmill That Elizabeth is barred by this Fine by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. XXV 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this Grandfather Father and Son Lands are given to the Grandfather for life the remainder to the Son in tail The Grandfather and Father joyn in a Feoffment with warranty The Feoffee makes a Lease for years and afterwards conveys the Land to the Grandfather for life the remainder to the Father in Fee The Grandfather and Father die The Son entreth and puts out the Lessee Weston was of Opinion That the Entry of the Son was lawful for it was the Feoffment of the Grandfather and the Confirmation of the Father and the Warranty of the Grandfather collateral to the Father and his Estate but when the Land is re-assured as above is said and afterwards the Son entreth after the death of the Grandfather and Father now he is remitted and the warranty gone by taking back the Estate and the Son is now seised of as high an Estate as his Ancestor was at the time that he departed with the Land by which the warranty is determined Dyer contrary Here had not been any discontinuance if the warranty had not been for the Father was never seised by force of the entail And I conceive that against a warranty collateral one cannot be remitted for it binds the Right as a Fine with Proclamation after the Statute of 4 H. 7. And I conceive that during the possession of the Grandfather the Warranty is but suspended and not determined and although that by the death of the Grandfather it be determined yet having respect to the Lessee it is in being for his Estate is derived out of the Estate which was warranted and which descends with the Warranty Bendloes One cannot make Title by a Collateral Warranty only c. XXVI Simonds Case 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedom the Tenant vouched Rose Simonds as Daughter and Heir of Henry Simonds Clerk and because she was within age he prayed that the Parol might demur Bendloes recited the Case to be this A Fine was levied of the Lands to Henry Simonds upon Condition c. who rendred back the Land to the Conusor by the same Fine and that the said Henry Simonds never had any possession or seisin but that which he had mean between the Conusans and the Rendee of which possession the Wife should not be endowed And therefore it is a good Counter-plea to say That the said Rose nor any of her Ancestors c. for that was not such a Seisin upon which Warranty might rise and so if a Feoffment in Fee had been made to the said Henry Simonds to the use of another And of that Opinion was Dyer Iustice for Henry Simonds had not any possession by force of which he might be vouched Welsh contrary For the Fine imports in it self that he hath a Fee and that he hath granted and rendred the same Fee and this Fine amounts to a Feoffment Dyer said to Bendloes The best way for you is to plead the Counter-plea generally and if he estop you by the Fine to demur upon it Afterwards Bendloes moved another matter viz. Henry Simonds was a Priest and therefore Rose is a Bastard and if so then she cannot be vouched as Heir But I would not trust the Bishop to Certifie the Bastardy if I should plead it generally and therefore I will plead the special matter and so it shall be tryed by the Country Dyer and Welsh So you may do if you please and yet if you plead general Bastardy it shall be tryed by the Country for Rose is not a party to the Writ and in such case Bastardy shall be tryed by the Country XXVII Mich. 8

willed that his Son should have all his Mannors and Lands and should pay his Debts and should give certain sums of Monies for the Marriage Portions of his Daughters And the Question which was moved to the Court was Whether the first part of his Will That is to say That Hurlock and the others should have his Lands c. were void or not by the later words of his Will Dyer Iustice said That the last words of the Will did well expound the meaning of the first words and that the Will should be performed as it might be And afterwards Harper said That upon this matter Hurlock and the others had had a Decree in the Court of Wards to have the whole Lands during the years and not two parts of the Lands only Dyer Iustice said That the Will of Sir Tho. Umpton which was made mean between the Statutes of 32 H. 8. and 34 H. 8. and which is excepted by the same Statute that it should not be construed in other form than according to the first Statute was Of all his Lands And upon a Demurrer argued It was adjudged That the Will was good of two parts although that by the Will it was not divided For where a Man hath a Warrant to do a thing and he doth it and more so as he exceeds his Warrant yet it is good for that part for which it is warranted and void for the rest As if a Man makes a Warrant of Attorny to make Livery and Seisin of the Mannor of Dale and he makes Livery of the Mannors of Dale and Sale it is good for the Mannor of Dale and void for the Mannor of Sale. The Case was in a Writ of Partition And afterwards the Record was removed by a Writ of Error supposing that this Court had Erred and the Iudgment was affirmed by three of the Iustices of the Kings Bench. But because there was a Discontinuance in the Record which was erronious for that the first Iudgment was reversed but not for any other cause And such was the meaning and intent of the Statute of 32 H. 8. before the making of the Statute of 34 H. 8. of Explanation of Wills. And therefore here in the principal Case it was holden That the Will was good for two parts both to the Wife and also to Hurlock and the others And it was holden That by the Intent of the Will that the Son was to pay such sums of Monies a Hurlock was to have paid so as the Will was not for the advantage of the Heir but to be construed according to the meaning of Philpot That if Hurlock could not have the Lands c. that then the Son should have them but with such charge as aforesaid and it was no Intent to subvert the first part of the Will if the same might stand with the Law. And so it was adjudged LVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this A Man makes a Lease for 30 years More Rep. 94 Post 55. Winch. Rep. 5. and bargains and sells the Woods in and upon the Premisses to the Lessee and that he might carry them off the Lands during the time of 30 years The Lessee cut down all the Woods and afterwards other Wood grew up from the Stocks and the Lessee cut them also within the Term and the Lessor brought an Action of Waste for cutting of the new Wood. And it was moved by Meade Hob. Rep. 132. Serjeant If the Action of Waste would lie or not Harper Iustice Is the Bargain de bosco subbosco growing in and upon the Premisses Meade No but all his Woods in and upon the Premisses Harper The Grant is in the present tense in praesenti so as he cannot have that which shall grow there after And if he would grant all his Woods which should grow in time to come the Grant should not be good because it is not of a thing in esse And if a Man will grant all his Wood growing upon Black-Acre and there be then no Wood he cannot have any thing although that afterwards Woods grow there and if his meaning had been That he should have the Wood which should there after grow he would have expressed the same in another form Mounson If a Man grants all his Hay growing upon his Land Hob. 132. shall he have that which is growing there after No truly And if he grant all the Wooll which is growing upon his Sheep shall he have more than that which groweth this year Meade No truly But if he had granted all the Wooll growing upon the Sheep for 20 years then the same is like to our case for he hath granted that he may carry the Wooll during the 30 years Harper The same is but a Liberty to fell the Trees which where growing at the time of the Sale and to carry them when he pleaseth and not to give other Trees or Wood which should there after grow LVIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace Serjeant moved this Case to the Court That an Assise was brought of the Office of Registership in the County of Devon And he shewed How that the Bishop of Exeter granted the Office and shewed the name of the Bishop And that after William Alley Bishop there granted the same Office after the death of the first Grantee to the Plaintiff And further he shewed That the Bishop might grant the Office ad Idoneam personam And because he doth not say in his Plaint That the person to whom it was granted is idonea persona I conceive that the Plaint is not good for if there be no such person which can exercise the Office he shall not have it For that is a Condition which is annexed to the Office that he be a fit person who shall take it And the Prothonotaries of this place ought to have skill in that which appertaineth to their Office For if such an Office should be given to a Courtier who hath not skill in that which appertaineth to the Office nor knowledge how to execute he shall not have it Also he said That he hath not shewed that the first Bishop is dead or that he hath resigned or whether that he be deprived and therefore it shall be intended that he continueth unless the contrary be shewed And then the Grant made by Alley to the Plaintiff cannot be good And for these causes and for others he prayed to know the Opinion of the Court. Dyer Iustice The matter is not before us and wherefore should we give our Opinions to serve the fancy of every person and to resolve the doubts of every Court But if the matter laid come before by Adjournment for difficulty because the Iustices of Assise are of divers Opinions or that they doubted of any thing upon such difficulty and adjournment we use to shew our Opinions and to take some pains to search our Books to Resolve the doubts but when we have not any thing before us

Bar for no person is named there Manwood If a Lease be made made to J.S. except Green-Close to J.D. who is a stranger the Exception is good and J.D. shall have it The Principal Case was Adjourned LXI The Lord Windsors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence given to a Iury in the Kings Bench in an Ejectione Firmae the Case appeared to be thus That Sir Roger Lewknor Knight being seised in Fee of the Mannor of South Myms made an Indenture Anno 11. H. 8. by which Indenture he Leased the said Mannor to 20 persons to the use of Andrew Windsor afterwards Lord Windsor and Henry his Son and the Survivor of them as long as any of the said persons named in the said Indenture should live And further Covenanted by the same Indenture To stand seised of the said Mannor To the use of the said Andrew and Henry and the Survivor of them during the lives of any of the said Feoffees named in the same Indenture which Deed was made without Livery and Seisin and reserved upon it an yearly Rent and afterwards the Son died And in 22 H. 8. A Fine was levied by a stranger upon a Release to Andrew Lord Windsor And afterwards 34 of Henry 8 Andrew Lord Windsor made a Lease to one for years and died and made William and Edmond his Sons his Executors And afterwards William his eldest Son being Lord Windsor 2 3 Phil. Mary made a Lease of the same Land unto another to begin after the first Lease ended Which William died and the Lord Windsor that now is accepted the Rent and of late time agreed with one Vaughan who had married the Heir of Sir Roger Lewknor for the Reversion in Fee and afterwards the Lease made by Andrew Lord Windsor 34 H. 8. ended in the 4th year of the Reign of the Queen that now is Whereupon the second Lessee that is to say the Lessee of William Lord Windsor entred and being ousted he brought the Ejectione firmae And then and yet one of the 20 Feoffees of Sir Roger Lewknor is alive so as the Estate of Cestuy que Vie is not as yet determined And now the Question upon the first part of the Evidence is If this later Lease made by William Lord Windsor be a good Lease or not And who shall be said Occupant For when the Lord Andrew died then the Lessee as Catline said shall not be said in otherwise than according to his Lease when his occupation by Lease was lawful before And he who shall be said Occupant shall have a Freehold and if he should be Occupant he should be in by a new title Then we are to see If the Executors of the Lord which have the Rent and to whom the same is paid by the Lessee shall be said Occupant And he conceived That they should not although that they enter unless they claim the Freehold at the time of their entry for if they enter generally it shall be intended according to the Will as Executors and if he had granted his Estate to another there after his death the Grantee shall be said to be in by reason of his Grant and not as Occupant And so if he would devise his Estate the Devisee shall be in by reason of the Devise and not as Occupant Which Case of Devise Southcote denyed That he should not be in by reason of the Devise when his Estate determines with his death But if the Devisee entreth by force of the Devise he shall be in as an Occupant And also Southcote denyed that which had been said That the Lessee for years who holdeth the Lands after the death of Andrew Lord Windsor should not be an Occupant For as he said the Lessee being in possession after the death of the Lord Andrew should be said Occupant and no other for the Executors of the Lord could not be Occupant by the having of the Rent because they had not the possession of the Land for none shall be Occupant but he who is in possession Whiddon said That if the first Lease made by Andrew Lord Windsor was now in esse and that an Ejectione Firmae was brought upon that that the Lessee ought to aver That some of the Feoffees for whose lives c. were then living Southcote If a Praecipe quod reddat shall be brought against whom shall it be brought against him in the Reversion or against him in possession And if it shall be brought against the Tenant in possession then he ought to have the Freehold for it cannot be brought but against one who hath a Freehold at the least And then if the Lord William Windsor had nothing in the Land then how could he make this Lease to the Plaintiff that now is when the first Lessee continueth Occupant after the death of the Lord Andrew during the life of Cestuy que Vye And as to the Fine the Question did further arise If the Lord Andrew Windsor should have a Feesimple by that Fine For being levied as Catline said It cannot be to the first Vses because a Fine upon a Release cannot be intended to the use of any other but to him to whom it is levied unless an use be expressed in the Fine or by another Deed And upon a Fine levied upon a Release made unto Tenant life by a stranger the same is not a forfeiture of his Estate But if Tenant for life taketh a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. the same is a forfeiture And although a Fine levied by those who have not any thing in the Lands be void Yet here it is not so and it ought to be pleaded specially and shewed that he had not anything in the Land at the time the Fine was levied as Anderson said And Catline said That this Fine was not without good advice for the Lord Brook and others who were learned in the Law were of Counsel with the Lord Windsor in the levying of this Fine so as the intent was to settle the Feesimple in himself by the Fine and not that the first Vses should stand after that And thereupon he put the Case of Putnam and Duncomb which hath much Resemblance to this Case which he argued when he was Serjeant and held the same Opinion as he holdeth now And therefore he said That although the Purchase was but of late time of Vaughan and his Wife yet the Fee was in the Lord Windsor before and this manner of purchase was to no other end but to discharge the Lands of Incumbrances as appeareth by the small sum which was paid the Land being of a great yearly value And as Vaughan confessed he took this sum of Mony because that his Council informed him that the Feesimple was in the Lord Windsor before and that otherwise he would not have sold it at such a price And he said That before that agreement the Lord Windsor told him that he had the Feesimple in himself

King and a Common Person was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant Dyer Iustice I conceive That it is a good Purchase in Law as well in the Case of the King as in the Case of a Common Person And see to that purpose 39 E. 3. and in this Case If the King had granted the Land to John Holt without naming him Son the same had been a good Purchase But if the King had called him John the Son of Thomas without giving him a sirname there such a Purchase should not be good if he were a Bastard because he hath not Nomen Cognitum as where he hath a sirname and a Man cannot purchase by the Name of John only and then if he be called John the Son of Thomas when he is not his Son it cannot be good And such Case hath here lately been adjudged Where the Lord Powis gave certain Lands to Thomas Gray his Son by him begotten upon the Body of Jane Orwell and in truth the said Thomas was a Bastard of the said Lord Powis and the name of Jane was not Orwell but the Daughter of one Punt and the Mother of Jane who was first married to Punt betwixt whom Jane was begotten married with one Orwell and yet notwithstanding that wrong Name and that the said Thomas Gray was not the Son of the Lord Powis born of Jane Orwell but of one Jane Punt yet it was a good Purchase and Gift to Thomas Gray because it was his known Name Manwood As I take it the Letters Patents are Ex certa scientia ex mero motu and then the Kings Grant shall not be taken in such plight as the Grant of a Common Person void for incertainty because that the King takes notice of the Person of what degree he is and in the Kings Case where he takes knowledge by the words Ex certa scientia there all matter of uncertainty shall be avoided and made good but not matter which is not true And for uncertainty he said Where a thing may be taken two ways there without the words Ex certa scientia c. the best shall be taken for the King and strongest against the Patentee But by Dyer by the words Ex certa scientia c. that incertainty is saved and shall be taken strong for the Patentee and if it can any ways be taken for him then the Patent shall not be void and then when in the principal Case there is the word Son and the word Son may be taken two ways either for a base Son or a true Son there by the words Ex certa scientia the King taketh upon him to know in what manner he is Son and a base Son is a Son Quodam modo so as the Letters Patents shall not be false But where the King in his Letters Patents recites a thing which is false that shall not make the Patent good although the words be Ex certa scientia et mero motu LXX Mich. 15. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was agreed by the Court That if a Man in a Replevin pleadeth and they are at Issue and the Iury is charged and gone from the Bar and returns to give their verdict and the Plaintiff be non-suit their retorn irreplevisable shall not be awarded as in case if a verdict had been given But the party may have a Writ of second Deliverance as well as if he had been nonsuit before declaration or appearance LXXI Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Husband levied a Fine of his Land and died and his Wife within the 5 years after the death of her Husband brought her Writ of Dower but did not pursue her Writ until 6 years were past and then she would have revived her Suit. And Meade Serjeant demanded the Opinion of the Iustices If the Wife should be barred of her Dower or not And by Manwood Iustice it was moved again If they at the Bar did agree That if a Fine be levied by the Husband and the Wife doth not make her claim within the 5 years if for that she shall be barred And he conceived That she should not be barred For he said That he who hath Title to the Land at the time of the Fine levied if he doth not sue within 5 years after his Title accrued should be barred But where the Title accrues after the Fine there he who hath Title shall not be barred by the 5 years but he may come 30 years after and make his Title and Claim But in the principal case he said That if the Fine had been levied after the death of the Husband there the Wife should be barred if she did not pursue her Right and Claim within 5 years And he agreed That if the 5 years be a Bar here that then by the Wives suffering of her Writ of Dower to be discontinued till after the 5 years were past that she should be barred because vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt Leges Harper said That the Discontinuance should be no Bar unto her For he said That if a gift be made to one in tail the Remainder over and Tenant in tail dieth without Issue and he in the Remainder brings a Formedon in the Remainder within 5 years and discontinueth it yet it is no Bar but that after the 5 years ended he may revive his Suit Which Manwood denyed And then Dyer came into the Court and the Case was moved to him And he said That the not prosecuting of the Action by the Wife should be a Bar unto her and that the Marriage which was before the Fine was the cause of Dower although she could not come to be endowed until after the death of her Husband And he said That the Wife could make no other to have her Dower but only by bringing of her Writ of Dower and therefore if she did surcease her time until the 5 years were past that her new claim by her new Writ would not revive the Ancient Claim and that therefore she should be barred For she could not enter into the Land to defeat the Fine And he said That as to the principal Case That it was adjudged Anno 4 H. 8. And it was also said by the Court That an Assignment of Dower made to the Wife in the Court of Wards was no sufficient claim of the Wife because she cannot have a Writ of Dower there and there by this surceasing of her demand of her Dower for the 5 years at the Common Law that she should be barred LXXII Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for years and the Lessee Covenanted to make Reparations The Lessor granted the Reversion to another and the Lessee for years made his Wife his Executrix and died It was holden in this Case by the Court That the Grantee of the Reversion should not recover damages but from the time of the Grant and not for any time before But yet the

Wife the Executrix should be charged for the not Reparations as well in the time of her Husband as in her own time And if she do make the Reparation depending the Suit yet thereby the Suit shall not abate but it shall be a good cause to qualifie the damages according to that which may be supposed that the party is damnified for the not repairing from the time of the purchase of the Reversion unto the time of the bringing of the Action And it was said by Manwood That by the Recovery of the damages that the Lessee should be excused for ever after for making of Reparations so as if he suffer the Houses for want of Reparations to decay that no Action shall thereupon after be brought for the same but that the Covenant is extinct LXXIII Easter Term. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace moved the Court that in the Kings Bench this case was argued upon a Demurrer there A Feoffment was made by one Coxley who took back an Estate for life the remainder to him who should be his Heir at the time of his death and to the Heirs males of his body begotten And afterwards the Tenant for life after the Statute of 32 H. 8. suffered a Recovery to be had against him that that Recovery was good as it was at the Common Law Because the Statute doth not speak but that it shall not be a bar to him who hath the Reversion at the time of the Recovery but this remainder was in Abeyance until the death of the Tenant for life and that in the same Court it was adjudged accordingly in an Ejectione firmae and because the same was a discontinuance the Plaintiff had here brought his Formedon in the Remainder and therefore Lovelace prayed That they might proceed without delays because the Plaintiffs Title appeareth without Essoigns and feigned delays Which Dyer Iustice conceived to be a reasonable request and that it should be well so to do because as he said This Court is debased and lessened and the Kings Bench doth encrease with such Actions which should be sued here for the speed which is there And he said That the delays here were a discredit to the Court so as all Actions almost which do concern the Realty are determined in the Kings Bench in Writs of Ejectione firmae where the Iudgment is Quod recuperet terminum and by that they are put into possession and by such means no Action is in effect brought here but such Actions as cannot be brought there as Formedons Writs of Dower c. to the Slander of the Court and to the Detriment and Loss of the Serjeants at the Bar. And Lovelace shewed That divers mean Feoffments were made c. LXXIV Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte This Case was in Court An Heir Female was in Ward of a common person who tendred to her a marriage viz. his younger Son and she agreed to the Tender and the Guardian died The Heir married the younger Son according to the Tender The Executors of the Guardian brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii supposing the Tender by the Lord to be void by his death But the Court was of a contrary Opinion because the Tender of their Testator was executed LXXV Riches Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ELizabeth Rich brought a Writ of Dower against J.S. who pleaded and Iudgment given for the Defendant and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed And she brought a new Writ of Dower and the Tenant pleaded That he always was ready and yet is c. Against which the Demandant pleaded the first Record to estop the Tenant To which the Tenant pleaded Nul tiel Record It was the Opinion of the Court That here the Demandant cannot conclude the Tenant by that Replication to plead Nul tiel Record For the Iudgment is reversed and so no Record and it cannot be certified a Record But if the Tenant had taken Issue upon the plea of the Tenant absque hoc that he was ready the same might well have been given in Evidence against the Tenant Note That the Case was That the Demandant after the death of her Husband entred into the Land in Demand and continued the possession of it 5 years and afterwards the Heir entred upon which she brought Dower It was agreed in that Case That the Tenant needed not to plead Tout temps prist after his re-entry for the time the Demandant had occupied the same is a sufficient recompence for the Damages LXXVI Vavasors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NIcholas Ellis seised in Fee of the Mannor of Woodhall Leased the same to William Vavasor and E. his Wife for the life of the Wife the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives the remainder to his right Heirs The Husband died the Wife held the Land and did Waste in a Park parcel of the Mannor It was moved to the Court If the Writ of Waste should suppose that the Wife held ex dimissione Nicholai Ellis or ex dimissione of her Husband It was the Opinion of the Court That upon this matter the Writ should be general viz. that she held de haereditate J.S. haeredis c. without saying any more either ex dimissione hujus vel illius For she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Vses and therefore the Writ shall be ex haereditate It was also the Opinion of the Iustices That the Wife here is not remitted but that she should be in according to the Term of the Feoffment Note in this Case The Waste was assigned in destroying the Deer in the Park And Meade Serjeant conceived That Waste could not be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant had destroyed all the Deer And of that Opinion also was Dyer Manwood said If the Lessee of a Dove-house destroyed all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is Waste And if a Keeper destroy so many of the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is Waste although he doth not destroy them all See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Waste 97. If there be sufficient left in a Park Pond c. it is enough LXXVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought against Executors They were at Issue Vpon nothing in their hands It was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That a stranger was bound to the Testator in 100 l. for performance of covenants which were broken For which the Executors brought Debt upon the Obligation depending which Suit both parties submitted themselves to the Arbitrament of A. and B. who awarded That the Obligor should pay to the Executors 70 l. in full satisfaction c. and that the Executors should release c. which was done accordingly And it was agreed by the Court That by the Release it

Parliament 35 H. 8. it was Enacted That the said Lady should hold part of her Inheritance and dispose of the same as a Feme sole and that the Marquess should have the Residue and that he might Lease the same by himself without his Wife for 21 years or less rendring the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess Leased for 21 years and afterwards durante Termino praedict Leased the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the first Lease It was moved in this Case That this last Lease was void and that for 3 Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but an Estate for life and then it could not be intended that the Statute did enable one who had but such an Estate determinable to make such a Lease which peradventure might not commence in his life-time 2. The Letter of the Statute is 21 years or under and the word Under strongly expounded the meaning of the Statute to be not to extend to such an Estate For here upon the matter is a Lease for 40 years 3. Because the Land demised is the Inheritance of the Wife And in this Case it was said That in the Case of one Heydon such a private Act was strictly construed which was That it was Enacted That all Copies for 3 Lives granted by the Lord Admiral of the Lands of his Wife should be good The Admiral granted Leases in Reversion for 3 Lives And it was holden That that Grant was not warranted by the Statute Dyer said The words are general Omnes dimissiones and therefore not to be restrained unto special Leases scil to Leases in possession Manwood said A Feme Covert by duresse joyns in a Lease with her Husband the same shall bind her CXI The Queen and Sir John Constables Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 5 Co. Constables Case A Quo Warranto was brought by the Queen against Sir John Constable who claimed certain Wreck in the County of York The Defendant pleaded That Edward Duke of Buck. was seised of such a Mannor to which he had Wreck appendant and that he was de alta proditione debito modo attinctus and that found before the Escheator And shewed further That the said Mannor descended to Queen Mary who granted the same to the Earl of Westmerland who granted the same to the Defendant Vpon which It was demurred And Exception was taken to the Plea because the Attainder is not fully and certainly pleaded It was argued by Plowden That the Attainder was certainly pleaded scil debito modo attinctus And it is shewed That the Wreck is appendant to the Mannor and then if the Defendant hath the Mannor he hath the Wreck also and if he hath the Mannor it is not material as to the Queen how he hath it for the Queen doth not claim the same but impeacheth the Defendant for using there such a Liberty But if the Heir of the said Duke had demanded the Mannor there against him the Attainder ought to have been pleaded certainly And it was said by him That the Interest of the Queen in the Sea extends unto the midst of the Sea betwixt England and Spain But the Queen hath the whole Iurisdiction of the Sea between England and France because she is Queen of England France c. And so it is of Ireland CXII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life made a Feoffment of White-Acre of which he was seised for life and made a Letter of Attorny to deliver Livery and Seisin secundum formam Chartae before Livery the Tenant purchased the Fee and afterwards Livery was made It was resolved by the Court in this Case That all passed But if the Feoffment had been of all his Lands in D. and the Letter of Attorny accordingly and before Livery made the Feoffee had many Lands there If he purchased one Acre after the Livery should not extend to that Acre because the Authority was satisfied by the other Acre CXIII Banks and Thwaits Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Case was That A. had pawned an Indenture of Lease for years of a Messuage and Lands to Banks Thwaits intending to purchase the same required Banks to deliver him the said Lease and he would give Banks 10 l. whether he bought it or no at what time he would request the 10 l. Post 200. And Banks delivered the same to Thwaits accordingly Post 200. And afterwards brought an Action upon the Case and declared upon the whole matter and concluded Licet saepius requisitus c. without alledging a request express in certain and the day and place of it It was said by Cook That here the monies did not grow due before Request nor is payable before Request and therefore a Request ought to be made in facto And so he said It was ruled in this Court in an Action upon the Case betwixt Palmer and Burroughs and he said that the Mony was not due by the Promise but by the Request And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That although it be a duty Yet it is not a duty payable before Request And the Request makes a Title to the Action But if A. selleth to B. a Horse for 10 l. there is a Contract and a Request in facto need not be layed And the Opinion of the Court was also That upon this matter the Plaintiff could not have an Action of Debt for there is not any Contract for the thing is not sold but it is a Collateral promise grounded upon the delivery And by Clench Here the Request is traversable And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And it was said It was so ruled in Alderman Pullisons Case in the Exchequer Post 201. CXIV Segar and Boyntons Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 156. IN Trespass the Case was this King Henry the 8th Anno 27 of his Reign gave the Mannor of D. to Sir Edward Boynton Knight and to the Heirs Males of his body Sir Edward Boynton had Issue Andrew his eldest Son and C. the Defendant his younger Son and died Andrew Boynton Covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore that the said Andrew Boynton would assure the said Mannor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said Lord and his Heirs The said Lord Seymore in recompence thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Boynton in tail who 37 H. 8. levyed a Fine of the said Mannor without proclamations to two strangers to the uses according to the said Agreement and before any Assurance made by the said Lord The said Lord was Attainted of Treason and all his Lands were forfeited to the King And afterwards the said Andrew Boynton made a Suggestion to Queen Mary of the whole matter and upon his humble Petition the said

Cantarista And it hath always been adjudged That a Chauntry by Reputation is within the Statute of 1 E. 6. CLXV Brian and Cawsen's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen It was found by Special Verdict 2 Len. 68. That W. Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he Devised them in this manner scil I Bequeath to Jo. Th. my House and Lands in M. called Lacks and Stone To Ste. Th. my House and Lands called Stokes and Newmans And to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said Jo. Ste. or Roger live till they be of lawful age and have Issue of their bodies lawfully begotten Then I give the said Houses and Lands 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 Assignee and the Mony to be given to the Poor The Devisor dieth Jo. Ste. and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without Issue John and Ste. are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath Issue J. and surrenders his part of the whole and his estate therein to the use of Ste. and his Heirs who is admitted accordingly Ste. comes of full age John the Father dieth Ste. dieth without Issue J. the Son as Cosen and Heir of Ste. 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 Lands called Lacks and Stone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcel of the place where c. praetextu quorum they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done And it was found that A. the Executor died Intestate And that Cawsen the Defendant is Cosen and Heir to the said 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 3. Devisees had but an Estate for life But Fenner and Walmesley who argued for the Plaintiffs Conceived That by force of the later words scil If the said John Stephen and Roger live till they be of lawful 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. They have Fee and the words In manner aforesaid are to be referred not unto the Estate which was given by the first words which was but for life but to make them hold in severalty as the first Devisor willed and not joyntly as the words of the second Devise purported And Fenner said It hath been Resolved by good Opinions That where a Fine was levied unto the use of the Conusor and his Wife and of the Heirs of the body of the Conusor with divers Remainders over Proviso That it shall be lawful to the Survivor of them to make Leases of the said Lands in such manner as Tenant in tail might do by the Statute of 32 H. 8. although those Lands were never Demised before the Fine yet the 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 refer unto the Estate for life limited unto A. and not unto the Condition nor unto any other Collateral manner The words If they live until 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 them to them and their Heirs to give and sell at their pleasure 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 unto the last words And if it fortune they three to die without Issue c. these words cannot make an estate tail and the express Limitation of the Fee in the first part of the Will shall not be controverted by Implication out of the words subsequent As if Lessee for 40 years Deviseth his Lands to his Wife for 20 years and if she dieth the remnant of the Term unto another although that she survive the 20 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 to the Devisee's after-Issue Snagg and Shuttleworth Serjeants to the contrary And they Conceived That the Defendant hath right to two parts for no express Inheritance vests in the Devisees until full age and issue and because two of the Devisees died without Issue they never had any Inheritance in their two parts and so those two parts descended 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 If John live until c. he shall have the Inheritance in his part and so of the rest As if J. have right unto Land which A. B. and C. hold in Common and J. by a Deed release to them all the same shall enure to them severally 19 H. 6. And here these later words If these three do die without Issue by that they conceived The same to be but an estate in tail And see to that purpose 35 Ass 11. 37 Ass 15. For a Man cannot declare his intent at once but in several parts all which make but one sentence And so it is said by Persay 37 Ass 15. We ought to have regard upon the whole Deed and not upon parcel And see Clark's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 330 331. And it was said If I give Lands to one and his Heirs so long as he hath Heirs of his body it is a Feesimple determinable and not an estate in tail Quaere of that Then here the Feesimple is determined by the death of the Devisees without issue and therefore the Land ought to revert to the Heir of the Devisor especially being no person in rerum natura who can sell for the Executor before sale by him made died Intestate and if he had made an Executor yet the Executor of the Executor could not sell Which see 19 H. 8 9 10. And afterwards Resolved That no estate tail is

created by this Will but the Feesimple setled in them when they came at their lawful age and had Issue so as the residue of the Devise was void and Iudgment was given accordingly CLXVI Griffith and Agard's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Disceit by Griffith against Agard and his Wife 1 Len. 290. For that a Fine was levied of a Messuage being Ancient Demesne by which it became Frank-Fee and the Fine was levied in the life of A. Griffith Grandfather of the Plaintiff Exception was taken to the Writ because it is brought by the Plaintiff as Cosen and Heir of A. G. his Grandfather And in the beginning of the Writ the words are Si Henricus Griffith fecerit te securum without saying Cousen and heir of A. G. fecerit te securum But the Exception was not allowed For afterwards in the Writ these words are Cujus haeres ipse est See the Register 238. that it is sufficient if there be in the body of the Writ these words Cujus haeres ipse est Another Exception was taken to the Declaration in that it is alledged that the Lands were De antiquo Dominico Dominae Reginae Angliae wereas it ought to have been De antiquo Dominico Dominae Coronae suae c. The Opinion of the Court was That it was good both ways See Book Entries 100. antiquo Dominco Coronae 58. de antiquo Dominico Domini Regis CLXVII Bashpool's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 101. Stiles Rep. 148. THe Case was The Father was seised of Lands in Fee and bound himself in an Obligation and devised his Lands unto his Wife until his Son should come to the age of 21 years the Remainder to his Son in Fee and died and no other Land descended or came to the Son from the Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in this case might elect to waive the Devise and to take the Land by Descent See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But it was the Opinion of Gawdy and Shute Iustices That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent and so bounden with the Debt CLXVIII Branthwait's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt brought by J. D. against Branthwait upon an obligation the Condition of which was That whereas J. F. claimed to have a Lease for years of the Mannor of D. made and granted to him by one W. D. If the said Branthwait keep without damage the Plaintiff from all claim and Interest to be challenged by the said J. F. de tempore in tempus during the years c. and also deliver the said Lease to the Plantiff that then c. The Defendant pleaded That the said J. F. had not any such Lease and that after the making of the said Obligation untill the Action brought the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis praedictae Exception was taken to the same because where the words of the Condition are Keep without damage the Plaintiff from all Claim and Interest And he hath pleaded That the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis c. But the Exception was disallowed by the Court For if he were not damnified ratione dimissionis then he was not damnified by reason of any Claim or Interest Another Exception was taken Because he could not now say there was no such Lease For it is recited in the Obligation That J. F. claimed to have a Lease and therefore by this recital he is estopped c. And see where a Recital is an Estoppel 8 R. 2. Fitz. 2 Len. 11. tit Estoppel 283. 39 E. 3. 3. Fitz. Estoppel 112. 46 E. 3. 12. It was holden by the Court That it was a good Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXIX Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt upon an Obligation The words of the Obligation were I am content to give to W. 10 l. at Michaelmas and 10 l. at our Lady day It was holden by the Court That it was a good Obligation And it did amount to as much as I promise to pay c. It was also holden by the Court That an Action of Covenant lay upon it as well as an Action of Debt at the Election of the Plantiff And it was holden That although the Action is for 40 l. and the Declaration is 20 l. and 20 l. at two several days yet it is good enough and the Declaration is well pursuant to it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXX The Queen and Kettell's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii against Kettell and Counted of a Tenure in Chief The Defendant pleaded That pendant the Writ the Queen had granted to one Edmund Kettel Custodiam Maritagium of the said Defendant with whom he had Compounded It was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for the Letters Patents were void because the Queen was deceived in her Grant for it appeareth by the Count that the Defendant before the Grant of the Queen was of full age And by the Letters Patents the Queen intended that he was within age and by the same granted Custodiam c. CLXXI. Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Land by his Will Devised 1 Len. 31. That his Executors should sell the Lands and died the Executors levied a Fine thereof to one F. taking Mony for it of F. The Question was If in title made by the Conusee to the said Lands by the Fine It be a good Plea against the same to say Quod partes Finis nihil habuerunt Anderson conceived That it was But by Windham and Periam upon Not guilty the Conusee may help himself by giving in Evidence the special matter in which Case the Conusee shall be adjudged in not by the Fine but by the Devise And Windham said That if A. Devise That his Executors shall sell a Reversion of certain Lands of â—hich he dieth seised and they sell the same without Deed the same is well enough for the Vendee is in by the Devise 1 Iust 113. a. and not by the Conveyance of the Executors Quod vide 17 H. 6. 23. And by Periam The Conusee may help himself in pleading As he who is in by the Feoffment or Grant of Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3. CLXXII Lee and Loveday's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail leased for 60 years and afterwards levied a Fine to Lee and Loveday sur Conusans de Droit come ceo c. and their Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Lord of the Mannor of whom the Land was holden brought a Writ of Disceit and upon that a Scire facias against the Conusees supposing the Land to be Ancient Demesne The Defendants made default by which the Fine was annulled and now the Issue in tail entred upon the Lessee for years and he brought an Ejectione firme

no case where the party useth but the means of the Law by the Kings Writ without any Corruption or Covin of the party he shall be amerced only pro falso clamore and no Action lieth against him because he hath not used but the means of the Law. Which see 2 R. 3. 9. by all the Iustices But yet in an Appeal because it toucheth the life of a Man the Defendant shall have his damages against the Plaintiff but not in any other Action which is a vexation by suit if no Corporation or Covin be in the party who prosecutes such suit See such matter justifiable in Conspiracy 35 H. 6. 13 14. Afterwards the principal Case was adjourned CXCI. Parker and Howard's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 102. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff and Defendant be now joyntly seised of the Office of the Register of the Court of Admiralty If the Defendant shall permit the Plaintiff to exercise the said Office and take the profits of it wholly to his own use during his life without let or interruption done by him That then c. The Defendant pleaded That the Custom of the Realm of England is That the Lord Admiral for the time being might grant the said Office and that such Grant should be good but for the life of the Grantor And further shewed 1 Len. 103. That the Lord Clynton Lord Admiral granted the said Office to the Plaintiff and the Defendant and died And that the Lord Howard was appointed Lord Admiral And that he 27 Eliz. granted the said Office to one Wade who put him out and interrupted him before which time the Defendant suffered the Plaintiff to enjoy the said Office and to take the profits of it Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Cook argued for the Plaintiff That the Defendant's Plea was not good for he hath not entituled the Lord Admiral to grant the Office For he saith That the Custom of the Realm of England is which he hath pleaded in such manner as no Issue can be taken upon it for it is pleaded Quod usitatum est quod Admirals pro tempore existens Non potest Concedere Officium praedict nisi pro termino vitae suae and that cannot be for it cannot be tryed for the Venire facias cannot be Of the Realm of England Also if it be Through the whole Realm of England then the same is the Common Law and not Consuetudo Which see Br. Custom 39. And see 4 5 Mar. Dyer 152 153. An express case of this Office And there he prescribes in Consuetudine in Anglia c. And also that such Grant is good but during the life of the Admiral who granted it Also he doth not answer to any time of the Grant of the Admiral Howard For if he were lawfully put out by Wade yet the Defendant against his own Obligation cannot put us out or interrupt us As L. 5 E. 4. 115. In a Quare Impedit against an Abbot and the Incumbent who make default upon the distress upon which a Writ to the Bishop was awarded for the Plaintiff Vpon which the Bishop retorned That the Incumbent resigned of which the Bishop gave notice And afterwards Lapse encurred and the Bishop collated the said former Incumbent and then that Writ came to him Now although the Incumbent be in by a new title yet he is bound by the Iudgment So here although the Defendant had another title and the former title of the Plaintiff be determined yet against his own Deed and Obligation he shall not put out the Plaintiff And the Court was clear That the Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff But afterwards the Cause was Compounded by the Order of the Lord Chancellor CXCII Mannings Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was agreed by the Iustices in this Case That where an Enfant Executor sold the Goods of his Testator at less undervalue than they were worth And afterwards brought an Action of Detinue against the Vendee upon it in retardatione executionis Testamenti That this sale of the Enfant Executor was good and should bind him notwithstanding his Nonage CXCIII Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest Son in tail and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs not having at the time of the Feoffment any Son Afterwards he suffered a Common Recovery had Issue a Son who died in the life of his Father having Issue a Son and afterwards he himself dieth It was holden in this Case That the Son and Heir of the Son should not avoid this Recovery by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For there was not any remainder in him at the time of the Recovery had but the remainder then was in abeyance for then the Son was not born And the words of the said Statute are That such Recovery shall be void against such person to whom the Reversion or Remainder shall then appertain i. e. at the time of the Recovery And it was said That if Lands be given to E. for life the Remainder to B. in tail the Remainder to C. in fee B. dieth his Wife with Child with a Son A Recovery is had against E. with the assent of C. and afterwards the Son is born he shall not be helped by this Statute for that the Remainder was not in esse at the time of the Recovery But it was holden in the principal Case That the Heir might avoid this Recovery by the Common Law For the Recompence could not extend to such a Remainder which was not in esse CXCIV The Countess of Sussex and Wroth's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was moved in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant If the Disseisee Licence J.S. to put his Cattle into the Land whereof he was disseised If it were a good Licence And If by the Execution of the said Licence the Freehold should be revested in the Disseisee so as if the Disseisor distrain the Cattel of J.S. for Damage-feasant and in a Replevin avow the Plaintiff may plead That the Freehold was in the Disseisee who so Licensed him Periam Iustice The Licence is void For at the time of the grant of it the Disseisee had but a Right before he had recontinued the Land by re-entry Windham If the Disseisee make a Lease for years of the Land whereof he is Disseised it is a void Lease Anderson If the Disseisee command one to enter into the Land and he doth accordingly the same is good The Case was adjourned CXCV. Payn 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Len. 205. A Writ of Error was brought by Payn Treasurer of the Records in the Kings-Bench in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Court of the Exchequer for the Queen upon an Assignment of a

hic in Curia prolat is but form And afterwards the Iudgment was reversed for default of the said matter Magno sigillo Angliae sigillat And by Anderson Iustice Patents are good without Inrollment and that was adjudged in Hungate's Case CCXLI. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber DEbt brought upon an Obligation Post 266. The Defendant pleaded payment apud Lockington in the Parish of Killmerston And the Venire facias was awarded de Lockington And that was assigned for Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench That the Venire ought to be de Killmerston See 6 H. 7. 3. 11 H. 7. 23 24. 9 E. 4. 3. Trespass for Entry in the Mannor of D. in S. the Visne shall come de Vicineto de S. and not from the Mannor Contrary if it be for the entry into the Mannor of D. only for there it shall be de Vicineto Manerii Cook said There was a Case very late adjudged in the Kings Bench A Lease was pleaded to be made at Ramridge End in Luton and that he himself was of Opinion That the Venire ought to have been of Ramridge End and not of Luton But the Court Over-Ruled the same against him It was said in the principal Case That Lockington shall be intended a Town as this Case is For a Parish may contain many Towns. And afterwards the Iudgment was affirmed CCXLII. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass for breaking his Close The Defendant pleaded That heretofore he himself brought an Ejectione Firmae against the now Plaintiff of the same Land in which the Trespass is supposed to be done and had Iudgment to recover c. and demanded Iudgment if against c. It was moved That the Bar was not good 1 Len. 313. because that the Defendant had not averred his title And the Recovery in one Action of Trespass is no Bar in another c. Quod Curia concessit But as to the matter the Court was clear That the Bar was good And by Periam Who ever pleaded it it was well pleaded For as by Recovery in an Assise the Freehold is bound so by Recovery in an Ejectione firmae the possession is bound And by Anderson A Recovery in one Ejectione Firmae is a Bar in another Especially as Periam said if the party relyeth upon the Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Plaintiff should be barred CCXLIII Peter's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WIlliam Peters being Plaintiff in an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas came to London this Term to prosecute his Action And afterwards he was committed to the Marshalsey by the Lord Hunsdon Chamberlain of the Queens houshold and one of her Privy Council And now an Habeas Corpus issued out to the Keeper of the Marshalsey to have the body of the said Peters in Court And at the day the Keeper retorned the said Writ That the said Peters was committed to the said Prison by the said Lord and shewed the Warrant for it there to remain and to Answer before the Lords of her Majesties Council to such matters c. Causa vero detentionis mihi omnino incognita est The Court examined the said Peters upon his Oath If he came to London to prosecute his said Cause Who answered That he did And the Court also examined the said Keeper If he had acquainted the said Lord with the said Writ Who said That he had so done but he shewed him not any Cause Wherefore by the Award of the Court Peters was discharged of his Imprisonment CCXLIV Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleass SErjeant Fenner demanded the Opinion of the Court in this Case A. Devised Lands to his Wife for life 1 Co. 155. and afterwards to B. his Son and his Heirs when he should come to the age of 24 years and if his Wife died before his said Son should attain his said age of 24 years that then J.S. should have the said Land until the said age of the said Son A. died J.S. died the Wife died the Son being within the age of 24 years If the Executors of J.S. should have the Land after the death of J.S. until the said age of the Son was the Question Anderson and Periam conceived That he should not For this Interest limited to J.S. by the Will was but a possibility which was never vested in him and therefore could not by any means come to his Executor Rhodes and Windham doubted of it Fenner put the Case in 12 E. 2. Fitz. Condition 9. Where Land is mortgaged to J.S. upon payment of Mony to J.S. such a day or his Heirs and before the said day J.S. by his Will deviseth That if the Mortgagor pay the Mony that then A. B. should have them That this Devise of this possibility is good Quod omnes Justiciarii negaverunt And Windham put the Case between Weldon and Elkington Plow Com. 20 Eliz. 519. Where Lessee for years devised his Term to his Wife for so many years of the said Term as she should live And if she died within the Term that then his Son Francis should have the Residue of the Term not encurred Francis died Intestate the Wife died within the Term The Administrator of Francis had the residue of the Term and yet nothing was in Francis the Intestate but a Possibility A Lease was made to one Hayward his Wife and one of his Children Habendum to Hayward for 99 years if he should so long live and if he die within the said Term that then his said Wife should have the said Term for so many years which should be to come at the time of the death of her Husband And if she died also before the said Term That then the Child party to the Devise should have it for so many years of the said Term as should not be expired at the time of the death of the Wife And the Case of Cicill was vouched 8 Eliz. Dyer 253. A Lease was made to William Cicill pro termino 41 annorum si tam diu vixerit Et si obierit infra praedictum terminum extunc Uxor praedicti William Cicill habebit tenebit omnia singula praemissa pro residuo termini praed incompleto si tam diu vixerit Et si the said Eliz. obierit infra praedict terminum tunc William Cicill filius c. And it was holden by Catlyn and Dyer That these remainders were void For the Term is determinable upon the death of William Cicill the Father and the Residue of the said Term cannot remain And by Anderson The remainders of the Term limited ut supra are void For every remainder ought to be certain but here is no certainty for it may be that the first possessor of the Term may live longer or die sooner so as he in the remainder doth not know what thing he shall have And so also conceived Rhodes Iustice And he put the Case between

that the Queens Attorny said That it is true that Thomas Robinson was possessed but it is further said That Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides and therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary But the Opinion of Manwood Chief Baron was That if the parties do admit a thing per nient dedire the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed there the Iury shall be bound by it And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant CCLXXIII Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt by A. against B. upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded tender of the Mony according to the Condition upon which the parties were at Issue And after the Defendant pleaded That after the Darrein Continuance the Debt now in demand was Attached in the Defendants hands according to the Custom of London for the debt of C. to whom the Plaintiff was endebted It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was insufficient for it is altogether contrary to the first Plea. And also the Court held That in an Action for the debt depending here in this Court the debt cannot be attached and the Court would not suffer a Demurrer to be joyned upon it but over-ruled the Case without any Argument For it was said by Wray Chief Iustice That it was against the Iurisdiction of the Court and the Priviledge of it CCLXXIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden by the Court That if a Copyholder in Fee dieth seised and the Lord admits a stranger to the Land who entreth that he is but a Tenant at Will and not a Disseisor to the Copyholder who hath the Land by descent because he cometh in by the assent of the Lord c. CCLXXV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought de uno Cubiculo and Exception was taken to it But the Exception was disallowed The Declaration was special viz Leas unius Cubiculi per nomen unius Cubiculi being in such a House in the middle story of the said House And the Declaration was holden good enough and the word Cubiculum is a more apt word than the word Camera And such was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice And it was said That Ejectione firmae brought de una rooma had been adjudged good in this Court. CCLXXVI Johnson and Bellamy's Case Rot. 824. Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae It was holden by Special Verdict 1 Cro. 122. That W. Graunt was seised of certain Lands and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life And further he willed That when Rich. his Brother should come to the age of 25 years that he should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten W. Graunt died having Issue of his body who was his Heir Rich. before he attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. sic ut partes finis nihil habuerunt And If this Fine should bar the Estate in tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the Case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged Mich. 29 Eliz. Where the Case was Tenant in tail discontinued to E. and afterwards levied a Fine to B. That although that partes finis nihil habuerunt yet the said Fine did bind the Estate tail But the Serjeants at the Bar argued That there was a difference between the Case cited and the Case at Bar For in the Case cited the Fine was pleaded in Bar but here it was not pleaded but found by Special Verdict To which it was said by the Court That the same is not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or Conclusion but by the Statute binds and extincts the entail and the right of it And Fines are as sufficient to bind the right of the entail when they are found by Special Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar. And Periam Iustice said A Collateral Warranty found by Special Verdict is of as great force as pleaded in Bar. And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate tail by that Fine was utterly barred and extinct CCLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent at Michaelmas and further Leased the same to the Executors of the Lessee until Michaelmas after the death of the Lessee It was affirmed by Cook That in that Case it was adjudged That the word Until shall be construed to extend to the Term unto the end of the Feast of St. Michael and so the Rent then due payable by the Executors for without such Construction no Rent should be then due because the Term ended before Michaelmas CCLXXVIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was bounden to stand to the Award of two Arbitrators who awarded That the party should pay to a stranger or his Assigns 200 l. before such a day The stranger before the day died B. took Letters of Administration The Question was If the Obligee should pay the Mony to the Administrator or if the Obligation was discharged It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is an Assignee And by Gawdy If the word Assigns had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator Which Cook granted CCLXXIX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Defendant in Debt being ready at the Bar to wage his Law was examined by the Court upon the points of the Declaration and the cause of the Debt upon which it appeared that the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And accompting together they were agreed That each of them should be quit of the other It was the Opinion of Periam and Anderson Iustices That upon that matter the Defendant could not safely wage his Law For it is but an agreement which cannot be executed but by Release or Acquittance CCLXXX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail Covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levied a Fine with proclamations and died It was moved by Fenner If any Estate passed to the Son by that Covenant for it is not any discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the Estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson Iustice The Estate passeth until c. And he cited the Case of one Pitts where it was adjudged That if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee and a Collateral Ancestor releaseth with warranty and dieth

so as of necessity we must lay the promise accordingly And it is a clear case That the Plaintiff in an Action upon the Case shall declare upon a Promise the first day of May And if it be found that it was made at another day yet the Plaintiff shall recover CCCX Hamper's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 211. 1 Cro. 147. HAmper was Endicted upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury And in the body of the Endictment the Record was that he falso deceptive deposuit Whereas the Statute speaks Wilfully And although in the perclose of the Endictment the Conclusion is Et sic commisit voluntarium perjurium Yet the Opinion of the Court was That the same did not help the matter and for that cause the party was discharged For contra formam Statuti will not help the matter and yet it was moved and urged that contra formam Statuti did supply such defect And in this case It was holden by the Court That if a Witness deposeth falsly but the Iury do not give credit to his Oath but give their Verdict against his Oath although the party grieved cannot sue him for the Perjury yet at the Suit of the King he shall be punished CCCXI. Collet and Robston's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 149.192 2 Len. 118. ARthur Collet and Thomas Andrews recovered against Robston in a Writ of Accompt Hill. 29 Eliz. And now Robston brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That whereas the said Writ of Accompt was brought against the Defendant as Receivor of monies to render Accompt quando ad hoc requisitus fuerit the said Writ ought to have been more special But the Writ in its generalty was holden good enough without any special matter And so it was adjudged in the Case of one Gomersell scil Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum suum de tempore quo fuit Receptor Denariorum ipsius A. Another Error was assigned For that the Iury had assessed damages which ought not to be done in an Action of Accompt Which see 2 Ric. 2. Fitz. Accompt 45. and 2 H. 7. 13. But see the Book of Entries 22. In a Writ of Accompt against one as Receivor for to render Accompt damages were given by the Iury for the Plaintiff And in the Case of an Accompt against one as Bailiff damages shall be given For if my Bailiff by the imployment of my monies whereof he was Receivor might have procured profit and gain unto me but he neglects the same he shall be chargeable to me to answer the same And here in our Case damages shall be given ratione implacitationis And afterwards notwithstanding the Exceptions the Iudgment was affirmed CCCXII Yates's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. YAtes and another brought a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in a Writ of Partition and assigned for Error 2 Len. 118. That the Partition was not sufficient For it is there set forth That the Plaintiffs insimul pro indiviso tenent cum defendente c. and doth not say what Estate See F.N.B. 61 62. Insimul et pro indiviso tenent de haereditate which was of A. matris of the Plaintiff and Defendant And yet see F. N. B. 62. A Writ of Partition betwixt strangers without naming de haereditate in the Writ 1 Cro. 759 760. And see also that Partitions of Lands in London without shewing of what Estate See Register 67. 6 Eliz. in Partitione facienda by Courtney against Polyweel no Estate shewed in the Writ 26 Eliz. Between the Lord Cheney and Bell. So between Finch and Tirrell And so between Fry and Drake 14 Eliz. And 4 5 Phil. Mary It was holden That it is not necessary in such Writ to shew the Estate But Tenants in Common ought to shew the same in their Declaration CCCXIII. Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King Bench. AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words scil Thou hast forged my hand It was holden by Gawdy and Wray Iustices That such words are not actionable because too general without shewing to what writing And by Wray these words scil Thou art a forger are not actionable because it is not to what thing he was a forger Godfery Between Warner and Cropwell scil She went about to kill me An Action lieth for them for if they were true she should be bounden to the good behaviour And by Gawdy for these words scil Thou hast forged a Writing They are not Actionable because they are incertain words Which Wray concessit But if the Declaration had been more certain as innuendo such a deed then it had been good enough Fuller A Case was betwixt Brook and Doughty scil He hath Counterfeited my Lord of Leicester's hand unto a Letter against the Bishop of London for the which he was committed to the Marshalsey for it And it was holden Not Actionable And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was Nihil Capiat per Billam CCCXIV Delabroche and Barney's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DElabroche was sued in the Admiral Court upon an Obligation supposed to be made and delivered in France and now he prayed a Prohibition It was holden by the whole Court That such a Bond might be sued here but being begun in the Court of Admiralty we cannot prohibit them for that perhaps the Witnesses of the Plaintiff are beyond Sea which may be examined there but not here CCCXV. Moulton's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THis Case was moved to the Court by Cook That one Robert Moulton Tenant in tail 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 Fines And the Tenant to the Writ of Error brought upon the first Fine pleaded the second Fine in bar of it And in her of a Writ of Error brought upon the second Fine he pleaded the first Fine The Court advised him to Reply That the Fine pleaded in bar was erronious See 7 H. 4. 107. Where a Man is to annul an Outlawry his person shall not be disabled by any other Outlawry CCCXVI. Babington and Babington's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt brought The Defendant pleaded an Attachment made in London after imparlance It was adjudged That it was not any plea. And Wray said That the same should be observed for a Rule in other Cases After that plea was disallowed The Defendant pleaded Variance betwixt the Obligation and the Declaration For the Obligation was Randal Bab. And the Declaration was ad respondend Randulpho B. alias Randal B. Cook said That Randulphus is Latine for Randal Owen Serjeant shewed divers Presidents where Randulphus was taken for Randal But the Court did not agree upon it Wray advised the Plaintiff for his more speed to

Demands or Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua But general words qualified with a restraint where the Limitations are effectual As if the King Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua in D. which he hath by the Attainder of J.S. or which were the possessions of such dissolved Monasteries such Grants are good And where the Case is That Queen Mary hath the Lands in possession of the annual value of 19 l. and other Land there in Reversion of the annual value of 6 l. and then she Grants Omnia terras tenementa nostra rendring 19 l. per annum I conceive That upon these words the Land in possession only passeth because that the said general words may be aptly served and satisfied with the Lands in possession if no other Lands pass And I agree That this word Nostra extends as well to the Lands in Reversion as to Lands in possession but most properly to Lands in possession for Land in Reversion cannot dici simpliciter Nostra but quodam modo tanquam terra revertens and not to take the natural profits of it for the Termor hath such properly that he shall have an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit But the intent and meaning of the Queen is to be regarded and that is the surest way to have right intelligence of the Grants of the King For here the Queen hath reserved but 19 l. Rent which is the proper and ancient Rent of the Lands in possession and if Lands in Reversion should also pass the Rent of which was 6 l. per annum then upon the whole Grant but 19 l. being reserved the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Rent which should be contrary to the intent and meaning of the Queen and the intent of the Grantor even in the Case of a Subject shall direct the construction of Grants As 9 H. 6. Br. Grants 5 by Babington A Man grants Common in his whole Lands he shall not have Common in his Orchards Gardens or Meadows for such was the meaning of the Grantor a fortiori in the Case of the King. It hath been argued That the former Lease ought not to be recited because that after the first Lease made by King Henry the 8th the Inheritance hath been in a Subject that is the Bishop of Bath and Wells but the same is not so For if the King makes a Lease for years and afterwards Grants the Reversion upon Condition which after is broken and so found by Office by which the Reversion is reduced to the King If now the King will make a new Lease he ought to recite the former Estate notwithstanding the mean grant of the Reversion or else such second Lease is void Another matter hath been Objected wherefore the former Lease ought not to be recited and that is because it is determined by surrender in Law before that the new Lease takes effect Sir the same is not so for the former Lease is in being as the Case betwixt Fulmerston and Steward 1 Mar. Plow Com. 106. upon the Statute of Monasteries 31 H. 8. See the words of the Statute whereof and wherein any Estate or Interest for years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his being or continuance And an Abbot made such a Lease to one who had a term for years of a former Grant although here be a Surrender yet this Case is within the said Statute and the said former Lease shall be said to have his being at the time of the making of the later Lease and the Surrender shall not be said so to preceed the making of the Lease but that the former Lease shall be said in Esse at the time of the making of the later Lease And in our Case it shall not be taken for any Surrender for then the Queen shall lose 6 l. of her ancient Rent and Revenue and always when the Title of the King and of the Subject concur the Title of the King shall be preferred as 43 E. 3. The King Lord Mesne and Tenant The Tenant pays his Rent at the day to the Mesne before Noon and then the same day before Night the Mesne dieth his Heir within age the King shall be paid the Rent again for here the Title of the King and the Subject concur together at one time and in that the King shall be preferred and so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant And afterwards at another day the Iustices declared their Opinions and by Wray Chief Iustice We all agree That the first Lease ought to be recited and the reason which hath been urged against that point hath reduced us to be of that Opinion scil That the second Lease was made to the first Patentee and the King doth not make the recital but the party ought to inform the King of all former Estates of the said Lands and that he might well do for he is well knowing of them and although that the Reversion after the first Lease made hath been conveyed to a Subject the same is not material here forasmuch as the second Estate is made to him who had the first Estate and might know whether the first Estate were determined or not Also by the re-purchase the King is in Statu quo prius Gawdy Iustice although that the former Term be drowned by the taking of the second Lease yet it was in being at the time of the taking of it as it is holden by Bromley in the Case of Fulmerston and Steward It is determined by the second Lease and yet it was in being at the time of the making of it Fenner Iustice to the same intent Clench Iustice If the Grant of the Queen shall enure to two intents then the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Revenue It was agreed by all the Iustices That the general words in as much as they are restrained to a certainty would pass the thing si caetera essent paria contrary if they had remained in the generalty and afterwards Iudgment was given Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCCXXXVIII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 4 Len. 233. A Man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son and his Heirs The Father and the Feoffees before issue for Mony by Deed granted and enfeoffed J.S. and his Heirs who hath not notice of the first use The Tenant for life hath issue and dieth the issue entreth Glanvil the use limited to the first Son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and it is gone by their Livery See the Case in Plowden 349. and also he vouched the Case of the Earl of Kent where by the Release of the surviving Feoffee 2 Roll. 797. Plow 347. a Sleeping-Vse was destroyed and could not after be revived Harris the use may rise without entries of the Feoffees and he put a difference between an

the Rent by the Father to the Son is fraudulent and so shall be intended if the contrary be not shewed and averred And so it was of late adjudged in the Court of Wards Where a Man alieneth to his Son and Heir for Mony and Mony in truth is paid yet notwithstanding it shall be intended fraudulent unless the contrary be shewed and averred Hanham Serjeant This Grant shall enure first as the Grant of Tenant in tail and after the death of the Tenant in tail without Issue it shall be the Grant of him in the Remainder And to this purpose he put Newdegate's Case 7 Eliz. Dyer 234. Lessee for life and he in the Reversion Lease for years by Indenture That during the life of Lessee for life is his Demise only and the Confirmation of him in the Reversion but after the death of the Lessee for life it is the Lease and Demise of him in the Reversion and he shall have an Action of Waste ex dimissione sua propria without shewing the special matter in the Count. And if Tenant in tail granteth a Rent in Fee and he in the Reversion confirm the Grant it is good See Litt. 121. And he said That the Recoveror is in the Per for it was holden in Winter's Case That if a Man makes a Lease for years rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry and afterwards suffereth a Common Recovery That such a Recoveror is an Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. to take benefit of a Condition and Recoveries are now common Conveyances And if Tenant for life be the Remainder over in Fee and Tenant for life grants a Rent-Charge and afterwards ceaseth and the Lord recovereth in a Cessavit he shall hold the Land charged And as to the Collusion it is not shewed in the pleading That the Grant was made by Collusion for if the Collusion be not apparent the Iustices without averment of it are not bounden to take Notice of it Cowper Serjeant Here are two several Grants and one Grant intire in the Letter may enure as several Grants as if two Tenants in Common grant a Rent of 10 s. here are several Grants and he shall have several Rents of 10 s. And if A. disseiseth B. of Black-Acre and C. disseiseth B. of White-Acre and afterwards by one Deed releaseth to A. and C. the same shall enure as several releases upon their several possessions And he in his Argument relied much upon the Collusion and this Grant shall be taken by the Iustices to be fraudulent for it was made 20 Eliz. and the Recovery was 21 Eliz. and in 27 Eliz. came the Statute Beamount Serjeant This Grant shall enure as several Grants i.e. as a Grant of Tenant in tail and afterwards as of him in the Reversion Two Ioynt-Tenants Enfants make a Feoffment They shall have several Writs of Dum fuit infra aetatem as upon several Feoffments 19 H. 6. 43. Two Coparceners take Husbands who discontinue and die their Wives shall have several Writs of Cui in vita and yet the Discontinuance was joynt And 15 H. 7. 14. If 3 Coparceners be and upon partition one of them granteth to the two others Rent of 20 s. per annum for equality of partition that Rent shall be in the nature of Coparceners and so shall descend and shall not go to the Survivour but by descent See 21 E. 3. 50. Also admit that it is the Confirmation of him in the Remainder yet after the death of the Tenant in tail without Issue now it is become the Grant of him in the Remainder And to that purpose he cited Newdegate's Case 7 Eliz. Dyer before cited But posito that it be the sole Grant of the Tenant in tail yet here is not any Covin apparent for Covin apparent ought to be averred and proved otherwise the Iudges of our Law cannot adjudge upon it for they cannot judge upon probabilities as the Iudges of the Civil Law do for so they should many times minister Injustice in the place of Iustice And that the same is not Covin apparent although it be made to his Son he vouched 19 H. 6. 30. and 47 E. 3. 16. Where such a Feoffment to re-enfeoff the Heir of the Feoffor when he cometh of full age is not in it self Covin apparent but it ought to be expresly averred And he cited also Warnford's Case 3 Eliz. Dyer 193. And also he cited 17 Eliz. Dyer 341. upon the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Monasteries Where there is a Proviso Forasmuch as some of the Chief Governours of such Religious Houses have lately fraudulently and craftily made Leases c. to the great decay and diminution of their Houses That all such Leases c. made within one year before the making of this Act shall be void c. And also there is a Proviso That such persons as have Leases whereupon the old Rent is reserved shall enjoy their Leases c. The Case was That an Abbot made a Lease for 60 years 47 days before the making of the said Act upon which the ancient Rent was not reserved It was holden there That although the Lease was within the words of the Statute because made within a year yet it shall not be intended Covinous without an express averment of it for it may be it was made bona fide See Librum Yelverton Serjeant This is a joynt Grant but yet it shall charge the several Estates when they come into possession Also he put this Case Cestuy que Use and the Feoffees after the Statute of 1 R. 3. and before 27 H. 8. joyn in a grant of a Rent It shall enure as several Grants in respect of their several authorities scil one by the Statute of 1 R. 3. and the other by the Common-Law And as to the Covin he conceived Tat it is Covin apparent and needed not to be averred and that appeareth by the suffering of the Common Recovery CCCXL Brokesby and Wickham's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Len. 167. 3 Cro. 173. Owen Rep. 85 86. A Quare Impedit was brought by Bartholomew Brokesby against the Bishop of Lincoln and Wickham Pasch 30 Eliz. Rot. 1815. The Case was That Robert Brokesby was seised of the Mannor of Sholby in Fee to which the Advowson was appendant and the Church being full granted to Humphrey Brokesby and the Plaintiff his two Sons the next Avoidance of the said Church Afterwards the Church became void Humphrey by Deed released all his right estate and interest which then he had of and in the Advowson of the Church aforesaid for the said Avoidance Bartholomew sole presented and the Defendants did disturb him The Bishop pleaded That he claimed nothing but as Ordinary Wickham pleaded a Lease made of the Mannor with the appurtenances by the said Bartholomew to one Starkey for years before the Grant made ut supra to Humphrey and Bartholomew which Starkey presented him Vpon which they were at Issue and found for

to prevent all acts and charges made mean by the Vendor yet it shall not relate to vest the Estate from the time of the delivery of the Deed For the Vendee cannot punish a Trespass Mean And if the Vendee hath a Wife and the Vendee dieth before Enrollment and afterwards the Deed is enrolled she shall not be endowed but here shall be some descent to take away an Entry yet the Heir shall have his age But in our Case it is otherwise for by the Waiver the Ioynture was waived ab initio And he cited Carrs Case 29 Eliz. in the Court of Wards The King granted the Mannor of C. to George Owen in Fee tenend in Socage and rendring 94 l. per annum And afterwards granted 54 l. parcel of the said Rent to the Earl of Huntington in Fee to be holden by Knight-service in Capite and afterwards purchased the said Rent in Fee And afterwards of the same Mannor enfeoffed William Carr who devised the same for the payment of his Debts And it was holden That the devise was good against the Heir And the King was not entituled to Livery or Primer Seisin And therefore the Defendant was dismissed But peradventure the Queen shall have benefit of the Act. See Cook 3 Part 30 31. Butler and Baker's Case The King gives Lands unto A. in Fee to hold by Knights-service during his life and afterwards to hold in Socage He may devise the whole For at the time when the devise took effect he was Tenant in Socage Lands holden in Knight-service are given to J.S. in tail scil to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J.S. J.S. deviseth these Lands and afterwards dieth without Issue Male the same is good for two parts yet during his life he had not an Estate in Fee in possession The Father disseiseth his Son and Heir apparent of an Acre of Land holden in Chief by Knight-service in Capite and afterwards purchaseth a Mannor holden in Socage and deviseth the said Mannor and dieth his Heir within age the Devise is good for the whole and the King shall not have Wardship of any part and that in respect of the Remitter and yet it is within the words Having sole Estate in Fee of Lands holden and within the Saving Tenant in tail of an Acre of Land holden of the King in Chief by Knight-service seised of two Acres in Fee holden ut supra makes a Lease for three Lives of the Acre entailed reserving the accustomed Rent and afterwards deviseth the other two Acres in Fee and afterwards dieth seised of the Reversion and Rent The same is a good devise of all the two Acres And here is an immediate descent of the third part for the same is within the words In Possession Reversion or Remainder or any Rent or Service incident to any Reversion or any Remainder See the Statute of 34 H. 8. A Man seised of three Acres of equal value holden by Knight-service in Capite assureth one to his Wife for her Ioynture by Act executed and deviseth another to a stranger And the third to his Wife also The King in this case shall have the third part of every Acre But if the stranger waiveth the devise the King shall have the Acre to him devised and the Wife shall retain the other two Acres and it shall not go in advantage of the Heir So if he deviseth the said three Arces severally to three several persons to each of them one Acre and the one Waives the devise in one Acre The devise of the other two is good Or otherwise the King shall have the third part of every Acre c. CCCLXVII Mich. 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 29. THe Case was An Enfant was made Executor And Admimistration was committed to another viz. A. durante minori aetate who brought an Action of Debt against the Debtor and recovered and had him in Execution and now the Executor came of full age It was moved What should be done in this Case and how the party should be discharged of the Execution for the authority of the Administrator is now determined and he cannot acknowledge satisfaction or make an acquittance Windham Although the authority of the Administrator be determined yet the Record and the Iudgment remain in force But peradventure you may have an Audita Querela But he conceived That an Administrator could not have such Action for that he is rather a Bailiff to the Enfant than an Administrator See Prince's Case 42 Eliz. Cook 5 Part 29. Which Rhodes concessit A. was bounden unto B. in an Obligation of 100 l. upon Condition to pay a lesser sum The Obligee made an Enfant his Executor and died Administration was committed durante minori aetate to C. to whom A. paid the Mony It was doubted If that payment was rightful or If the Mony ought to have been paid to both Windham Doth it appear within the Record That the Enfant was made Executor and that Administration was committed ut supra To which it was answered No. Then Windham said You may upon this matter have an Audita Querela In this Case It was said to be the Case of one Gore 33 Eliz. in the Exchequer in a Scire facias by an Assignee of a Bond against an Enfant Executor He pleaded That the Administration was committed to A. and his Wife during her minority And it was adjudged no Plea. CCCLXVIII Mich. 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was the Opinion of all the Iustices Jones Rep. 243. That if Lessee for 20 years makes a Lease for 10 years that he may grant the Reversion without Deed but in such case if there be a Rent reserved there ought to be a Deed and also an Attornment if the Rent will be had And it was agreed by them all That if there be Lessee for years and the Lessor granteth the Land to the Lessee and a stranger that the Reversion shall pass without Livery or Attornment and that by the Acceptance of the Deed by him who ought to Attorn But whether he shall take joyntly or in Common or whether in a moyety or in the whole the Iustices were of divers Opinions Ideo Quaere for it was not Resolved FINIS A TABLE of the principal Matters contained in the Third Part of LEONARD'S Reports A. ABatement of Writ Page 2 4 77 92 Ex Officio Curiae p. 93 Accompt p. 38 61 63 Damages given in it p. 150 Damages given in it not expresly but the Court shall give Quoddam Incrementum p. 192 Brought by the Grantee of the King against an Executor where maintainable where not p. 197 Generally brought where good p. 230 Acquittance Must be shewed upon payment of Debts by Executors p. 3 Action upon the Case For stopping of a way p. 13 Against one for proceeding to Judgment and awarding of Execution in an inferiour Court after an Habeas Corpus awarded p. 99 Where lieth

141. Upon a Statute Merchant for that it had but one half of the Seal good A. 228 229. Lies to discharge the Land if the Conusor taken by Capias be let at large by the Conusee his consent A. 230 231. B. 96. To avoid Execution upon a Recognizance for that the Debt is attached in London A. 297. Upon a voluntary Escape by the Sheriff it lies B. 119. By one Bail to be relieved for that the other Bail was taken by a Capias and discharged by the then Plaintiff C. 260. For one in Execution at the Suit of an Administrator durante minori aetate for that the Infant is come to Age C. 278. Averment A Demurrer need not to be averred A. 24. Inducement to an Action need not to be precisely averred A. 123 124. A consideration to make a Bargain and Sale may be averred though not mentioned in the Deed A. 170. Where against a Record return of a Sheriff Deed enrolled A. 183 184. None against a Bishops Certificate A. 205 206. Where necessary to aver the continuance of the particular Estate A. 139 255 66 281. B. 50 94 95. Where want of such Averment is aided by Intendment A. 281. C. 42 43. Devise to A. may be averred to be any one of that Name B. 35. Where he who pleads must aver all things to make good his Plea or the other party must shew it C. 40 to 43. Ancient Demesne For what Goods only they are priviledged from Toll A. 232. B. 191. Fine levied thereof avoidable by a Writ of Deceit A. 290. Pleading thereof A. 333. B. 190 191. Authority Shall be strictly pursued if not coupled with an Interest A. 74 285 286 288 289 bis Where Authority is reserved by Statute or Deed to make Leases If Leases in Reversion may be made C. 134. B. Bailiff SHeriffs Bailiffs shall not be prejudiced by the mis-return or not return of the Sheriff A. 144. What power a Bailiff of a Mannor hath B. 46. Bail. Discharged upon the Principal his Offer to render himself A. 58. No Scire facias lies against them until a perfect Judgment be against the Principal B. 1 2. Cannot be charged by any Custom without a Scire facias B. 29 30 87. If to a Scire facias against them they may plead Error in Fact in the first Judgment B. 101. A Lord shall find Bail ad solvendum debitum upon an Action removed out of London B. 173 174. Bail upon a Writ of Error is not to render the Body being then in Execution but to pay the Debt C. 113. Baron and Feme To what intent the Husband is the Femes Assignee A. 3. Where they shall joyn in Trespass A. 105. The Wife served with a Sub-poena the charges to be given to her Stat. 5 Eliz. cap. 9. A. 122 123. They are at Exigent no Supersedeas shall be received for the Baron without the Feme A. 138 139. The Baron cannot recover things in Action due to the Wife but must first take Administration A. 216. Leases made by the Baron of the Femes Land the Lease is void after their deaths A. 247. What Conveyance of the Wife of Lands given by the Baron is within the intent of the Statute 11 H. 7. A. 261 262. C. 78. They being Tenants in Tail joyntly the Baron suffers a Recovery this binds not the moiety of the Feme A. 270. If an Exchange by them of the Wives Land bind the Feme A. 285. Trover by the Feme and Conversion by the Baron and Feme Action must be against them both A. 312. Payment to the Feme is no good Bar A. 320. What act of the Baron is a breach of the Condition annexed to the Femes Estates B. 35 48. What value the Parapharnalia of a Viscounts Wife in Jewels is B. 166. Devise that she shall take the profits until the Son come of Age her second Husband surviving her shall not take the profits B. 221. C. 78. cont If an Interest be devised C. 9. Lands given to the use of the Wife for life remainder to the Heirs of Baron and Feme the Remainder is executed for a moiety C. 4. The Feme cannot give Licence to one to do a Trespass in the Husbands Land C. 267. By Agreement of the Baron to a Desseisin to the use of Baron and Feme the Free-hold vests in them both but the Feme is no Disseisor C. 272. Bargain and Sale. By Parol of Houses good and the manner thereof A. 18. There must be a Consideration for the doing thereof but it is not traversable A. 170. Of Trees Habend Succidend infra 20 annos If the Bargaince may cut them after 20 years A. 275. This Conveyance works by the Statute of Uses B. 122. C. 16. Of Trees during life of the Lessor the Lessee must cut all at one time in one Close and cannot leave off and begin again C. 7. Give grant agree confirm covenant all work by Bargain and Sale and by the Statute of Uses as well as the words Bargain and Sale C. 16. Bar. Where non damnificatus is a good Bar e contra A. 71 72. Must be good to a common intent and must be confest avoided or traversed or conclude the Defendant by Estoppel A. 77. By an Obligation in Bar of Assumpsit how to be pleaded A. 154. Non Dimisit and what advantage may be taken thereupon A. 192 206 207. To an Action brought by a Sheriff against a Prisoner for escaping Bar that since the escape the Plaintiff had acknowledged satisfaction A. 237. Non Concessit per liâ—eras paten A. 183. Plene Administr before notice where good A. 312. Ejectione Firme a good Bar in Trespass against the same party A. 313. C. 194. Judgment in Trespass a good Bar in Appeal A. 319. Good to common Intent A. 321. What is a good Bar for a time though it destroy not the Action for ever A. 331. Where Non concessit or that riens passa per le fait must be pleaded B. 13. If in Slander for calling one Forsworn it be a good Bar to say the Plaintiff did not depose B. 98. No good Bar to a Contract that a Stranger became bound for the Mony B. 110. To an Action quod Waren fregit no Bar to say it is the Defendants Free-hold for it may be so and that the Plaintiff hath Warren there too B. 202. If a good Bar in Assumpsit that the Plaintiff discharged the Defendant B. 203 204 214. The like in Covenant C. 69. A Stranger is bound that Lessee for years shall pay his Rent for his Farm It is a good Bar that the Lessor entred C. 159. Bastardy The manner of pleading and taking Issue therein A. 335. By pleading of the Bastardy specially how Bastard it shall be tryed per Pais C. 11. Or if the Bastard be not party to the Writ C. 11. Bishop Where he shall be tryed per Pares A. 5. What Lease shall bind the Successor A. 234 235. Is no Clerk

Lease cont of Lands proper to the Dean only B. 176. Debt For foreign Mony may be demanded either by Foreign or English Names A. 41. Upon a Recognizance in nature of a Statute A. 52. B. 14. Upon a void Award is good if the Defendant do not shew that part that makes it void A. 72 73. For a nomine poenae A. 110. For a pain set in a Court Leet A. 203 204 217 218. Upon the words Covenant and Grant lieth A. 208. Where it lies before the last day of payment A. 208. For the surplusage of an Account A. 219. Lies by an Administrator against an Executor for Arrearages of an Annuity A. 224 225. Lies upon a Recognizance made before the Mayor of London A. 284. If Debt lies by the Grantee of a Rent reserved by a Lease to which Grant the Lessee attorned A. 315. Under 40 s. in the Kings Bench for Costs in a Hundred Court A. 316. Against an Heir shall be in the Debet Detinet B. 11. Debt lies upon a Judgment or Recognizance although the Plaintiff have Judgment upon a Scire Facias B. 14. For Rent lies although in the Declaration it be alledged that he entred before the commencement of his Lease B. 98. Lies for the Grantee of Post-Fines and for a Nomine poenae by the Heir B. 179. cont A. 249 250. This Action lies not but where a certain sum is agreed on C. 161. Against Baron and Feme for a Debt of the Feme must be in the Debet Detinet C. 206. For Corn in the Detinâ—t and the Plaintiff shall recover the value of the Corn C. 260. Deed. Where the Habend ' may controul the Premisses A. 11 281 318. B. 105. What is a good delivery thereof what not A. 140 152. If a primo deliberat ' or non est factum may be pleaded of a Deed enrolled A. 183 184 C. 175 176. Where in the Premisses of the Deed two things are granted Habend ' the one for years what Estate the Grantee hath A. 281 282. Raisure of a Deed does not avoid it if it be in a part not prejudicial to the party who would avoid it A. 282. Indenture between A. of one part and B. and C. his Wife and their Children A. 287 288. Must be pleaded sealed and delivered or by words tantamount A. 310. In Indentures the intention of the parties may be argued Deeds Poll shall be taken strongest against the Grantor A. 318. B. 47 192. None can take by Indenture but those who are party to it A. 287 288. B. 1. C. 34. The effect and meaning of them regarded where the words are doubtful B. 17 219 151. Where a Deed may have quasi two deliveries B. 192. A Deed once perfectly executed as by enrolment c. cannot pass any thing by Livery C. 16 125. Actual indenting and both parties Seals mentioned to be put makes an Indenture C. 16. Where a Deed in the Premisses leaseth Lands to one Habendum to his Executors and Assigns for 40 years what Estate the Lessee hath C. 32 33 34. The date of a Deed not material C. 100. Demand See Request The King need not demand a Rent to avoid a Lease A. 12. B. 134. C. 125. A Legacy not payable without demand A. 17. Rent payable at Michaelmas or within the space of 12 days prox post aliquod festorum vel dierum when it is demandable A. 142. The difference of demand in a Writ De advocatione duarum partium Ecclesiae duabus partibus Advoc Ecclesiae A. 169. What is demandable in a Writ of Entry A. 169 170. Whether demand at one day for Rent due several days before be good A. 190 191 305. Whether a sum in gross must be demanded as Rent A. 269. The manner to make a demand of a Rent A. 305. He who demands Rent as Attorny need not tell his name nor shew his authority C. 224. Demurrer To Evidence in Ejectione Firme A. 269. All matters well pleaded are confessed by Demurrer C. 200. Upon Demurrer to a Challenge there neeeds no Serjeants hands C. 222. Departure What is what is not A. 32. Count of a Lease without Deed no Departure by Replication to say the Lease was made by Deed A. 156 204. C. 203. Ejec vers 5. One pleads to the Issue the others plead specially no Departure for the Plaintiff to deduce a Title to himself and say that he was seised until by the 4 disseised B. 199. First to make a Title by Common Law and reply a Custom to uphold it is a Departure C. 40. Devastavit What Sheriff may retorn it and what Sheriff is estopped to retorn it B. 67. C. 2. If Executors release a forfeited Bond of 100 l. and receive only 50 l. the whole is Assets C. 53. It is a personal Tort and the Executors of the Executors shall not be chargeable with the first Executors Devastavit C. 241. Devise See Legacy That Executors shall sell Lands who sell by Fine A. 31. C. 119. If such Executors may â—ell by parcels A. 34 60 260. The construction of an Habendum in a Devise A. 57 58. What shall be a Devise in tail for life or in see A. 57 58. B. 69. C. 55. That his Son and an Executor shall take the profits until another comes of Age gives the Son see A. 101. C. 55. To the discretion of the Devisee A. 156 224 283. B. 69. That Executors shall sell a Reversion who sell by Parol yet good and the Devisee is in by the Will A. 148. C. 119. To three Sons and if any die the Survivor to be his Heir how adjudged A. 166 258 259. C. 262. All my Lands and Tenements if it passeth a Reversion after a Lease for life A. 180 181. If by the Stat. of Wills an Estate pur auter vy may be devised A. 252. A Use may be raised by Devise and the Consideration is presumed by Law A. 254 257. If the Devisee die in the life of the Devisor the Heir of the Devisee shall take nothing A. 254. Of Capite Land and Soccage A 267. B. 41 42. C. 267. Vide the Statutes 32 34 H. 8. To A. if she do not Marry Remainder in tail A. 283. That if my Son A. die without Issue that then my Sons in Law shall sell how adj A. having a Son who dies without Issue A. 285 286. Feoffment to the Uses in his Will which deviseth that his Feoffees shall be seised to Uses a good Devise A. 313. That Lessee for years shall hold after the Devisors death for 30 years accounting the Remainder of the first Term how adj B. 33 34. Devise to A. may be helped by Averment B 35. C. 79. To the Father and his eldest Issue Male B. 35. Things individual cannot be devised within the Statute of Wills If part be Soccage and part Capite B. 41 42. That his Lands shall be sold for payment of his Debts the Executor shall sell 43 220. Devise that his

Executor shall sell who dies his Executor cannot sell B. 69. To the Heirs of the Body of his Eldest Son is void B. 70. I give my Lease to my Wife for life and then to my Children unpreferred B. 90. To the Heir in see is void and he is in by descent B. 101. C. 18. That his Executor shall pay a Debt this is no Legacy B. 119 120. Devise shall be taken according to the Common not Legal construction B. 120. C. 18 19. Devise of three Closes to three and if any die that the other shall have all his part to be divided between them B. 129. That A. shall pay yearly 10 l. out of a Mannor is a good Devise of the Mannor to A. B. 165. They shall be construed favourably but not against Law B. 165. If the Devisor be distrained and dies before re-entry nothing passeth B. 165. All his Lands called Jacks in the occupation of J S. what passes if not in the occupation of J.S. B. 226. Like Case C. 18 19 132. Of a Mannor to B. and of a third part thereof to C. they are joynt Tenants C. 11. Words in a Devise shall never be judged repugnant if by any rational Construction they may consist C. 11 28 29 Devise of Lands to his Wife for life and after that she may give them to whom she will C. 71. Lands called H. in two Vills A. and B. Devise of H. in A. for life remainder of Hayes Land to L. No Land passes in remainder but Lands in A. C. 77. To J. for thirty one years to pay Debts remainder after the Term expired to his Heirs Males and if he die within the Term that G. shall have it and be Executor J. dies his Issue enters G. evicts him C. 110. Devise that the eldest Son shall take the profits until the younger be of Age and the remainder to the younger Son the elder hath see conditional C. 216. Devise that his Feoffees to Uses shall be seised to other Uses who are accounted Feoffees C. 262. Diminution The manner of alledging it A. 22. With what time it must be alledged B. 3. Disceit Fine reversed by such a Writ because the Land is Ancient Demesne A. 290. C. 3 12 117 120. Not abated by death of one Defendant C. 3. Upon a Recovery in a Quare Impedit A. 293. The manner of proceeding therein A. 294. For an Infant against his Guardian who lost the Land by default in Dower B. 59. Where Estate of the Conusee remains after the Fine reversed C. 12 120. Whom it shall bind without summons C. 120. Discent Takes not away the entry of him who claims by Devise condition broken c. A. 210. B. 192. cont B. 147. Disclaimer He who hath disclaimed shall not have a Writ of Error C. 176. Discontinuance de Process c. Vide Continuance Discontinuance de Terre Remainder in fee after a Lease for life where not discontinued by Fine by the Tenant for life A. 40. B. 18 19. None of Copyholds A. 95. Nor upon a Covenant to stand seised made by Tenant in tail A. 110 111. By Feoffment of Tenant in tail A. 127. B. 18 19. Quid operatur if the Feoffees joyn in the Discontinuance B. 18 19. Lease for years by Cestuy que use pur vy is no Discontinuance but warranted by the Stat. of 32 H. 8. B. 46. None if the Reversion be in the King B. 157. C. 57. Nor by Bargain and Sale by Deed enrolled without Livery C. 16. Disseisin and Disseisor Where a Man shall be a Disseisor at the election of another A. 121. B. 9. If Tenant per auter vy hold over after the death of Custuy que vie if he be a Disseisor B. 45 46. The like if Tenant for years holds over B. 45 46. If the younger Brother enter if he be a Disseisor or Tenant at sufferance B. 48. If Disseisee may give licence to put in Cattle before Entry C. 144. He who Disseiseth a Copyholder gains no Estate C. 221. Disseisin to the use of Baron and Feme he only agrees the Estate vests in both but the Feme is no Disseisor C. 272. Distress Cannot distrain upon the Kings Lands A. 191. Where and who may distrein the Cattle of a Stranger though not Levant and Couchant where and who not B. 7. If one as Bailiff may say he takes a Distress for one cause and carry it away for another B. 196. Dower The Wife not Dowable if the Husband be attaint of Treason although pardoned A. 3. Of what age the Feme must be A. 53. Inquiry of Damages where the Baron died seised A. 56 92. In such an Inquiry the Jury may find above the value of the Dower A. 56. By Custom of Gavel-kind whether demandable as by Common Law A. 62 133. How a Grand-Cape in D. must be executed A. 92. Wife Dowable of a Seisin in Fee defeasible by a Condition A. 168. The Wife shall be endowed at Common Law where the King is to have Primer Seisin A. 285. If a conditional Estate be a good Joynture to bar Dower A. 311. Bar that the Heir granted to the Wife a Rent in satisfaction c. he ought to shew what Estate he had in the Land B. 10. An Infant cannot lose by default in Dower unless per Gardian B. 59 189. Notwithstanding what divorces the Wife shall be endowed B. 169 170. If the Wife shall be endowed where the Husband takes a Fine and renders back presently C 11. If she be barred by Fine and Non-claim if she brings her Writ within five years and desists prosecution six years after C. 50. Touts temps prist a render Dower where necessary to plead it or to give Judgment by default C. 50 52. If the Wise of the Lord shall be endowed of Demeine Lands grantable and granted by Copy by the Lord B. 153. C. 59. Of a Presentation to a Church C. 155. It is a good Bar in Dower that the Feme accepted Homage from the Tenant C. 272. Pleading of agreement to a Joynture made during Coverture C. 272. Divorce If it be causa frigiditatis in the Man who hath Issue by another if the first Marriage be good or the Divorce good until avoided by Sentence B. 169 170 171 172. The several kinds of Divorce B. 169. In pleading of Divorce the Judges name Coram quo must be precisely pleaded B. 170 171. Droit The form of a Writ of Right and what is demandable therein A. 169. B. 36. Whether it lies of an Office Stat. W. 2 cap. 25. A. 169. B. 36. The manner of arrayment of the twelve Recognitors by four Knights A. 303. Droit of an Advowson where it lies A. 316. No challenge to the Polls after the Array made A. 303. Where a Man hath no remedy but by this Writ B. 62 63 65. A Writ of Droit Close directed to the Bailiff and procceeded coram Sectatoribus good C. 63 64. In such Writ twelve Recognitors retorned suffice in an Inferior Court

lies immediately upon a Recognizance in Chancery B. 84 to 89 220. If Debt lies upon it before or after Judgment upon the Scire facias B. 84 to 88 220. Debt brought upon a Recognizance but non constat where it was acknowledged C. 58. Record Of an Assise brought into the Common Bench by Error how to be remanded to the Judges of Assise for Error lies not in C. B. A. 55. Pleading of a Record in the same Court A. 63 65. Where and for whom Averment lieth against a Record A. 183 184. Removed by a vicious Writ of Error or before Judgment given the Record is still in the first Court B. 1 2. A Recordatur made per Car. of a Record mistaken B. 120. Recovery The form thereof where the Vouchee comes in by Attorny A. 86. Against an Infant per Gardianum A. 211. A Recovery by one Joynt-Tenant binds only his own moiety A. 270. The execution thereof necessary in some cases B. 48. By Estoppel B. 57. Recoveror is seised to the use of him who suffers it until other Uses are limited B. 63 64 66. See Stat. 21 H. 8. who may falsify a Recovery For what reasons Recoveries do dock remainders after an Estate tall B. 66. Recovery to the intent that the Recoverors shall make Estates if such Estates be not made in convenient time in whom the Freehold is B. 216 217 218. What issue is bound thereby per Stat. 32 H. 8. B. 224. Recouper If the Lessor covenant to repair the House and do not Lessee may do it and recouper out of his Rent A. 237. Recusant If Copyhold Lands were liable to seisure for Recusancy before the Stat. 35 Eliz. 2. A. 98 99. Within what time Action upon the Stat. 23 El. 1. must be brought A. 239. The Indictment needs not name the offender of a Parish but a Vill B. 167. Redisseisin Whether the Plaintiff may have it after Entry the Judgment therein A. 69. Relation Of a Participle of the present Tense without the word adtunc A. 61 172. Of an Attornment A. 265 266. B. 222. Of words in an Indictment B. 5. Of a Deed enrolled to vest Lands in the King B. 206 207. Of agreement to a Disseisin Feoffment c. B. 223. Release Where a Covenant in the same Deed shall release other part of the same Deed A. 117. C. 113. Of a chose en action nihil operatur A. 167. C. 256. If an Heir release to the Disseisor and after his Ancestor dies it does not bind the Heir B. 47 56 57. A promise may be released by Parol B. 76. See where a release to a Stranger may discharge a Bond C. 45. Release of Covenants before any broken discharges the Bond for performance C. 69. To what Tenant in possession it is available C. 152 153. One Grantee of a prochein avoidance cannot release to his Companion A. 167. C. 256. Relief The Heir of one Coparcener shall pay none because it is an intire thing C. 13. Remainder and Reversion In Fee after a Lease for life where not discontinued by a Fine levied by Tenant for life A. 40. Cannot vest in the right Heirs of one in the Feoffors life unless it begin first in the Feoffor A. 101 102. Where an Estate shall vest as a remainder where as a reversion A. 182. B. 33 34. A Reversion after an Estate for life passeth by Devise of all Lands and Tenements A. 180 181. When a Remainder limited upon an Estate which is void as a Gift to a Monk for life remainder over shall take effect A. 195 196 197. Lease for nine years determinable upon death of the Lessee and if he die within the Term the remainder of the Term to his Wife a void remainder A. 218. The difference between a remainder limited upon a contingency which may never happen and one that must and will happen A. 244. B. 82 83. Devise to J.S. haered to Uses in tail after the Estate tail spent The Devisor shall have the fee A. 254. If one of two Disseisees release to one of two Disseisors and the Tenant who released not do enter the Reversion is revested pro toto A. 264. If a remainder may be limited upon a Condition A. 283. Feoffment to J.S. primogenito filio suo If the Son be born after the Feoffment he shall take by remainder B 15. If the remainder of a Term for years be good B. 69. C. 110 111 197 199. Remainder executed by moieties upon a Gift to a Feme for life remainder to their Heirs C. 4. Grantee of a Reversion shall recover Damages only for breach of Covenant made since the Grant C. 51. What acts as Extents Grants c. do take a Reversion forth of him that had it C. 156. Remitter Where it shall be A. 6 7 37. C. 93 94. Tenant in tail creates a new intail upon condition which his issue breaks yet he is remitted after his Fathers death A. 91. Land given to Husband and Wife in tail before Marriage and the Baron aliens and takes back an Estate to him and his Wife for life both are remitted A. 115. C. 93 94. The Father enfeoffs the Heir who never agrees and dies the Heir is remitted B. 73. Father enfeoffs his younger Son who dies his Wife priviment enseint of a Son the elder Son enters he is remitted Quaere C. 2. If one may be remitted against a Warranty C. 10. Waived by the Wife who was Tenant in tail with her Husband her payment of Rent which was reserved upon a Devise C. 272. Rent What is a Rent what a sum in gross A. 137 138 269 333 334. C. 103. Rent reserved by a Lease for years becomes seck if it be granted over A. 315. Divers ways of suspending Rents and how they are revived 334. To what remainder or reversion it shall be incident B. 33 34. If a Rent may be divided to equal a devise of Soccage and Capite Lands B. 42 43. Shall follow the Reversion although reserved to Executors B. 214. Contrary to a sum reserved to Executors upon a Mortgage of Land C. 103. Rent payable at two Feasts is to be paid by equal portions C. 235. By destroying a Reversion a Rent which followed it is extinguished C. 261. Repleader None after Demurrer A. 79. After an unapt issue A. 90. Replevin and Avowry Avowry for Rent reserved upon a Feoffment in fee and for sult of Court A. 13. Bar by non Cepit and what is good evidence therein A. 42. By property in a Stranger Ibid. Where the Plaintiff or Avowant may vary from the number of the Cattle A. 43. Plaintiff cannot discontinue without leave of the Court A. 105. Avowry for Damage Feasant in Customary Lands leased to the Avowant A. 288. Avowry by the Stat. 21 H. 8. cap. 19. A. 301. Avowry for a Leet Fee B. 74. Bar to an Avowry made by a Bailiff that he took the Cattle de injuria c. and traverse that he took them as Baily B. 215.

shall be received or rejected A. 92. Upon a frivolous Plea and Issue Judgment shall be pro quer nullo habito respectu A. 68. The Verdict is good though the Jurors eat before they be agreed unless at the charge of the party for whom they gave their Verdict A. 132 133. C. 267. May find an Estoppel against the admittance of the parties A. 206. Venire facias de novo for the incertainty of a Verdict A. 210. B. 120. What matters uncertainly pleaded are ascertained by the Verdict and helped A. 236. Void by a Witnesses repeating his evidence out of Court A. 305. Void if it find the Defendant guilty of part and do not acquit him of the residue B. 22. C. 83. Verdict special upon issue upon a Traverse if good C. 48. If the Jury find the Issue for the Plaintiff and finds other matter not put in issue though it destroy the Plaintiffs Title yet he shall have Judgment A. 66 67 68. C. 80 81. Special Verdict which makes an illegal conclusion upon the Premisses is void for that part C. 112. By an Inquest of Office is no Verdict until Ingrossment C. 127. Where the conclusion of a Special Verdict is special all other matters but that are taken pro confesso C. 152 153. Visne See Trial. Upon issue whether there be a Vill called Magna or H. only tried by the Visne of H. magna A. 109. Where de Corpore Com. A. 109. B. 22. Usurious Contract pleaded in a Forein County the issue shall be tried where the Usury is alledged A. 149. Whether it may be of a Forest A. 169. Where it must be of two Vills or of one or more A. 301. B. 22 59. Levy per distr issint rien arrear that issue is triable by the Visne where the Lease was made B. 22. Where it shall be de Lincoln or de Vicineto de Ibid. De Suburbiis is good Ibid. Of what place Misnosmer shall be tried B. 23. Of what place Ne unquis Executor and Non-age shall be tried B. 23. Where it ought to be of a Mannor where of a Vill and the Mannor too B. 59. C. 193. Where it shall be of two Counties B. 102. If the seisin of a Rectory be in issue it is to be tried by a Visne of the Vill C. 161. A matter is alledged to be done at L. in the Parish of S. the Visne of L. only is good C. 193 266. Voucher Three Tenants to a Praecipe cannot vouch severally A. 116. Three Husbands and Wives vouched it is intended to be in right of the Wives A. 291. Trial of a Forein Voucher made in a County Palatine B. 37. Stat. W. 1. c. 39. That none shall vouch out of the Line yet the second Vouchee may so do for the Statute is taken strictly B. 149. Voucher in Formedon Counterpleaded for that the Vouchee had nothing c. C. 11. Vses An Use cannot be raised out of an Use A. 7. 148. The consideration of Mony to be paid is good though never paid A. 25. Raised by a Fine to the King A. 33. Use cannot be raised by a Covenant without a Consideration but may by a Fine A. 138. What is a good Consideration to raise a Use by Covenant what not A. 195 196 197 198. The definition of a Use A. 196. B. 15 16 17. Difference between a Use by Feoffment and by Covenant A. 197. A Use in remainder need not depend upon any other Estate per Gawdy A. 244. One may be Cestuy a que use by a Devise without any Consideration A. 254. Suspended may be devised A. 257 258. If good by Stat. 27 H. 8. for years B. 6. C. 21. Cannot be limited but to one in posse or in esse B. 14. Limited to J. S. and such Wife as he shall after Marry is a good Use B. 15. It may commence upon a Contingency B. 16. Cannot be limited to any but by a good name of purchase B. 18. A Corporation cannot be Feoffees to Uses B. 122. What shall be a sufficient Declaration to raise Use upon a former Feoffment B. 159 160. Feoffment to Use of his first Son before Issue Feoffor and Feoffee enfeoff one in see the Uses are destroyed B. 178. Feoffees before the Statute of 27 H. 8. and those since the difference of their Estates B. 178 179. Cestuy que use leaseth after the Stat. 1 R. 3. The Feoffee releases to the Lessee having notice of the Use the release is to the first Use Cont. of a release by the Feoffee to the Disseisor B. 211. Where notice of the former Use in such cases is material B. 178 211. C. 158 252. Use limited to the Feoffor and such Wife as he should after Marry B. 223. C. 253. Use to the eldest Son in tail remainder to the Heirs of the Feoffor he having then no Issue B. 224. Where a Use may be limited against the Rules of Common Law and yet good C. 21. If a Fine levied by a Stranger to Cestuy que use pur vy give the Conusee the Feesimple C. 37. Where a future Use may be destroyed by Feoffment of the Feoffor and Feoffee C. 252 253. Where Re-entry of the Feoffees may revive a Use suspended by Feoffment C. 252. Vsurious Contract The difference between a usurious Loan and an usurious Agreement A. 96. Divers differences about these Statutes argued but not adjudged A. 96 97. The taking the Mony makes not the offence but the corrupt agreement A. 208 209. Cont. C. 205. If a Stranger may plead in avoidance of a Conveyance for Usury A. 307. It must be alledged how much above the rate was agreed upon B. 39. A Counter-bond to save the Surety harmless if it be void if the first Bond were void B. 166. C. 63 Vtlary What is forfeited to the King by Utlary in personal Actions and when and how he must take benefit thereof A. 63 64. Pleaded in abatement Plaintiff replies Comorance in another Vill adjudged a good Replication A. 87. Lies not but where the Suit is by Writ A. 329. Bars not an Aud. Quer. if brought upon the same Record B. 175 176. Reversed for want of the parties addition in an Indictment B. 200. Good Bar in Trover Debt upon Bond but not upon a simple Contract C. 205. W. Wager of Law. BY Lessee for years made Tenant in a Writ of Dower A. 92. If it lies for an Amerciament in a Court-Leet or a Court Baron A. 203 204. In the discretion of the Court if they will permit the Defendant so to do B. 110. C. 212 258. The Plaintiff cannot be nonsuit if the Defendant wage Law the same Term C. 28. In what cases the Defendant shall be permitted to wage Law B. 110. C 212 258. Waif and Estray The property of the Goods waived remain in the Owner if he freshly pursue and convict the Felons B. 192 193. Waiver de Choses In what Courts the Defendant may waive a special Plea and plead the general Issue B. 32. Where a matter of Inducement material is waived by taking issue upon another matter B. 204 205. Wales The Incumbents there must understand the Welch Tongue A. 31. Ward Who shall be in Ward who not A. 253. B. 148 149 150. C. 25 54 154. If the Infant agree to the Marriage tendred No Valore Maritagii lies though the Gardian die before Marriage C. 52. Warranty Warranty and Assets descend no Plea in Formedon where the Heir claims by Devise A. 112 113. Determines with the Estate to which it is annexed A. 179. B. 57. What Entry and of whom shall destroy a Warranty B. 57 58. C. 10. In what Conveyances and to what Estates to be made C. 16. Wast In le tenuit the Plaintiff shall not recover locum vastatum A. 48. Lies not if the Trees be excepted A. 49. If Disseisor do Wast the Action lies against the Disseisee A. 264. How the View must be made of Wast in a Wood Sparsim A. 267. Against whom it is to be brought A. 291. In cutting 20 Oaks the Plaintiff shall recover if 5 only be proved A. 300. Upon an Estate limited to a Man for life remainder to a Feme for years who inter-marry both Estates are foreited by Wast done B. 7. If it lie where there is a Mean remainder B. 126. C. 60. The altering of a Meadow by Ditches or turning to other purposes if Wast B. 174. If the House be ruinous tempore dimissionis the Lessee may pull down and rebuild B. 189. Where the Writ must be laid of whose Lease the Lessee held where general B. 222. What destruction in a Park fishing c. is Wast B. 222. C. 53. Where plead nul Wast or specially C. 203. Withernam How Cattle taken by Withernam must be used A. 220. May be stayed by bringing the Damage in Court and submitting to a form pro contemptu B. 174. It seemeth that Beasts taken in Withernam may be laboured C. 235 236. Writ Of Privy Seal to summon a Subject Ad redeundum in legiantia c. A. 9. General Writ and Special Count where A. 226 227 231. Writ to the Bishop If a Title be found or confest in the King the Court ex Officio must make a Writ for the King A. 194. FINIS

Selected quad for the lemma: son_n

Text snippets containing the quad