the Lands in question without mentioning of any estate after the death of his Wife and paying 10 l. a peece to his daughter when they enter and if any of the Sons marry and have Issue male of their bodies and dyeth before his enty in the Land then that issue to have his part D. takes a Wife and hath Issue male in the life of the Devisor and the Wife of the Devisor dyeth and he enters and pays the portion of 10 l. a year to the Daughters and after dyes B. the eldest brother enters upon the Issue male of D. It was adjudged in this case That D. had but an estate for life and not in Tail for there were three things precedent to the Tail the Mariâ—ge the having Issue male his death before his entry and when it appeareth he did not dye before his entry therefore he had no â—ail and by the word paying 10 l. to the Daughters he had not a Fee simple but that is intended to be for the estate which he had Grey and Willougbyes Case 626. The Venire bore date in December which was out of Terme but retornable at a day in the next Terme and the Issue upon distresse was afterwards tryed It was held the same was but a misconveying of proces which was helped by the Statute of Jeofailes but if the Agard upon the Roll had been had at a day out of the Terme then the Court held the same to be Error Tiping and Bunnings Case 627. Note It was adjudged that if a Copyhold be granted for life the remainder to another in Fee the admittance of the Tenant for life is the admittance of him in the Remainder because the Lord is not to have a new Fine upon the death of the Tenant for life Cheney and Hawes Case 628. Assumpsit to deliver to the Plaintiff in London certain monies when he delivers to the Defendant certain broad Cloathes there the Defendant pleaded Non Assumpsit The opinion of the Court was that the Defendant ought to have said by way of Answer that the Assumpsit was special have traversed the general Assumpsit in the Declaration Stowels Case 629. If there be two Joynt Tenants and one sole brings Trespas against a stranger who pleads Notguilty Resolved the defendant cannot give in evidence the Joynt Tenancy but he ought to have pleaded it Core and Hadgills Case 630. After Execution awarded supersedias issued quia improvidè emanavit executio but no cause of Restitution was in the supersedeas for which it was said that Execution was done before the supersedeas awarded The Court awarded a non supersedeas with a clause of Restitution in it Coles Case 631. He was Indicted of Burglary the Indictment was quod burglarit ' domum cujusdam Richardi fregit without naming his Sirname and the Judgment holden good Saundleys and Oliffs Case 632. A man was seised of a Messuage and granted the Messuage with all Commons appurtenant and in Trespas the Defendant did prescribe for Common and did aver that all the Farmors of the said Messuage in the place where c. and because it did appear that there was unity of possession of the Messuage and Land in which the Common was claimed the Common was extinct but if the grant had been all Commons usually occupied with the Messuage it would have passed the like Common and so it was adjudged Lewes and Bennets Case 633. The next Avoydance was granted to 2. the one Released to the other who brought a Quare impedit in his own name It was adjudged maintenable because it was before the Church was void Dover and Stratfields Case 634. King H. 7. gave Land in Tail to I. S. his Issue was disseised a stranger being in possession levyed a Fine with Proclamation and 5 years passed the Reversion remaining in the Crown It was holden that the Issue of him was only bound in whose time the Fine was Levyed and no other Issues and that by the Statute of 32 and 34 H. 8. 635. Action upon the case because for money he sold to him Tythes sciâ—ns that he had not any right in them Adjudged the Action did lye by the sciens though there was no direct saying that he had not any right in them Beamounts Case 636. He was taken upon an Excommunicato capiendo and the significavit did not mention that he was commorant within the Diocesse of the Bishop at the time of the Excommunication and for that cause the party was discharged Collins and Willies Case 637. The Father promised 10 l. in mariage with his Daughter the Daughter in consideration thereof promised to pay the 10 l. to the Father upon which promise action upon the case was brought against the Husband It was Resolved that ex rigore juris the Action was maintainable but if the Defendant had pleaded the Covin betwixt the Father and Daughter Popham said the action would have destroyed the Action However the Judgment for the practice was stayed Suliard and Stamps Case 638. Assumpsit that if he being Sheriff would execute a Writ of Execution that he would pay him his Fees due per leges Statuta Angliae and the Plaintiff shewed his Fee was 3 l. the Execution being 60 l. found for the Plaintiff Ir was moved in stay of Judgment that the Plaintiff ought to have shewed the Statute upon which the Fees are due but it was dissallowed because the Action is not an Action upon the Statute so as the Statute ought to be snewed Popworth and Arches Case 639. It was holden in an Accompt that the Defendant cannot wage his Law in accompt for the profits of 14. acres of Land for 6. years Hoe and Beltons Case 640. A Scire fac to have Execution of Damages The Defendant said that the Plaintiff had assigned the damages to the Queen and that the Sheriff by Process out of the Exchequer had extended his Lands for them It was adjudged a good Bar though the Sheriff had not retorned his Writ Hoe and Marshals Case 641. The Defendant was Bail for one F. at the Suit of the Plaintiff F. did not pay the money nor render his Body in a Scire facias against the Defendant the Bail he pleaded that the Plaintiff had released to him all actions after the Bail and before the Judgment It was adjudged the Release did not bar the Plaintiff because the Release was before any duty was due for no duty was by the Bail before the Judgment Coo. 1. part Griffin Lawrence and others Case 642. In Ejectione firme two of the Defendants were guilty and the other not he who was found not guilty died Resolved That the Plaintiff should have Judgment against the others for this Action is but in the nature of Trespass in which the death of one shall not abate the Action Garraway and Braybridges Case Ejectione firme the case was A had Issue F. his eldest Son and B. the Defendant his youngest and conveyed the Lands to the use
and after to the use of C. in tail and after to D. in tail and after to the right Heirs of A. and of the Mannor of B. immediately after he the said A. should die without Issue of his Body to the use of E. daughter of I. for her Life and afterwards to D in tail and afterwards to C. in tail and to the right Heirs of A. And of the moiety of the Mannor of W. and other the Premises of which no use was before declared to the use of the said A. and such Heirs of his Body and after to the use of the said E for Life the remainder to D. in tail the remainder to C. in tail the Remainder to his right Heirs Provided That if at any time after he should be minded to revoke the said Indenture or any use or estates therein contained or to raise and create any other use or Estate and should declare the same to any person c. in the presence of two Witnesses then the Remainders and all other Estates in the said Indenture to be void and the Conusees of the Fine to stand seised to the use of the said A. and his Heirs Afterwards A. reciting the former Indenture and the Proviso in consideration of a Marâ—iage between I. D. and the said E. did declare to I. N. in the presence of two Witnesses that he did revoke and make void the former Deed and every Article therein concerning the Mannor of B. but as touching the Mannor of M that the same should stand in force and by the last Indenture did covenant with I. D. and E. his Wife that the Conusees of the Fine c. should stand seised of the Mannor of B. and the moiety of the Mannor of V. to the use of the said I. D. and E. his Wife for their Lives and after to the Issue of the Body of the said I. D. and E. as should be then eldest living at the death of the Survivors of them for the Life of such Issue and after to the use of the said A. and of such the Heirs of his Body as he should after beget on the body of I. his Wife or on the Body of any other woman which he should marry and after to â— in tail and after to C. in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. It was found that E. was the Daughter of I. but born before her marriage with A. A and I. his Wife died and found he married no other woman and that F. was Son and Heir of A. and was of full age The Questions in this long case were these 1. Whether all the use and agreements in the first Indenture as to the Mannors of B. and V. were revoked by the second Indenture 2. Whether the new uses limited by the second Indenture and such Revocation of the former uses were effectual to convey any Estate to I. D. and E his Wiâ—e with the Remainder over to take away the immediate discent from the Heir at Law The case was argued in B. R. and the Justices were divided in their opinions and afterwards it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber but whether there Resolved or not Quaere Sir Arthur Goâ—ges Case 967. The case was the Lord Viscount Brindon was seised of Lands holden of the Queen in capite he had Issue Douglasse his Daughter and Heir who was married to Sir Arthur Gorge and she by him had Issue Ambrosia Gorge Sir Arthur married his Daughter Ambrosia when she was above the age of eight years and before she was of the age of nine years to Francis Gorge Son and Heir of Sir Thomas Gorge who died before Ambrosia accomplished her age of eleven years The Question upon the whole matter was if the Wardship of the body of Ambâ—osia did belong to the Queen or not It was Resolved in this case amongst other points that the Queen should have the Wardship in regard the Marriage was not a compleat Marriage because the Husband died before the years of consent of Ambrosia Bartons Case 968. A seised of the Mannâ—rs of O. and R. and of Lands called F. in the counry of Lanc. holden in capite 16 Octob. 19 Eliz made a Writing purporting that he did give the said Mannors and Lands to B. C. D. and E. and their Heirs to the several uses and under the agreements contained in a Schedule to the said Deed annexed and by the Schedule he declared the uses to be to himself for Life without Impeachment of wast and afterwards of part of the Lands to M. his Wife for her life and then to the â—ight Heirs of A. with a Proviso that if at any time after his Life during the Life of the said M. the Heirs of â—he said A. or any claiming under his Heirs trouble or disturb the said M. that then the said B. and other the parties should stand seised of the Lands in which she should be disturbed to the use of the said M. and her Heirs for ever Afterwards the said A. made a Lease of the said Mannors and Lands to I. S. for 100 years to begin after the death of M. A. died M entred The Heir of A after his death entred and disturbed M. contrary to the Pâ—oviso it was Resolved by the Justices in this case that the future use was checked by the Lease although it was but interesse termini and that the use to M. and her Heirs could not rise upon her dusturbance but that it was destroyed for ever Vernons Case 969. Margaret Winter Widow the late wife of Henry Vernon seised of Lands in Fee holden in capite enfeoffed thereof I. S. and others to the use of herself for Life and after to B. her younger Son and the Heirs of his body with divers Remainders over with a Proviso if she should be minded to alter the uses and signâ—fie the same under her hand and Seal to her Feoffâ—es and tender to them 10 l. that then all the uses in the Indenture should be voâ—d and hâ—r Feâ—ffees should stand seâ—sed to sâ—ch new uses as should be limited by the said M. M. according â—o the Proviso signified her intent and tendred 10 l. to her Feoffees and then declared that her said Feoffees should stand seised thereof to the use of G. W. for Life the Remainder to the said M. for Life the Remainder to H. Vernon her Son and the Heirs of his Body Henry Vernon died having Issue a Daughter within age and after M. W. died It was holden clearly in the Court of Wards that because there is no mention of any entry by the eldest Son and Heir that the Estate which Henry Vernon had in Tail was not avoided and so by consequence the Daughter of Heary Vernon should be in Ward Sir Robert Remington and Savages Case 970. A levyed a Fine of Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his Executors for 20. years the Remainder to his Son in tail with diverse Remainders over Afterwards he
levyed another Fine to all the said uses but only the Estate for 20. years to his Executors and made his wife his Executrix the wife married Sir Robert Remington It was adjudged in this case that by the second Fine the Lease for 20 years to his Executors was extinct Littletons Case 971. A seised of Lands holden in copite in consideration of a Marriage of M. his Daughter with W. L. Son of Sir John and of 1300 l paid by Sir John the Father of W. levyed a Fine of part of the Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to W. and M. and the Heirs of the Body of W. upon the Body of M. the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. and the residue to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his first Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. with power to make a Joynture â—o his second Wife and to make Leases for Twenty one years or three Lives The marriage took effect A. took a wife and had Issue by her I. and died I. his Son and Heir within age W. died without Issue G. L. being his Brother and Heir the second wife of A. living and also M living It was upon â— Melius Inquirend found that M. was the Daughter of A. It was Resolved in this case that the Queen should have the Wardship of the third part of the whole Land during the minority of I. the Son of A. Also it was Resolved by them that although money was paid and so the consideration of the Marriage was a mixt consideration yet â—hat should not alter the Law for the duty to the Crown 1. and one Ciffias case was cited to have been so adjudged The Lord Ross and the Earl of Rutlands Case 972. H. Earl of Rutland 2 Elâ—z levyed a Fine with Proclamation to the use of himself and B. his Wife and the Heirs of his own Body and died B. married the Earl of Bedford they covenanted with Edward Earl of Rutland Son of H. Earl of Rutland to levy a Fine which Fine was levyed with Proclamation sur concâ—ssit of the said Mannors and Lands by the said Edward Earl to the said B. for Life Afterward Edward Earl of Rutland 29 Eliz. covenanted with the Lord Burâ—eigh and others to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of Thomas Earl of Rutland his Grandfather Edward Earl 29 Eliz. died without Issue Male having a Daughter which was the Lady Roâ—s the Mother of the Lord Ross the plaintiff B. died the entail made by the Earl of Rutland and the discent to the Lord Ross the Plaintiff was found by Office It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That the Mannors did belong to the Plaintiff the Lord Ross as Issue in tail of Henry Earl of Rutland notwithstanding the Fine levyed by Edward Earl of Rutland because the Fine being sur concessit the same remained a Bar no longer then during the Life of B. Also they held the taking of the Fine by B. to be a surrender of her Estate but to be no discontinuance because not seised of the Tail at the time 3. Resolved the Lands should be in the King during the Minority of the Lord Ross Anno 1. Jacobi 973. It was Resolved by the Justices that Informations for the Queen alone in any Latin Court should not abate by the Demise of the Queen and so like of Informations tam pro the party quam for the Queen and so also it was of Informations in English Courts they were not discontinued by the Demise of the Queen Handall and his Wife and Browns Case in Chancery 974. The case was A. possessed of a Term for years had Issue a Son and two Daughters and by Will he devised his Term to John his Son and if he died to his two Daughters and if they died to his Wife he made his Son his whole Executor who entred claiming by the Will and after Probate he died Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and for mony sold the Term to Brown the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices that the Assignee of the Administrator should have the Term and not the two Daughters and Decreed in Chancery accordingly 975. Upon the cases of claims at the Coronation of the King these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. That where a Barony or a Mannor or Land holden by grand Serjeanty to do special Service at the Coronation is come to many hands by purchase there each Tenant is chargable with the whole Service but the King may appoint which of them shall do the Service and he which doth the Service shall alone have the Fee but if the Division be by Copartners there the eldest is only to do the Service and the other shall contribute to the charge and the eldâ—st shall have the Fees but if each Sister sell her part the Feoffee of the eldest shall not have the preheminence 2. Resolved where Grand Serjeanty is to be done at the Coronation by Tenure and the Lands come to an ignoble person who is unmeet to do the Service the Lord Steward may appoint a Noble or meet person to do the Service as Deputy to the Tenant of the Land 3. Resolved where Land is given to hold as to be Hostiarius Câ—merae Regis or the like In such Case the Tenants are to make their claims yet they are not to be admitted to the said Services by the Commissioners for claims or the Lord Steward but they are to be referred to the King himself their Tenure being perpetual and continuing Leigh and Helyers Case 976. A man supposing he had Title to certain Lands which were in the possession of I. S. contracted to sell them to I. D. and sealed a Lease for years to a third person to the use of I. D. with whom the contract made and the year and day long before expired Resolved it was maintenance by the Common Law but not within the Statute of 32. H. 8. Foster and Kings Case 977. A man made his Will and gave diverse Legacies and devised that the rest and residue of his Goods after his Debts and Legacies paid to his wife and after in the same Will he devised that his Overseers should enter into the Lands and cut down so much of the Woods as would suffice to pay his Debts Quere in this case if the Debts and Legacies shall be paid of the Woods if the Goods be not sufficient to pay them Skipwiths Case 978. Tenant in tail and he in the Reversion bargaineth and sells the Lands to the King and before enrollment Tenant in tail suffers a common Recovery Quere if the Issue in tail be barred by the Recovery not Resolved Lucas Case 979 Resolved in this case that before the Statute of 13 R. 2â— Murder was pardonable by the name of Felony but since that Statute the
Negatives that he hath not broken them and to the Covenants in the Affirmative that he hath performed them 2. When the Covenants Negative are against Laws and the Affirmative Lawfull there he may plead performance generally and the Court is to take notice that the Covenants in the Negative were void and against Law 3. That the Covenants that he would not do any Execution nor Execute any Writs here as venire fac were against Law 4. When some Covenants are void by the Common Law and others not void an Obligation taken for the performance of Covenants stands good for those that are good and not for the other Gresley and Luthers Case 1110. Assumpsit The Defendant was a Suitor for Marriage of the Daughter of I. S. the Mother of the Daughter was sollicited by the Defendant for her assent and furtherance of the Marriage and the Defendant promised that if she would agree that her Daughter should Marry the Defendant that he would give to the Mother 100l she gave her assent and the Marriage took effect It was Resolved that the Agreement of the Mother was a sufficient consideration to ground the Assumpsit upon Fosters and Jacksons Case 1111. Scire fac Against an Executor to have Execution of a Judgement against the Testator the Defendant pleaded that the Testator was taken in Execution for the same Debt and dyed in Execution It was Resolved that was a discharge of the Debt vide Laud and Williams Case Pasch 44. Eliz adjudged accordingly Harecote and Wrenhams Case 1112. The Case was The Father in his life time had conveyed a Lease in Trust to F. and made his Son his Executor who recvered 100l in Chancary against F. which he had and came to his hands as Executor The Question was if this 1000l should be Assetts in the Executors hands Resolved it should be Assetts Selby and Chutes Case 1113. The Lessor Covenanted that the Lessee should enjoy the Land without the disturbance Let or hindrance c. of the Lessee The Lessor sued the Lessee in Chancery suggesting the Lease was made to him in trust to try a Tittle onely In Covenant brought the Lessee assigned this in breach of the Covenant Adjudging no breach because it was a Suite in Equity and not at Common Law Sir Henry Rolls and Sir Robert Osborn and his wives Case 1114. Warrantia Charta against Husband and Wife that the husband and wife levied a Fine 2 Jac. to the Defendant and his Heirs with Warranty the Defendant pleaded that the same Term a common Recovery was had by a Stranger in a Writ of entry against the Plaintiff who vouched the husband only which Recovery was to the use of the Plaintiff for part of the Land for his Life with divers Remainders in tail with the Remainders in Fee to the Plaintiff and his Heirs In this case these points were Resolved 1. the wife one of the Defendants died pendant the Writ that the Writ should not abate because the Warranty was by the Husband and Wife so as by the death of the wife the Warranty as to her was determined and it stood for the Husband and his Heirs 2. Resolved that the Warranty was determined by the Severance and Division of the Land 3. Resolved that if the Plaintiff be impleaded in which he might vouch if he did not vouch that he might have Warrantia Charta 4. Resolved that because it appeared by the Plea in Bar that the use of the Recovery was to the Plaintiff but for Life so as the Plaintiff is in of another estate that he could not have a Warrantia Charta to recover upon a Warranty in Fee It was adjudged against the Plaintiff Cownden and Clarks Case 1115. In Ejectione firme the case was A seised of Lands in Fee in Soccage had Issue I. his Son and E. his daughter who was married to I. D. by whom she had Issue two daughters M. and F. he made his Will and devised out of his Lands Annuities to his Grand-children M. and F. and gave a Legacy to G. his brother of 20 l. and his Lands he devised thus My meaning is that my Land I now stand seised of and that of right I have shall discend to J. my Son but my Executors shall take the profits of it till his age of 24. years Provided If the said J. die without Issue of his body thâ—n the Land go to the right Heirs of my name and posterity equally to be divided part and part like and then to the said M. and F. I. died without Issue G. his brother entred and made the Lease It was Resolved in this case that the Devise to the right Heirs of his name and posterity was void and by consequence the Reversion in Fee discended to I his Son and from him to his two Daughters as his general Heirs and that appeared to be the intent of the Devisor for he did not intend his brother should have the Land for the words be part and part like and he did not intend his two daughters should have the Lands because he devised them Annuities Rowrth and the Bishop of Chesters Case 1116. It was Resolved in this case that after an Induction an Institution is not to be examined in the Spiritual Court but by a Quare Impedit only But yet the Justices if they see causa may write to the Bishop to certifie concerning the Institution Tisilate and Sir William Esex Case 1117. Covenant was brought upon the words Covenant Premise and Agree that the Lessee should quietly occupy and enjoy the Lands demised for during the term of Seven years and the Plaintiff shewed that a Stranger entred upon the Land but did not shew that he entred by title and for that cause it was adjudged against the Plaintiff and the difference was taken betwixt a Covenant implied as here it was in the words demise c. but upon a Covenant expressed there the Lessor is to gard the Land against every person Harrington and Deans Case 1118. Accompt A. was endebted to the Plaintiff 200 l. The Plaintiff required the Defendant to receive it of A and prayed the Defendant to borrow so much for him and pay it to the Plaintiff the Defendant did borrow 200 l. of I. S. and A. was bound for the repayment of it It was adjudged that the Defendant should account for this mony for that he had a Warrant from the Plaintiff to receive the mony of A. and by the direction of A. he received it of I. S. for A. therefore he was to account for it The Earl of Cumberland and Countesse of Cumberlands Case 1119. Waste in 3. Several Townes A. B. C. There were 29. Issues joyned and tryed 14. for the Plantiff and 14. for the Defendant One was if certaine Oakes cut down were imployed in reparation of the Castle of A. which Issue was tryed with the Defendant It was moved in stay of Judgement that the Visne was of the Town of A. where it ought to
passed against the Plantiff who thereupon brought an Attaint and alledged that the Jurors to the Attaint had not the view of the Tenements in demand It was the opinion of the Court that after the Verdict given it cannot be alledged that the Jurours had not the View and Judgement was given without the View 177. In Dower the Defendant pleaded That the Husband of the demandant did not dye seised so that she could not have damages and because there were Woods upon the Lands she prayed a Writ of Estrepment Quaere if it doth Lie It was not Resolved Griffiths Case 178. Lessee for years suffered the Banks of the River of Trent which ran by the Lands let to be unrepaired so as the Water brake the Banks and drowned the Lands Adjudged That River was not so violent but that the Lessee by his Industry might repair the Banks and to make the water run in its Current and therefore adjudged it was Wast 179. Debt was against Executors upon an Obligation which was that if the Testator or his Executors at Mich. every year during the life of the Obligee delivered to the Obligee a Load of Dung that then the Defendants pleaded that they and their Testator had performed not shewing how which was found against them It was adjudged that for this false plea of the Executors Judgment should be against them de bonis propriis 180. One was named in the Original in Debt A. B. of C. in the County of Denbigh He appeared upon the Cepi Corpus and said that he was dwelling at D. at the time of the Action brought It was holden it was No plea that he was not dwelling at C. at the time of the Action brought unlesse he say Ne unque puis 181. Lands in London which by the Custom were deviseable came to the King by Escheat who granted them over to I. S. to hold by Knights service It was holden That notwithstanding the Statute the devise of the whole Land was good as it was by the Custome which is not taken away by the Statute 182. The King by his Letters Patents gave authority to his Surveyour to make Leases of certain Lands for life reserving the antient Rent He by Indenture between the King of the one part and I. S. of the other part Quod Dominus Rex dimisit c. and the Surveyour put his own Seal to the Deed. It was adjudged a void Lease for he ought not to have put his Seal to it but the Seal of the King and it cannot be the Lease of the King without his Seal 183. Grandfather Father and Sonne The Grandfather is Tenant for life the Remainder to the Son in tayl the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Grandfather The Grandfather suffers a Recovery and levyes a Fine with Proclamation to I. S. and after the Statute of 27 H. 8. is made and the Grandfather enfeoffeth the Sonne of the Land and dyeth Resolved that the entry of the Father upon the Son was lawful and he shall not be estopped by the warranty of the Grandfather for that the Warranty was gone by the reprisal of the estate and it was holden That although the 5. years were past in the life of the Grandfather yet when the Grandfather dyes the Father shall have other 5. years to make his Entry or clayme and that by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 184. Lessee for years rendering Rent upon Condition if the Rent be behind the Lessor to Reenter a Recovery in Debt is had against the Lessor and the Reversion and Rent extended by Elegit and given in Execution It is a good Execution and the Condition suspended so as if the Rent be behinde the Lessor cannot enter into the other moety 185. Two Tenants in Common of a Wood one Leaseth his part for years who cuts Trees and commits Wast he shall be punished for the moety of the Wast and the Lessor Recover the moety of the Land Wasted 186. The Dean and Canons of Windsor were Incorporated by Act of Parliament by the Name of the Dean and Canons of the Kings Free Chapel of his Castle of Windsor and they made a Lease by the Name of the Dean and Canons of the Kings Majesties Free Chapel of of the Castle of Windsor in the County of Berks. Resolved the Lease was good for although the King in the Act of Parliament call it his Castle yet when another speaks of it it is more apt to call it the Castle and therefore such variance shall not avoid the Lease Newdigates Case 187. Lessee for life and he in the Reversion joyned in a Lease for years Lessee for life dyed the Lessee committed Wast Resolved that during the life of the Lessee for life it was her Lease and the Confirmation of him in the Reversion But when the Tenant for life dyed then it was the Lease of him in the Reversion and that he should have an Action of Wast ex divisione propria 188. A man hath 3. daughters and Covenants with I. S. that he shall have the disposition in marriage of one of them the Election is in the Father of which of the daughters the other shall have the Mariage and he is not to deliver the daughter till request but upon request he is to deliver the daughter to I. S. otherwise he cannot have the effect of the Covenant 189. In a Writ of False Judgment the Sheriff returned Quod accept is secum 4. legalibus Militibus de Com. suo accessint c. Et recordum illud habeo c. coram c. sub sigillo meo sigillis praedict Militum It was adjudged to be no good return nor the Record removed but it ought to be sub sigillis ex his qui Recordo illo intersuerant and not of the 4. Knights 190. It was holden by the Justices that if upon the Exigent the Defendant hath a supersedeas but doth not deliver the same before the 5th County so as he is returned Outlawed yet because the Supersedeas was upon Record the Justices held the Outlawry to be void 191. A Writ of Wast was Quod secit vastationem in the Land and assigned the Wast in cutting down of Trees It was holden that was not good but if he had assigned the Wast in digging of Clay or such other things it had been otherwise for that is Wast in the Land 192. A man devised his Lands to his eldest Son in Tail the remainder to his youngest Son in Tail the remainder to his Daughter in Tail and if they all dyed without Issue that then the Land should be sold by his Executors the eldest entred and dyed without Issue the younger Son entred and suffered a Comon-Recovery and after dyed without Issue and the daughter also dyed without Issue Resolved That the Executors could not now sell the Land 193. Note If an Enfant levy a Fine and take back an Estate for life or in Tail by render he shall not avoid after the Fine by
the use of himself and his wife for their lives the Remainder to the use of the eldest Child of the said W. H. and the Heirs of the body of such eldest Child the Remainder over A Fine was levyed accordingly and after his wife died without issue and W. H. married another woman and by her had issue a Daughter his eldest Childe and a Sonne his younger It was a Question which of them should have the Remainder It was the opinion of the Justices That the Daughter should have the Remainder and not the Sonne for that was the intent of the Ancestour as they conceived though puero in Latine is intendable rather to an Issue Male than Female and yet they said That many Authors have taken the word indifferently to extend to both Sexes Mich. 17 18 Eliz. Andrews Case 239. Q. Imp. The Case was A Tenant in Tayle the Remainder to the Lord Mountjoy in fee of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant bargained and sold the same by Indenture not enrolled to I. S. and his Heirs rendring 42 l. rent with Clause of Distress and Nomine pene and covenanted for further assurance to levy a Fine to the Bargainee Proviso that the Bargainee grant the next Avoydance to A. for life and if it happen not void then one life to his Executors A and I. S. afterwards levyed a Fine with the render of a Rent of 42 l. to A. in tayle the remainder to I. S. in fee B. in his life did not grant the Advowson to A. and dyed the Church became void A. entred for the Condition broken It was in this Case resolved 1. That the Proviso made a Condition 2ly That the Fine levyed had not extinguished the Condition 3ly That no time being limited for the regrant the Bargainee was bound to regrant it without request at his peril during the life of the Bargainor if he were requested in the life of the Bargainor and because the Bargainor dyed the Condition was broken Fox and Colliers Case 240. Ejectione firme the Case was E. G. Bishop of York 6. Nov. 18. had made a Lease from the date of the Indenture of Lands for 21. years to the Plaintiff which Lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter at which time there was unexpired 4. years of an antient Lease made for 40. years Afterwards E. G. was removed to Canterbury and S. elected Bishop of York the 4. years expired the Plaintiff entred The Defendant upon a Lease made to him by S. after the 4. years ended put him out It was resolved by all the Justices and Barons in the Exchequer Chamber That the Lease made to the Plaintiff was good yet they agreed it should be void if it was not for the Confirmation 2ly They held that the Lease now in Question being to commence presently in Estoppel but not in Interest was not void by the Statute of 1 Eliz. neither within the letter nor the intent of the Statute not within the letter because it is not prejudicial to the Successor and the Statute is satisfied in the intent it not being a Lease longer than 21. years and having the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter it is now good although it was not good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. Knowles and Lines Case 241. Ejectione firme The Case was Sir Francis Englesfield was seised in the right of K his wife of the Mannor of S. whereof a Messuage and Lands in question were Copyhold demiseable for 3. lives 1 Eliz. Sir Francis Englefield went beyond Sea with license for 3. years after his Licence expired the Queen sent a Privy Seal to him commanding him upon his Allegiance to return he spretis Mandatis of the Queen continued there and adhered to the Queens Enemies This being retorned a Commission issued to seize his Lands upon which the said Mannor of S. was seized The Queen at the Suit of K. his Wife for her Releif granted the Mannor to St. John and Fetiplace the Friends of K. for her Releife quamdiu in manibus nostris fore contigerit who entred and were thereof possessed accordingly and then the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives was made After which the Defendant procured a Warrant from the Lord Treasurer to C. and F. joynt Stewards for the Queen to hold Court within all the Lands of Sir Francis Englefield and to grant Copyes according to the Custom of the Mannor C. alone executed the Grant and granted the Messuage and Lands to the Defendant's being Copyhold In the Case was two points 1. If the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives had taken away the Estate of St. John Fetiplace and reduced the Mannor again to the Queen 2ly If the Court holden by C. only being a joynt Grant of Stewardship was good Resolved 1. That the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives was made in affirmance of the Common law and did not give the Queen any new thing but added only some Circumstances to it and therefore the Grant made to St. John and Fetiplace stood good so as the Queen could not oust the Patentees and so by consequence the Grant of the Copyhold to Lines the Defendant was not good 2ly They held that the Court holden by C. only was good For it was said a Disseasor c. might hold Courts and make admittance and take surrenders and the like because he is but an Instrument of Conveyance but he could not grant Copyhold estates 242. Note by the Justices If a man be to make sufficient proof it may be made by Witnesses produced as by Jury 243. A man seised of Lands parcell Copyhold and of Lands at the Comon Law and by Licence of the Lord makes a Lease of them for 21. years Provided if the Lessor or his Wife or his Heirs or Assignes or any of them give warning to the Lessee that the Husband or Wife or their Heirs will dwell there that then the Lessee should avoid Except that the Lessor or his Heirs shall pay to the Lessee then 20 l. The Lessor and his Wife dyes and the Reversion of one part discendeth to the eldest Son and the Reversion of the other to the youngest and the youngest purchaseth the Reversion of the eldest and then the youngest gives warning to the Lessee It was the opinion of the Justices that the warning given by him was good and that the Law which hath severed the Reversion hath severed also the Condition although at the begining they were entire and so for one part as Heir and for the other part as Assignee he shall take advantage of the Cndition 244. A man makes a Lease of Land and of an House for years reserving one Rent for all and afterwards the Lessor grants the Reversion of all the Lands saving the Reversion of the House to himself Resolved that by agreement betwixt the Lessor and grantee in the Reversion in pays the Rent may be apportioned if it be according to the quantity and quality of the Land
of the Justices that for want of Certainty no use is created by the said Covenant and Consideration but the same amounts to a Covenant and no more and the words Discend come and remain cannot create an Use but to the Heir apparant only 254. In Trespas the Case was The Custom of a Mannor was Quod quilibet tenens per Copiam poterit dimittere terras suas for life in Fee or alâ—ter and that a Woman Cooperta viro poterit devise her Copyhold Lands to any other or to her Husband by the assent of the Husband The Court held that the custome was not unreasonable but because it was poterit devisorre where it should be usi sunt devisorre and also because it appeared that the Plaintiff was Tenant in Common with the Defendant It was adjudged against the Plaintiff 255. A seised in Fee of a Messuage and of divers Lands time out of minde occupied with it let parcel of the Lands to a stranger for years and afterwards made his Will in this manner viz. I will and bequeath to my Wife my Messuage with all the Lands thereunto belonging in the occupation of the Lessee and after the decease of my Wife I Will that it with all the rest of my Lands shall remain to my Younger Son It was the opinion of the Justices that the Wife should not have the whole but only that which was Leased before and therefore that the remainder thereof could not be in the Younger Son till after the death of the Wife and that till the death of the Wife the Eldest Son Heir at Law should enjoy it 256. A man bound himself in an Obligation that he and his Wife would levy a Fine upon reasonable request of the Obligee he made the Request the Wife being very sick so as she could not travail Resolved that her sicknesse did save the Obligation from being forfeited 257. A Copyholder in Fee by License of the Lord made a Lease for years Rendring Rent and having Issue a Son and a Daughter by one Woman and a Daughter by another dyed his Son within age who before any Rent incurred or any admittance dyed Adjudged The Eldest Daugter should have the Land and that the discent of the Reversion is possessio fratris quae facit sororem esse haeredem Kenrick and Burges Case 258. A Lease in Reversion for years was granted to I. S. who dyed Intestate his Wife assigned it to B. and afterwards took Letters of Adminâ—stâ—ation and made an Assignment of it to the Plaintiff Resolved that the last Assignee should have it Trinit 25. Eliz. in Exchequer The Queen Her Almoner and Coxeheads Case 259. The Case was I. S. Anno 9. of the Queen took the Office of Bayliff of the Hundred of A. and 11. Eliz. became indebted to the Queen by Obligation and 13. Elz. he being seised of Land Covenanted with C. in Consideration of Mariage with his daughter to stand seised to the use of himself for life and after to the use of C. and the Daughter in Tail and afterwards he took the Office of Woodwardship of the Mannor of S. and became indebted for that also and then granted a Rent Chaâ—ge for years out of the Land and then C. and I. S. joyned in a Fine to the use of the said I. S. for life the remainder to C. and afterwards I. S. having purchased the Rent and possâ—ssâ—d of goods and Chattells because Felo de so for which his Lands and goods were seized It was the opinion of the Justices the Almonor had no title to his goods because the Patent did not extend to the goods of a Felo de se against the Queen for her debt because it wanted the Words Licet tanget nos and that the Lands and goods of the said I. S. were chargeable as well for the debts which were due by the Obligation as also upon the accompt aswell before the Conveyance as after Wherefore C. paid the Queen her debts and had the Lands cleered Newtons and Barnardines Case 260. A. had Issue 3. Sons F. R. and G. F. dyed his Wife with Child The Father A. devised in this manner viz. To the Child my Son F. his Wife now goeth with 28 l. yearly to be paid to the use of the Child for 20 years And if my Son R. dyeth before he hath Issue of his body so as my Lands discend to G. before he come of the age of 21. years then my Executors shall occupy it till G. be of the age of 21. years the Father dyeth R. enters a Daughter is born who enters and lets the Land to the Defendant rendering Rent It was adjudged That R. in this Case had an estate Tail by Implication of the words of the Will and that the entry of R. was a Lawfull eviction of the Terme and destroyed the Rent Hâ—dons Case 261. It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case An Abbot made a Lease for 8. years of Lands of the possession of the Abby a Copyhold estate being in esse at the time that it was an estate in being as did make the Lease for years void by the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries The Case of the Skinners of London 262. In Intrusion the Case was A. a Cittizen and Freeman of London seised of divers Messuages and Tenements of the yearly value and profit of 30 l. 6 s. 8 d. by his Will before the Statute of 1 E. 6. devised the same to the Corporation of Skinners and that 42 s. 8 d. thereof should be imployed upon an Obit and 12. Marks yearly thereof upon the Priest and the Residue to be imployed upon poor men of the Corporation decayed by misfortune who inhabited the said Messuages and Tenements and appointed the said poor men to pray for his soul and further with the profits to repair the Messuages and Tenements and after the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries was made It was the opinion of the Court 1. That Lay Corporations are Excepted out of the Statute for their Lands which they have to increase their Treasure for the good of the Corporation but not for Lands which they have to imploy to superstitious uses 2. Resolved that all the money which was given for the Obit and the finding of the Priest was a superstitious use and given to the King by the Statute but that which was given for the maintenance of the poor men and although it was appointed them to pray for his soul which was a precept suteable for that time and which was given for the Reparations of the Messuages c. was not given to the Crown by the said Statute and Turnors Case was vouched to be adjudged Where Land was given to the intent that his Feoffees should keep an Obit with so much of the profits of it as they should think fit in their discretions that the Land thereby was not given to the Crown but so much of the yearly Rent as the Feoffees imployed to that purpose
Praecipe but the Recovery as to the estate of the Husband took effect only by way of Estoppel but it was no bar as to him who was in Remainder and in this case it was said That if Lands be given to husband and wife and the heirs of their two bodies and the Husband alone suffers a common Recovery that the same should not bind the Estate tail although the husband doth survive the wife Martin and Wilks Case 335. It was adjudged in this Case in B. R. That Land in Antient Demesne is extendable upon a Statute Staple or Statute Merchant Hill 11. Jac. in t C. B. Cox and Barnesbyes Case adjudged accordingly Wolstan Dixies Case 336. A seised in Fee of Lands in London made a Lease to I. S. for years and after by Deed enrolled in the Chancery he sold the reversion to Dixie and his wife and afterwards the Rent was behind and he brought debt against I. S. The Defendant said That after the Lease and before the Sale to Dixie A. the Lessor by Deed enrolled in London bargained and sold the Land to him It was adjudged a forfeiture of the Term and judgment was for the Plantiff Rudhall and Milwards Case 337. Rudhall Serjeant at Law Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27. H. 8. Devised the use to C. his younger Son and the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to I. his eldest Son and his Heirs upon condition that C. should not alien nor discontinue but for the Joynture of his Wife and only for the life of such wife C. after the death of his Father entred and levyed a fine to a stranger and declared the use to himself and his wife and to the Heirs Males of his own body the Remainder to the right Heirs of his Father afterwards C. having Issue male died the Wife died the Heir of I. the eldest Son entred upon the Lessee It was adjudged that because the Statute of 27. H. 8. gave the possession in quality and condition with the use and also gave to Cestuy que the same advantages as the Feoffees had that the said Heir was enabled to take advantage of the Condition be it a Condition or a Limitation The Vis-Countess Bindons Case 338. The Executors of Viscount Bindon brought Detinue against the Widdow of the deceased Viscount and declared upon the Detainer of certain Jewels The Defendant did justifie the Detainer of them as her Paraphronalia It was agreed in this Case by the Chief Baron and others That Paraphronalia ought to be allowed to a Widdow having regard to her Degree and in this Case the Husband of the Defendant being a Viscount that 500. Marks was but a good allowance for such a matter Mich. 28 Eliz. in Cur. Wardor Mounsons Case 339. A Commission in the Nature of Diem clausit extremum after the death of Robert Mounson issued to Enquire what Lands and Tenements he had the day of his death of whom by what services the yearly value of them who was his next Heir and of what age he was It was found that the Father of Robert was seised of the Mannor of B. in Fee and gave the same to Robert in tail the remainder to G. brother of Robert the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father That G. died in the Life of Robert and Robert died without Issue and that F. the Son of G. was within age and the Lands holden of the Queen in Capite and that Robert long before his death was seised in tail of H. Farm and N. and 17. Eliz. levied a Fine to the use of himself in tail the Remainder to F. the Son of G. in tail and died such a day without Issue of his body and upon this Office one Mounson the Heir general prayed a new Office for it was said that the said Office was insufficient to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. It was the opinion of the Court that the Office was good to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. But if it was not then a Melius inâ—quirendum should issue forth and not a New Office Branches Case 340. In the Case of a Prohibition It was Resolved that an Union of Copyhold Lands and of the Parsonage in the hands of the Parson as Parson Impersonce was no discharge of the Tythes of the Copyhold Lands and in this Case also it was adjudged That a Farmer of Lands might prescribe in modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando Moor and Williams Case 341. Assumpsit The Case was Lessee for years the reversion to M. the Lessee in defence of the Plantiffs Title spent such a Sum money and prayed contribution or recompence Moor said in consideration thereof he should have the like Lease after the expiration of the Term which Williams the Defendant required and the said Lessor refused to make upon which Williams brought Assumpsit Resolved it did not lie because the Consideration was executed before the promise Stanley and Bakers Case 342. A man possessed of a Lease for years devised the same to his eldest Son and the Heirs of his body and if he died without issue to his youngest Son and the heirs of his body and for want of such Issue that the Term should remain to his Daughters he died having two daughters and afterwards another daughter was born The eldest Son sold the Term and died without Issue the youngest Son died without Issue the three daughters entred It was adjudged they all three should have the Term although the youngest Daughter was not born at the time of the death of the Devisor Owens Case 343. Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail Tenant in tail bargained and sold to him and his Heirs and levied a Fine which was not alledged to be with Proclamation It was adjudged that the Bargainee was not such a Grantee of the Reversion as should maintain Wast because it was no discontinuance and but for the Life of Tenant in tail Higham and Harwoods Case 344. A man had houses and Land which had bin in the tenure of those who had the Houses and he devised his Lands with the appurtenances It was adjudged That the Lands did pass by the words with the appurtenances for that it was in a Will in which the intent of the Devisor shall be observed Watkins and Ashwels Case 345. A seised in Fee made a Feoffment upon condition that if he or his Heirs paid such a sum such a day to reenter He died his Son and Heir within the age of 14. years The Mother of the Infant without the privity of the Infant and who was not Guardian in Socage in the name of the Infant tendred the mony at the day It was resolved it was an Insufficient tender otherwise if she had been his Guardian in Socage Carewas Case 346. The Abbot of M. was seised and made a Lease for years De scitu Manerii Rectoriae suae de omnibus aedificis
the Cause and they do award an Erroneous Process or Misaward a Capias by which the party is taken in Execution yet it is a lawfull Execution and the Sheriff is chargeable with the Escape and he is not to examine the Error of the Court in avoiding the Execution Second that the Conviction of the Felony was no discharge of the parties Execution and it was adjudged against the Defendant 412. Debt brought in Co. B. for an Amercement in a Court Baron the Defendant would have waâ—ed his Law the Court doubted of it and some Presidents were shewed as Trin. 6. Eliz. Tindal and Tuckers Case that he might in such Case wage his Law Quare The Queen Bishop of Lincoln and Skiffings Case 413. Quare Imp. The Case was the Countess of Kent had two Chaplains by Patent a third had no Patent of Chaplainship but he was first Retained and took two Benefices by Dispensation It was adjudged he was Lawful Chaplain for the Patent is not of necessity but only in Case where he hath Cause to shew it and he hath no cause to shew it because her Retainer was good without a Patent Bâ—rd and Adams Case 414. In this Case a Case of a Prohibition to stay a Suit in the Spiritual Court for Tythes of the Rakings of Lands after the Crop of corn was carried away It was holden That the prohibition would not lye but that Tythes should be paid of Rakings But vide 42. Eliz. in B. R. in Gree and Haales Case It was adjudged that by the Custom of the Realm Tythes should not be paid of Rakings Battey and Trevillions Case 415. Replevin The Defendant avowed That I. and A. his Wife were seised in Fee in the right of his Wife and devised the Land in which to I. H and I. his Wife with E. their Daughter for 60. years rendring four Marks Rent Afterwards 38. H. 8. I. and A. his Wife levyed a Fine and the Conusees rendred the Land to A. for Life the remainder to Tho. their Son in tail with remainder over A. died Tho. entred upon the Lessees and made a Feoffment to I. D. and others to perform his Will the Lessees reentred Tho. 7. Eliz. by his Will ordained that his Feoffees should stand seised untill they had levied sufficient to pay his debts and Legacies which were not payed and therefore the Defendant as Bayliff to the Feoffees made conusance and as to the rest he avowed for that Tho. was seised in Fee of the place in which c. and 6 Eliz. devised the same to H. L. and M for Life rendring 30. s. Rent and afterwards entred upon the Leslees and levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself in Fee and afterwards infeoffed thereof the first Feoffees to the use of his Will the Lessees reentred and he made his Will as above and died and for 3. l. rent for two years he made conusance as Bayliff to the surviving Feoffees The Plantiff to the first Avowry said that Tho. was seised in Tail by the render of the Fine and the tail descended to H. his Son and then E. one oâ— the Lessees who survived to husband the Plaintiff bâ—que hoc that Tho. enfeoffed the Feoffees to such uses as the Defendant hath a ledged and as to the other Conusance the Plaintiff demurred in Law The Jury found the seisin of A. and her Husband and the Lessee for years to the three persons and the Fine and Render to the seisin of Tho. and the Feoffment of Tho. to I. D. and others to perform his Will and they found a Letter of Attorney to persons whereof the said I. H. one of the Lessees was one conjunctim divisim to enter in all the Premises and take possession and deliver the same to the Feoffees or one of them and that after Tho. made his Will as before and that C. one of the Attorneys to one of the Feoffees and D. another of the Attorneys delivered seisin to another of the Feoffees There were divers points in this Case First because the Jury have sound a Devise of Land and no Tenure if the Justices could judge the Tenure to be Knight Service or Soccage this point the Justices said they would not meddle with Second point admit the Land to be holden in Capite and that the Land passed by the Willâ— they held that but two parts of the Land passed by the Devise 3dly When he devised that his Feoffees should stand seised and he had not Feoffees but he himself was in possession the Justices held it was devise of the Land it self 4thly They held where one of the Lessees made Livery as Attorney to the Lessor that he did not thereby extinct or surrender the Term. 5thly When an Authority is to four conjunctim divisim to execute Livery that one might execute Livery in one part and the other in another part 6thly They held when Tenant in tail of Lands in lease for years makes a Feoffment and the Lessee reentred it was a discontinuance 7thly They held when Tenant in Fee simple of a Reversion expectant upon Lease for years deviseth two parts of the Land that no part of the Rent passeth 8thly In this Case because the avowry is made for the whole Rent and it appeareth he hath title but to two parts It was holden he should not have a Return for any part 9thly They held when the Avowant makes title but to two parts of the Rent and the Jury assesse damages for the whole Rent that the Avowant could not have Judgment unlesse he Released the damages 10thly When the Lessor entred upon his Lessee for life and made a Feoffment and the Lessee reentred the Justices doubt if the Rent was revived Keale and Carters Case 416. False Imprisonment the Defendant Justified that he was Constable and that the Plaintiff brought a Child of the age of 2. years and no more into the Church and there left it to the intent it might dye for want of sustenance wherefore he Imprisoned him till he agreed to take away the Child It was the opinion that the Justification of the Defendant was good because the Act of the Constable was but to prevent a felony which he might do by virtue of his Office Fenwick and Mitsorths Case 417. The Case was A. man seised of Lands in Fee Levyed a Fine thereof to the use of Wife for life the remainder to the use of his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his body the remainder to the right Heirs of the Conusor The Conusor made a Lease for 1000. years to B. the eldest Son dyeth without Issue having a daughter the Conusor dyeth the Wife after dyeth the eldest Son Leaseth the Lands to the Plaintiff It was adjudged in this Case it was a Reversion and no Remainder and this limitation to his right Heirs was meerely void Sir Moiâ—e Finch and Throgmortons Case 418. The Case in effect was this The Queen made a Lease for years rendring rent
That if the Bargainor paid a certain sum of money at a certain day and place that the Bargainee and his Heirs would stand seised of the Land to the use of the Bargainor and his Heirs and entred Recognizance to performe the Covenants The Bargainor paid the money before the day at another place and after day tendred a deed to be sealed by the bargainee containing the receit of the mony and also a Release of all his right in the Land the Bargainee refused to Seal it The Court doubted if by the Refusal the Recognizance was forfeited because he was not bound to Seal the Deed not being pertinent to the Assurance of the Land But the Court conceived that the acceptance of the money before the day was sufficient to excuse the forfeit of the Recognizance Isams Case 480. Three Women and the Husband of one of them recovered Debt in C. B. the Record was removed by Error in B. R. where the Judgment was affirmed the Husband dyed The Women sued forth a Capias against the party without first suing a scire facias It was adjudged that there ought to have been a scire facias first sued forth because the Defendant perhaps had a Release of the Husband who was dead to plead Morgan and Williams Case 481. An Administrator brought debt and declared That Administration was Committed to him by A. B. sacrae Theologiae praefessorem and doth not say loci illius Ordinarium and for that cause the Judgment was reversed Sheffield and Rises Case 482. Assumpsit In consideration that the Plaintiff had submitted himself to the Arbitrament of I. S. the Defendant ad tunc ibidem assumpsit It was said the Action did not lye because it was upon a Consideration executed But adjudged for the Plaintiff because the words ad tunc ibidem extend to the time of the Assumpsit Sir John Perrots Case 483. In Intrusion against the Lady Dorothy Perrot and James Perrot the Case though very long was thus in effect Sir John Perrot 26 Eliz. before his Attainder seised of diverse Mannors by Indenture tripartite Reciting that whereas he had 2. Sons viz. F. and W. by diverse venters for Love and affection which he bore to his said 2. Sons and such other Issue male as should be of his body and for the Love which he boâ—e to I. his reputed Son and other Considerations Covenanted that he his Heirs and Assigns and all other persons who had Interest in the said Mannors should stand seised thereof to the use of himself for life without impeachment of Wast and after to the use of W. for life and after to the use of the first Son of the said first Son for life and after to the use of all the Sons and Issues male of the said W. by his first Wife which he should Marry one after the other in such Course and forme as they successively ought to discend by due course of Law for the terme of the lives of the said Sons and Issues males and for want of such Issue Then he limited the remainder in use to F. for life and after to his first Son for life and so further as the same was limited to W. and for want of such Issue to I. and for want of all such Issue the remainder to himself and his Heirs and Assignes There was a Proviso for the making of Joyntures to the Sonnes Wife Proviso That Sir John by any Writing signed and sealed with his hand and seal might revoke alter change any use estate or limitation in the said tripartite Indenture that then the said Sir John and all other seised and all assurances aforesaid should be of such estate or in such manner as by such Revocation enlargement or limitation should be declared W. dyed without Issue male Sir John Perrot afterwards 35 Eliz. by writing under his hand and seal did limit the Lady Dorothy his Wife the Defendant for her Joynture a third part of the Mannors in 3. equal parts to be divided 36 Eliz. T. dyed seised in possession and Dorothy entred and took the 3d. part of the profits of the said Mannor and averred the Feoffment was by writing with and under the proper hand of Sir John and traversed the Intrusion upon which it was demurred There were many points in this Case both upon the pleading and matter in Law 1. If all the estates perpetually limited in Freehold for life to all the Sons were void or which of them were good which void 2. If Sir John in making of the Feoffment had duly pursued the Authority limited to him by the Proviso 3. If Sir John in the Assignment of the Joynture to Dorothy his Wife which is the principal title by which she Justifies had duly pursued the Authority limited to him by the other Proviso for making of Joyntures The Case was very Learnedly oftentimes argued at large and Tr. 38 Eliz. It was adjudged for the Queen against the Defendants not upon the matters in Law but upon a poynt of pleading only For it was said by the Barons that they did not take plea sufficient that he did enfeoffe such person Habend to them and their Heirs to the uses in the Indentutres unlesse it had been pleaded the Feoffment was by writing or so averred to be which shall not be intended so to be without special pleading or averment of it King and Hunts Case 484. Tenant in Tail enfeoffed his Son of full age and afterwards disseised and levyed a Fine with Proclamation before the last Proclamation the Son entred and made a Feoffment the Father and Son dyed the Feoffee made a Lease for years to a stranger and dyed seised The Issue in Tail brought a Formedon and recovered by faint pleader It was adjudged in this case because it appeared by the plea That the Fine was levyed to the Lessee for years himself and not averred it was to other uses the Terme was extinct and so he could not falsifie the Recovery East and Hardings Case 485. Note It was adjudged by the whole Court in this Case That if a Copyholder cut down Trees without a Custome it is a forfeiture unlesse it be for Reparations Barwicks Case 486. Intrusion the Case was That the Queen made a Lease to Barwick of a Mannor for 21. years he surrendered the same to the Queen Anno 23. and the Queen in Consideration of the surrender granted him the Mannor a die Confectionis of the Patent for the life of I. S. and the Lessee pur auter vye devysed the same to him for 40. years and averred the life of I. S. The Plaintiff said That after the Lease made by the Queen to him for 21. years that he granted all his estate in a part of the Mannor to a stranger and afterwards in Consideration of the surrender the Queen made the Lease pur auter vye Resolved the 2d Lease made by the Queen was void because all in the first Lease was not surrendered and so the Queen
be of the Castle The Court held it to be a Mis-tryal although it was tryed for the Defendant who moved the Exception Cooper and Andrews Case 1120. Prohibition upon a Modus Decimandi in a Park the Viccar had 2s yearly and the Shoulder of every third Dear killed in the Parke the Parke being Dis-parked the Viccar sued for Tythes in kind The Court was divided in opinion Nichols and Hobart Justices that notwithstanding the Dis-parking the Modus did remaine Winch and Warburton Justices that by the Dis-parking the prescription as to the Modus Decimandi was determined that Tythes should be paid in kind Quere Cuddington and Wilkins Case 1121. Action upon the Case for calling the Plantiff Theif the Defendant justifies that he had stollen the Sheep of I. S. the Plaintiff said that before the words were spoken he was pardoned by the general pardon and pleaded the Pardon adjudged the Action did lie by reason of the Pardon Pope and Skinners Case 1122. The Case was more fully reported in Hobarts Reports 73. and was this In a Replevin the Defendant avowed as a Commoner taking the Cattle dammage feasants The Plaintiff said that A. was seised of an House and Land wherein he had Common and devised the same to him the 30th of March 11. Jac. to hold from the Feast of Annunciation next for a year The Avowant traversed the Lease modo forma Issue was taken and found thereupon That A. made a Lease to the Plaintiff 25 of May. for a year thence next ensuing It was holden that although this be not the same Lease that the Plaintiff pleaded Yet the Court gave Judgment for the Plantiff for the substance of the Issue is whether the Plaintiff have such a Lease from A. or not as by force thereof he might have Common which appeared he had and the modo forma in the rest is not material but yet it was said he must not depart altogether from the forme of this Issue for if it had been found that he had right of Common by a Lease from another it would not have served his turn for that had been clear out of the Issue both for matter and form 1123. Debt upon an Obligation The Obligation was in Octogefimis Libris Yet the Court held the Obligation to be good Sparke and Parnells Case 1124. A. seised of Gavelkind Land had issue 3. Sons and devised to each of his Sons a several part and if any of them dyed without Issue the other should be his heir It was adjudged Tail in each of them and the Fee simple by the word Heir in the other Slawny and Elbridges Case 1125. It was Resolved in this Case That the Ordinary cannot take an Obligation of the Administrator after the Debts and Legacies paid but the residue of the goods shall remain at the appointment of the Ordinary Weaver and Wards Case 1126. Batterie the Defendant justified that he being a Training at a Common Master as a Soldier discharged his Gun per insortunium hurt the Plaintiff and traversed that he was guilty aliter vel alio modo adjudged the Justification was not good because he ought to have further said that he could not otherwise avoid the fact and when he justifieth the whole fact there needs no traverse Pye and Cookes Case 1127. Two persons exhibited two several informations against an Ecclesiastical person for taking a Lease for years contrary to the Statute of 21. H. 8. It was the opinion of the Court they being exhibited at one time and for one thing the Defendant was not Answer to any of them Pits and James Case 1128. The Case was The Hospital of Donnington in the County of Berks was founded by the name of Minister Dei pauperis domus de Donnington and they made a Lease of parcell of the Lands of the Hospital in English Minister of the Almeshouse of God of Donnington besides Newbury in the County of Berks. It was holden the seeming variance did not hurt nor avoid the Lease for if they do agree in Common understanding it shall be good vide the same Case Hil. 43. Eliz. in Banco Regis Sherborn and Lewis Case Robins and Barnes Case 1129. In a Quod permittat for erecting of an Newsance 20. foot in length and 8 in bredth It was Resolved by the Court that if one be owner of 2 Houses and one doth a Newsance to the other and the owner sells the house which makes the Newsance that the vender shall never abate the Newsance 1130. Words spoken of I. S. he was in prison for stealing of Horses adjudged an Action lyeth for the words otherwise it is if but for suspition 1131. In an Assise the Writ was Recognitionem illum where it should have been illum It was amended Lampleigh and Braithwaits Case 1132. Assumpsit B. having killed a man required the Plaintiff to do his endeavor to get his pardon for which he went to the King to Royston and obtained the pardon In consideration the Plaintiff had done his endeavour the Defendant promised him 200l It was said it was no good consideration because the consideration was executed before the promise But Resolved the Action did well lie because there is a Request before the endeavor had and then the Assumpsit subsequent after the Consideration executed is sufficient Tasker and Salters Case 1133. Batterie The Defendant Justified that he was a Copyholder and that the Lord of the Mannor for him and his Copyholders had a way over the Land of the Plaintiff who was also a Copyholder of the Mannor and that he going in the way was resisted by the Plaintiff for which Molliter he laid his hand on him upon which they were at Issue It was agreed by the Court that the Lord of the Mannor could not have a way over his own Land 2. Agreed although the verdict passed upon a void Issue the same was not remedied by the Statute of 32. H. 8. Wherefore a Repleader was awarded VVintham and Kemps Case 1134. Quare Impedit the Plaintiff counted that he was seized of a Mannor with an Advouson appendant viz. to present every first Turn It was said the viz. was void and made the Count insufficient because crossed the premises but the Court Resolved that the Count was good Coxes Case 1135. Words spoken of an Atturney viz. Thou art a Common maintainer of Suites and a Champerter I will have thee thrown over the Barre the next Terme Adjudged the words were Actionable Small and Dales Case 1136. A. seised of Lands in Copitie had Issue B. his Son and Heir and E. a Daughter by one woman and two Daughters by a second Wife and W. a Son by a third Wife and devised all his Lands to his Wife durante viduitate and dyed the Wife entred and dyed B. before any entred dyed It was Adjudged the Will was void for a third part and that the entry of the Wife in the whole made her seised but of two parts in Common
had been upon condition that his last Will should be performed It had been otherwise 220. A man made a Lease for 30. years The Lessor Covenanted to Repair the House The Lesse granted parcel of the Term for 10 years It was holden that his Grantee should not have an Action of Covenant by the Statute of 32. H. 8. of Conditions for he is not Tenant to the first Lessor But if the Lessor ganteth his Reversion for years his Grantee shall have Covenant or benefit of the Condition with which the Lessee is charged for he is an Assignee within the Statute because the Lessee holdeth of him 221. If the Ancestor of the Husband Covenant to stand seised of Certain Lands to the use of the Husband and Wife in Consideration of Marriage and also for a Certain Sum of Mony If the Wife alien that Land after the death of the Husband It was said that the Heir of the Husband might enter by the Statute of 11. H. 7. for the Consideration of Marriage shall be preferred before the Consideration of Mony and then it shall be said the gift of the Ancestors of the Husband and within the Statute as it was said it was adjudged in Villiers Case The Lord Treasurer and Bartons Case 222. A man made a Lease for 100 years The Lessee made a Lease for 20. years rendering Rent with clause of Reentry the first Lessor granted the Reversion in Fee attonement was had the grantee purchased the Reversion of the Term It was holden and adjudged that he should not have the Rent not the reentry for that the Rent which was incident to the Reversion was extinct by the purchase of the Reversion in Fee 223. A man was Tenant by the Curtesie of a Mannor a Copy-hold came to his hands by forfeiture Afterwards he was bound in a Statute and afterwards demised the Copyhold Land again It was holden this Copyhold should be lyable to the Statute because it was once annexed to the Freehold of the Lord and bound in his hands Pasch 12. Eliz. 224. If the Lord grant to his Copyholder the Trees growing upon the Land and which afterwards shall grow and that it shall be Lawfull for the Tenant to cut and carry them away It was holden to be No forfeiture of his Copyhold because he hath dispensed with the forfeiture by his grant but he cannot cut the Trees which shall after grow for as to them the grant is void Brabrokes Case 225. I. D. 19. H. 8. gave the Mannor of N. to I. S. and A. and the Heirs of the body of the said I. S. on the body of A. remainder to a stranger in Tail the remainder in Fee I. S. Maried A. and after 26. H. 8. he suffered a Common Recovery with single voucher to the use of him and his Heirs the Statute of 27. H. 8. was made and after he in the remainder in Tail was attainted of Treason and 28. H. 8. It was Enacted in Parliament that all his Lands and hereditaments which he had or ought to have should be forfeited the Recovery was without any Original Afterwards I. S. gave the Mannor to I. D. and his Heirs who made a Joynture thereof to M. his Wife for life after the death of I. D. M. took to Husband the Plaintiff against whom Intrusion was brought It was adjudged against the Plaintiff for one moyety Hil. 14. Eliz. 226. The Earl of Oxon. Tenant for life of certain Mannors made a Copy in reversion to I. S. for life and dyed the Copyholder in possession dyed The Heir of the Earl demised the same by Copy to I. S. It was the opinion of all the Justices that the Copy in Reversion was not good But it was agreed If it come in possession during the Tenant for life then it is good 227. Two Acres discend to two Coparceners one of them before Partition grants a Rent Charge out of one of the Acres and upon Partition the Acre charged is allotted to the other Sister It was adjudged she should hold it discharged of the Rent Pledall and Pledalls Case 228. It was Adjudged in this Case That the Jurours are not to to take Notice of matters of Estoppel which are given in Evidence between the parties upon pain of Attaint for they are strangers to the Conclusions of the parties Evans Case 229. A man had issue two Sons and devised Lands to his youngest Son in Tail and dyed the eldest having Issue a Son the younger Son aliened the Land in Fee with Warranty and went beyond Sea and there dyed without Issue the Son of the eldest being within age It was the opinion of the Justices the same was a Collateral Warranty and without asserts was a bar to the Issue of the eldest Son notwithstanding his Nonage Muttons Case 330. A man seised of Land levyed a Fine to the use of himself and such Woman as he should after Marry and after their decease to the use of I. his daughter and the Heirs of her body afterwards he Married A. and dyed who entred It was the opinion of the Justices to A. for her life Appowel and Monnoux Case 231. A. seised of the Mannors and Rectories of B. G. and D. let the same except the scite of the Mannor of B. to I. S. for 25. years Reserving for the Mannor of B. 76 l. for the Mannor and Reversion of B. 30 l. for the Rectory of B. 14 l. and for the Rectory of D. and the Lands to it belonging â—3 l. payable yearly at â— Feasts in the Church of F. not parcel of the Premisses upon Condition if the said Rents or any of them were behind for the space of 7. Weeks it should be Lawfull for him his Heirs and Assignes to Reenter on all the premises and afterwards he bargained and sold the Scite of the Mannor of B. and the Reversion of all the Mannors and Rectories to I. D. and his Heirs who enfeoffed certain persons and granted the Reversion of all the Mannors and Rectory to have and hold the Scite of the Mannor of B. and the Reversion of the Rectory of D. to the use of himself and Eliz his Wife for their lives and the life of the Survivour of them the remainder to W. his Son and his Heirs for ever And to have the Reversion of all the other Mannors and the Rectories of B. and C. to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said W. his Son and his Heirs I. S. the Lessee attorned I. D. dyed Eliz. his Wife held the Scite of B. and the Reversion of the Rectory of D. by Survivour W. seised of all the Mannors and Rectories as aforesaid granted the Reversion of a Messuage parcell of the Mannor of B. to W. D. and his Heirs to which grant I S. attorned and afterwards by Bargain and sale enrolled granted the Reversion of all the said Mannors and Rectories to H. I. and K. and their Heirs half a years Rent reserved for the Mannor
and he demanded of the Plaintiff what was his Name he answered his name was I. D. therefore he arrested him adjudged for the Plaintiff for that the Defendant at his peril ought to take notice of the party Sharpe and Swaines Case 603. A Feoffment was made of a house and Land which was within the View of the house and the deed of Feoffment was delivered in the house only It was adjudged no Livery for the Land Popham Chief Justice said it was not good for the house Barkby and Forsters Case 604. A man brought Assumpsit in B. R. and declared whereas 16. December at the request of the Defendant he delivered to the Defendant 100 l. to the use of the Defendants Father the Defendant promised to repay it to the Plaintiff ad vel ante the first of May following The Defendant pleaded the Plaintiff had brought an Accoumpt against him for the same money and declared the money to be delivered 10 December and prayed Judgment of the Action pendant the Accoumpt upon Error brought the Judgment was affirmed because damages are recoverable in this Action but not in an Accoumpt Blowfield and Withes Case 605. Debt against 2. one was taken in Execution and suffered to escape by the Goaler It was adjudged that Execution might be sued out against the other 606. Judgment a Writ of Entry was reversed because the Name of the Sommoners were not endorsed upon the Writ Arkingsall and Dennys Case 607. An Archdeacon having a Parsonage appertaining to his Archdeaconâ—y before the Statute of 13 Eliz. made a Lease for 40. years of the Parsonage which was confirmed after the Statute Adjudged the Lease and confirmation were both good Harrington and Wyes Case 608. A. made Articles betwixt him and 2. others by which it is Covenanted by the said A. that the said A. doth let c. and the said A. doth covenant to make a Lease for 21. years according to these Articles Provided that they shall pay to the said A. yearly 28 l. Resolved that it was a present Lease and a Reservation of Rent and that the Rent should be paid during the Terme Parlor and Butlers Case 609. Prohibition the case was the Plaintiff was Convented before the High Commissioners for saying of the Defendant a Minister That he was fiâ—ter to stand in the Pillary then to preach in a Pulpit and that be had taken 2. Orders already and that he lacked but taking the third which was to have his Ears cut off He there Justified the words that the Defendant had forged an Acquittance and shewed it The Commissioners would not allow of the Justification but granted him to aske the Defendant Forgivenesse the Prohibition was granted because they ought not to meddle with the Cause Easton and Newmâ—ns Case 610. If a man find goods and being demanded of him he denyes for to restore them It was adjudged to be a Conversion of them Randals Case 611. An Enfant confessed a Judgment in the Kings Bench in Debt It was Resolved that he could not have Audita Querela during his Nonage to reverse the Judgment in that Court but he might have Error in the Exchequer Chamber by the Statute of 27 Eliz. to reverse it Shephard and Metcalfes Case 612. A Prohibition by 3. Resolved one Nonsuit or Retraxit shall not bar the others Holcome and Rawlins Case 613. If a Disseisor make a Lease for years and the Disseisee reenters It was Resolved that the Disseisee after his reentry shall punish the Lessee for Trespas for the mean profits during his Occupation although he be in by Title but before his reentry he shall not punish him Gooses Case 614. Appeal of death against Principal and Accessaries before the fact and of accessaries after the fact The principal is found not guilty of the Murder but guilty of Manslaughter Resolved all accessaries before the fact should be discharged because to a Manslaughter none can be accessary before the fact Perries Case 615. An Enfant of the age of 9. years was admitted by his Guardian to sue an Appeal de morte fratris 616. A Writ of Error was delivered at the Instant the Judgment was given the Court would not allow of it because it was procured before the Judgment was given 617. Nota per Curiam A Copyholder may prescribe by usitatum est against his Lord but against a stranger he must prescribe in the name of the Lord. Ford and Glanviles Case 618. Administration is committed durante miuore aetate of an Enfant and Debt is brought against him and then the Enfant comes of age Quaere if the Writ shall abate Roberts and Agmondeshams Case 619. A Lease was made of a Rectory a Parson was presented to it and upon a supposition that he was holden out with force had a vi laica removenda upon which the Sheriff returned non inveni vim laicam nec potentiam armatam Notwithstanding which Returun upon Affidavit that he was kept out with force a Writ of Restitution was awarded out of the Kings Bench. Woodlifes Case 620. Accompt for goods delivered to a Factor to Merchandize he pleaded he was robbed of the goods and of divers other goods and Chattells of his own and holden a good plea. Bradshawes Case 621. A man prescribes for Common Appendant Resolved unity extincts it but not Common for arable Land Halliwel and Jervoise 622. A Parson sues before the Ordinary for Tythes and then he Appeals to the Audience where the sentence is affirmed Then the parties Appeal to the Delegates and there both sentences are repealed It was agreed that such a condition ad revidendum the sentences may issue forth but then such a Reviewing shall be final without further Appeal but if the Commissioners do not proceed to the Examination according to the Common Law they shall be restreined by a Prohibition Mortimer and Windgates 623. Accompt for Malt the Defendant said the Plaintiff brought Trover and Conversion for this and other Malt and for part found for him and for part not and demanded Judgment of the Action adjudged no bar for it may be he did not convert the Malt yet he ought to accompt for it Smith and Bowsals Case Vide the same Case 912. Plito 610. before Bradshawes Case the very same with this Case Rogers and Jacksons Case 624. Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded the Statute of usury alledging that agreatum fuit that the Plaintiff should have so much money pro donatione diei solutionis the Plaintiff traversed absque hoc quod agreatum fuit and found for the Plaintiff It was said in stay of Judgment the word Corruptâ— was not pleaded in the Bar It was Resolved the Bar was made good by the Replication and the Declaration being good It is sufficient for Judgment for the Plaintiff Bacon and Hills Case 625. Ejectione firme the case was A. had Issue 3. Sons viz. B. C. and D. and devised to B. and C. certain parcells of Land and to D.
l. of the râ—nt to 3. persons divisim viz. to each of them a full 3. part which was 9 l. 6 s. 8 d. One of the devisees brought debt for his part against the Lessee It was the opinion of the Justices that the Rent was apportionable and that the Tenant is chargeable without attornment by the devise to each of the devisees for the 3. part of the Rent Winters Case 705. It was said by Popham Chief Justice that Clergy is allowable upon the standing Mute for such a Felony for which Clergy is allowable if the party be found guilty and therefore he allowed Clergy to Winter who stood Mute upon an Indictment of Felonious taking of goods 706. The Case was a man robs one in the high way in one County and is apprehended with the goods in another County and indicted for the goods and found guilty to the value of 10 d. The question was if by the Statute of 25 H. 8. he shall have Judgment of death or be whipt It was the opinion of the Justices the Case being put to them at Serjants Inn that he shall be but whipt and that the Statute of 25 H. 8. doth not extend but to those who demand Clergy which they shall be denyed if it be found by examination to be done with Robbery Lever and Heyes Case 707. The Father of the daughter promiseth to the Father of the Son that if he will give his consent to the Marriage and assure 40 l. Land to his Son that the Father of the Daughter will pay 200 l. to the Son in Mariage It was Resolved in this case that if the Father of the daughter do not pay the 200 l. that the Son shall have the Action upon the promise and not the Father Egertons Case 708. Egorton the Queens Sollicitor was commanded by Writ to attend upon the Lords in the upper House of Parliament After he attended there 3. dayes he was chosen Burgesse for the Borough of Reading and Returned The Commons came to the upper House and demanded that he might be dismissed from his attendance there and be sent them into the Lower House but upon Consultation he was retained there still because he being neither Inhabitant not Free of the said Town might choose if he would serve at their Election or not which he expresly refused to do 2. Because he was first attendant in the upper House 3. Because the Queen had power to prefer him to the upper House aswell as she had power to command him The Bishop of Norwiches Case 709. The Bishop pleaded a private Act of Parliament and mistook the day of the Commencement of the Parliament It was adjudged against the Bishop for although the Judges are not to take notice of the private act yet of the beginning of the Parliament they are to take notice of Helgor and Whiteacres Case 710. Replevin The Defendant avowed that a Parsonage was parcell of the Prebendary the Prebend before the Statute of 13 Eliz. was Leased for 50. years in Reversion to I. who assigned it to B. who assigned it to C. who assigned it to H. the Lease in possession ended H. enâ—red and made the Lease to the Plaintiff The Plaintiff confessed the Lease to I. and the Assignments but said that I. so possessed took to Husband T. who before the assignment to B. assigned the Terme to I. S. who dyed possessed absque hoc that the said I. assigned her estate and Interest to B. It was adjudged for the Avowant because when the Plaintiff confessed and avoided he ought not to have traversed but might have prayed Judgment without Travers and so by reason of the Travers it was adjudged against the Plaintiff Vavisoâ—s Case 711. Resolved That if the Sheriff makes his Warrant to a Corporation who have return of Writs to arrest I. S. they may make a Bailiff to arrest by perol only Robes Bent and Cocks Case 612. A a villain purchased the Inheritence of a Copyhold in the name of B. and another in Trust B. surrendred his moyety to the use of his own Son the other dyed seised The Son of B. and the Heir of the other for mony sold the Copyhold to C. for 50 l. being of the value of 80 l. A sued the Son of B. and the Heir of the otherand C. in Chancery for the 80 l. It was Decreed the A. should recover the 50 l. only from B. and the Heir of the other and C should be discharged of it The Lord Hunsdons Case 713. In a Monstrance de droit for certain Lands in ward to the Queen for the Nonage of B. upon Jury returned the Array was challenged by the Queens Attorney because it was Returned by the Sheriff of Kent who was also Tenant to the Plaintiff A Counterplea was thereunto that he was Tenant to the Queen It was the opinion of the Justices that the Counterplea was little material for although he was Tenant to both yet he who takes the Challenge shall have advantage thereof Afterwards the array was Quashed and a venire de novo awarded Lady Russell and Gulwells Case 714. The Lady demised Lands to the Defendant by Indenture Defendant entred bonds to performe the Agreements in the Indenture Debt brought by the Lady for breach of Covenants and assignes the breach in disturbance of her in the occupation of certain Lands excepted in the Indenture out of the demyse and adjudged against the Lady for that it was breach neither of Covenant nor agreement 715. Nore by Egerton Lord Keeper if there be Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in Fee and the Tenant for life committeth Wast so as he is dispunishable by the Common Law yet upon Complaint he in the remainder in Fee may have an Injunction against him not to do Wast Penner and Cromptons Case 716. In a Prohibition It was holden that none shall be chargeable for contribution to Church Reckonings if he do not Inhabite there or to consent to them Powle and Veeres Case 717. A. made a Lease to B. of the Mannor of S. for life which was executed by Livery with these words that if it fortune B. to marry any Woman during his life who shall happen to overlive him then the Land to remain to such Woman for her life Proviso If B. do not declare by writing sealed â—or his last Will that he Wills she shall have it then it shall not remain to her B. before any marriage makes a Feoffment to I. S. to whom a Fine is levyed and a Recovery suffered Afterwards B. takes a Wife and declares she shall have the Remainder and after D. and his Wife Levy a Fine to the Heirs of I. S. and afterwards B. makes another declaration that the Land shall remain to the Wife and then B. dyes and the Wife enters It was adjudged her entry was not Lawfull because the Remainder if it was ever good was destroyed by the Feoffment and the Freehold supplanted before the Remainder took
residue of the years which shall be remaining at the time Resolved 1. That the Wife had not any estate for life by Implication 2. Resolved That the devise of the profits was a devise of the Terme it self 3. Resolved That the Termor could not devise to one for life with the Remainder of the years to another which should be behind at the time of the death of the first devisee But the Court was of opinion That if a Termor devise that after the death of a stranger I. S. shall have the Land for so money years as shall be then to come the same is a good devise because he might have such a demise in his life Swan and Gaterlands Case 825. A Woman had two Sons by two several Husbands the Son of the second Husband being within age the Uncle after the death of the Woman claimed the Gardianship in Socage and also the Brother by the half blood It was adjudged the Gardianship did belong to the Brother of the half blood and not to the Uncle Quaere if the Brother be within the age of 14. years Specket and Shores Case 826. Debt to performe all Covenants in an Indenture of Lease where a Rent was reserved The action will not lye unlesse there be a demand of the Rent otherwise if there be an expresse Covenant to pay the Rent Robins Case 827. Two Executors are in Suit which of them is the true Excecutor Resolved that pendente Lite the Ordinary cannot Commit Administration Cotton and Wales Case 828. Debt upon Obligation the Defendant said the Plaintiff was Sheriff and upon the Arrest of the prisoner took a Bond of the Defendant for his enlargment and said that by the Statute of 32 H. 8. he ought to take Bond of sufficient persons and said he the Defendant was not a sufficent person The Court held the plea not good for the Sheriff is the Judge of the sufficiency and it is to his own damage he being to be amerced if he bring not in the body Mellow and Mays Case 829. Husband and Wife took a Lease for their lives and after by a new Indenture they took a new Lease to them two and their Sons Habend to them three à die datus Indenturae pro termino vitae eorum cujuslibet ipsorum post alterum diutius viventi with a Letter of Attorney for livery the Indenture was sealed and delivered the day of the date and livery was made a Week after the Wife dyed the Son and Husband entred In this Case Resolved that the acceptance of the second Lease to begin à die datus was a surrender 2. That the Lease was good to begin à die datus because livery was executed after the day of the date 3. That the taking of a new Lease of the Woman being Covert was a surrender of her estate during the Coverture 4. That the Lessees took joyntly and not by way of Remainder Chard and Wyats Case 830. The Case was A Copyholder in Fee surrendred to the use of his Will and having a Daughter born and his Wife with child he devised by Will part of the Land to his Son or Daughter with which his Wife went haeredibus suis legitimè procreatis and the residue he devised to his Daughter born to have to her and the fruit of her body and if she dye without fruit of her body the same shall Remain to the Child in the Mothers belly and if both dye without fruit then I. S. should sell the Land and Willed the one Sister to be Heir to the other The Wife of the devisor entred and was admitted and had a Daughter which after dyed The Mother took Husband and they surrendred It was Resolved in this Case that it was a Fee-Tail in the Daughter after born 2. Resolved that one in ventre sa meir could not take an estate in possession by purchase but as this Case she might take a Remainder 3. The point was if the surrender was a Discontinuance In that point the Court was divided in opinion But they agreed that a Copyhold might be entailed by Custom Mâ—nviles Case 831. The Case was the Husband seised in Fee levyed a Fine and afterward 1 Mariae was Out-lawed of Treason the Conusee conveyed the Land to the Crown and afterwards the Daughter of the Husband reversed the Out-lawry now the Wife of M. the person Out-lawed sued to have Dower within the 5. years after the Out-lawry reversed but long time after the Fine levyed In this Case it was Resolved that she was not barred by the 5. years after the Fine but she might have 5. years after the Out-lawry reversed 2. That because no Office was found to entitle the Queen to the Land she having it by Conveyance there and in such Case there need no Office to find her Title of Dower Derick and Kergs Case 832. A. seised of Lands in S. in Com. Midd. and of other Lands in E. in the County of S. made two several Leases for years of them to two several persons reserving upon each Lease 10 l. Rent and and after he made his Will viz. As concerning my Lands I give and bequeath the Rent of 10 l. a year in S. in the parish of E. to my Wife M during her Life and after her decease to my Father and after his decease to my brother G. and if it please God they dye without Issue Then to F. and I. my brethren Item I give to my Wife my house and Tenements in S. The Defendant Married M. and after the years expired claimed the Lands during the life of his Wife It was conceived in this Case that the word Rent was not sufficient to convey Land by the Statute of Wills Quaere for it was said it was afterwards adjudged that it was Arden and Backhouses Case 833. The Case-was an Action of Covenant B. sold Land to the Father of A. and covenanted that he was seised of the Land at the time of the sale whereas King Hen. 8. was seised and had Mortgaged the same to 19 Cottagers with a Proviso that if he and his successors within a year after should pay to them a sum certain or to their Heirs that the grant should be void no place was appointed of payment wherefore because the Mortgagees did not demand the Rent at the Exchequer the King was seised again upon which the Defendant demurred It was the opinion of the Court in this Case that no demand in this Case ought to be made by the Mortgagees because the payment is elegible in the King at his pleasure 1. 2. Resolved whereas the Land lay in the County of Oxon an Office found of not a demand in Midd. was not sufficient to revest the seisin of the Lands in the King but the Office ought to have been in the proper County where the Land lay Evans and Williams Case 834. The Plaintiff brought debt against I. S. for 30 l. who for not appearance was Out lawed the Sheriff
took him upon the Capias Utlegatum and returned Cepi and after suffered him to Escape It was adjudged an action of Escape lay against the Sheriff by the party and that the Jury are to give him the value of his debt and the damages Web and Hargraves Case 835 Debt upon Obligation the condition was where W. was Patron of a Benefice with Cure then void if he presented the Defendant and if the Defendant continued Incumbent for a year and after the year all time within three moneths after Notice and request was ready to resigne and did resigne the Benefice to the Ordinary to be presented thereunto again by W. and should not before Resign that then c. the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 13 and 14 Eliz. that Obligation and Covenants for enjoyage of Lease were void and pleaded that after he was Inducted he made a Lease to the Plaintiff W. of the benefices for 21. years and avered the Obligation was made for the enjoying of the Land by the Lease upon which the Plaintiff demurred It was the opinion of the Court that the plea was good but that the averment was not sufficient It was adjudged against him Williams and Greens Case 136. Debt upon a single Bill the Defendant pleaded he delivered it to the Plaintiff as an Escrowle upon Condition that if he delivered him a horse at such a day it should be his deed otherwise not It was the opinion of the Court that the Plea was not good because a Deed cannot be delivered to the party himself as an Escroale Hungate Mease and Smiths Case 837. Debt upon an Obligation to perform an accord of all Controversies betwixt the parties from the beginning of the World to the 30. of August 4 Eliz. so as the Award be pronounced and delivered utrique parti ante 14. diem Augusti and shewed that he awarded that all Suits should cease and they should be friends and that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff 7 l. and that the Award was pronounced to the parties before 14. Augusti upon nihil debet all the said matter was found only that the pronouncing of the Award was to Mease and not to Smith It was adjudged against the Plaintiff because he ought to have pronounced the Award to each of the parties Defendants and also it was void it was but an Award of one part also void that all Suits should cease which could not be without Non-suit Retraxit or discontinuance of the parties Dogett and Vowells Case 838. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff had lent to the Defendant 20 l. the Defendant promised to lend the Plaintiff 10 l. quando requisitus c. It was adjudged no good consideration because consideration of a thing past is not sufficient to ground Assumpsit Parhan and Nortons Case 839. Replevin The Defendant avowed for a Relief by the death of I. S. late Tenant The Plaintiff said the Land discended from I. S. to his two Daughters who enfeoffed the Plaintiff and that the Lord accepted the Rent of him Adjudged that the acceptance of the Rent from a new Tenant was no bar of the Reliefe due by the former Tenant Lord Berkley and Countess of Warwicks Case 840. Before the Statute of West 2. Lands are given to Husband and Wife in Frankmarriage the Remainder to the Heirs of the Husband if it be tail Quaere not adjudged vide 25. Eliz. Webb and Potters Case Guy and Brownes Case 841. A Farmor of the King of a capital Messuage made a Conduit to convey the water to his House over the Land of a Copy-holder of the Mannor afterwards the Mannor is granted to one and the Copyhold to another Resolved the Farmer may amend the Pipes in the Land of the Copyholder without Trespass Worleys Case 842. A. lent B. a 100 l. for a year and took an Obligation of him for 10 l. Interest Interest being then 10 l. per cent payable 5 l. at the half year and 5. l. at the end of the year Adjudged it was not Usury within the Statute Hainsworth and Prettyes Case 843. A seised in Fee having four Sons and a Daughter by Will devised 20 l. to each of his younger Sons and his Daughter to be paid by his eldest Son at their ages of 21. years and if the eldest Son do not pay he devised the Land which he had before devised to his eldest Son and his Heirs to the younger and the Daughter and their Heirs It was Resolved 1. That the eldest Son took by discent and not by the Devise 2. The breach of payment to one of them should give the estate to them all and the eldest Son should lose the Land for not payment of the Fourth and they should have the Lands as Joynt-Tenants 3. That the entrie of one of them in the name of the rest was good because they are Joynt-Tenants More and Morecombs Case 844. The condition of an Obligation was to deliver all the tackle of a ship mentioned in an Inventory under the hands of four men or in default thereof to pay so much mony to the Plaintiff before such a Feast as the four men shall value the tackle at the Defendant said they did not value the tackle Adjudged no Plea because the Defendant had Election to do two things and if he cannot do the one for any default of a Stranger or other he is to do the other and in this case he at his peril is to procure the men to value the tackle Walter and Pigotts Case 845. Debt upon an Obligation de Septingentis Libris The condition was Septuagintis Libris Adjudged he was to pay 400 l. not 70 l. and the Bond good Bibell and Dringhowses Case 846. A. conveyed Lands to the use of himself in tail with divers Remainders in tail with a Proviso it should be lawful for him to make Leases for Life or years afterwards he made a Lease for the Life of D. the Defendant After the death of A. the Plaintiff in the â—ight of his Wife in Remainder entred The points were 1. If the Demise generally made unto was Tenant in tail in Interest and who had Authority by the Proviso to make Leases shall be constâ—ued to be made by his Interest or his Authority without declaring his Election the Court doubted of this point 2. Because the Deed did comprise as well Fee simple Land and Lands in tail if it shall enure by way of Interest for the Fee simple Land only and by Authority for the Land in tail Quaere also But they Resolved the Proviso to make Leases was good 847. Note Upon the Statutes of 13 Eliz. Cap. 4. and 39 Eliz. Cap. 7. upon Sale made by the Queen upon Accomptants and Debtors Lands That if any Officer be Tenant in tail the Remainder over and afterwards the Officer dieth without Issue before any sale made by the Queen and he in the Remainder enters and is in by force of his Remainder which was created before the
or the Remainder and therefore no traverse could be to it but they conceived if it was a Reversion a Traverse did presently lie if a Remainder that it did not lie till after the death of the Tenant for Life which was B. Countess of B. Worleys Case 959 A seised in Fee of the Mannor of D holden in capite with 500 l. to be sold having a long intent to sell the same that he might more freely dispose of his other Lands and satisfie a just debt of 60 l. which he owed to I. S. by Deed indented and enrolled in consideration of the said Debt and other considerations viz Vpon trust and confidence that he should pay to W. his Executors or Assigns within one year so much mony above the said 60 l. He bargained and sold the said Mannor of D to I. S. and his Heirs W. within one year died no mony paid his Heir within age It was Resolved his Heir should not be â—n Ward because neither the Land nor Surplusage of the same ought to come to his Heir by the Trust nor be paid to the children or wife oâ— W. Drowâ—s Case 960. A. seised of divers Messuages in the Parish of S. in London made a Lease thereof for 31. years to B. and M. his Wife paying yearly during the Term 60. l. at four Feasts viz. The Nativity c. or within 28 days after each of the said Feasts afterwards he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his eldest Son and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bedâ—es and then for mony he bargained and sold the Land by Deed enrolled to I. S. to hold to him and his Heirs during the Life of the Lessor I. S. dyed seised of that Land and of other Lands holden in capite his Heir within age It was found by Office that A. died after the Feast of the Nativity and within the 28 days next following Resolved the Rent was due to him in the Remainder and that the Wardship of the Land being but a Freehold discendable did not belong to the Queen Digbies Case 961. A Tenant in Tail in the Mannor of C in the County of W. the reversion in the Crown and in Fee of Lands in the County of D. and in C. aforesaid and of Lands in the County of B. by his Will devised that his Lands in D. which he appointed to be a third part of the whole should discend to his Heir the Manner of C. and all his Lands in B. he devised to his Wife in recompence of her Dower for Life so long as she should be Soâ—e and then to his Son and Heir and he charged his Lands in B. with Annuities to his younger Sons and portions to his Daughters Afterwards by a Codicill annexed to his Will he devised to I. S. and I. D. and their Heirs all and singular his Lands in C. whereof himself was then seised to him and his Heirâ— in Fee simple to the use of his Son and Heir so long as he and all claiming under him should suffer his wife and children to enjoy the Lands and Annuities devised to them and he should interrupt or deny it then he devised all his Fee-simple Land to his Wife and his younger Sons A. died his Son and Heir within age It was in this case Resolved that the Qâ—een by reason of the Wardship of the Heir should not have more of the Fee-simple Lands in D then so much as would make the entailed Land to be the third part of the whole Creswâ—lls Case 962. Certain Lands called S. were holden of the Mannor of P. by rent and Suit of Court P. was holden of the Mannor of G by Rent and Suit of Court the Mannor of G. came to the Crown by the Statute of Disâ—olutions The King H. 8. granted the Mannor of G. to I. S. and his Hâ—irs to hold by Knight Service in capite I. D. purchased the Mannor of G and afterwards he purchased the moiety of the Mannor of P. and the Lands called S. I. D. died the Lands purchased by him discended to his Son who purchased the other moiety of P. and afterwards enfeoffed C. of the Lands in S. It was Resolved in this case that I. D. held the Lands called S. by Knight Service in capâ—te by a whole Knights Fee Lâ—mâ—oâ—s Case 963. It was Resolved in this case in the Court of Wards that if the Jâ—ry do not find an Office according to the direction of the Court they shall be committed to the Fleâ—t vide diverse Presidents there accordingly Sir William Knoâ—ts Case 964. The case was A. died seised of Lands purchased by him and discendable to the Heis Males of his Body holden by Knight Service in capite of the value of 140 l. per annum and also of capite Land discendable to his Heirs general of the value of 13 l. per annum and an executed Estate for the advancement of his Sons of Soccage Land in capite to the value oâ— 48 l. B. was his Son and Heir Male and the two Daughters of his eldest Son deceased were his Heirs general It was Resolved that no Livery nor Primer Seisin should be of the Lands executed for advancement because the Queen was satisfied by the discent to the Heirs Males of the Livery and Primer Seisin of more then of a third part of the Lands Strangways and Sir Henry Newtons Case 965. The case is very long put but in effect was this The Father limited divers Mannors and Lands by Indenture to the use of himself and his Heirs untill the marriage of his Son with the Daughter of I. S. and after marriage to the use of the Father for Life only and after to his Sons Wife for Life for her Joynture The Father died before Marriage and afterwards the Marriage took effect The Question was if the use should rise to the first Wife Note That the Father before his death made his Will and thereby devised portions to his Daughters to be raised out of the said Land by his Executors and then died his Heir within age The two chief Justices doubted much this case but they enclined to be of opinion that if there was a devise of the Land that the same had interrupted the raising of the Future use for the Joynture c but they doubted of the Devise because he devised portions out of the Lands but did not devise the Lands themselves Framptons Case 966. A seised in Fee of the Mannors of M. and B. and of the moiety of the Mannor of V. covenanted to levy a Fine to I. S. and others of the said Mannors viz. of all the said Mannors to the use of himself for Life and afterwards of the Mannor of M. to the use of I. his wife for her Life and after to such Heirs of the Body of A. as be should afterwards beget of the Body of her or of any other woman which he should after marry
it was Resolved that upon such Writ the Sheriff or his Officer might without any Offence by a Warrant arrest the person of the Countesse for he is not to dispute the authority of the Coâ—rt in awarding the proces but he is to execute the Writ to him directed But because the Defendants did arrest the Countesse upon a feined action of their own heads without Warrant They were fined and sentenced by the Court. Dag and Penkevells Case 1007. A bill was exhibited in the Star Chamber against the Defendant and divers others for several Offences The Defendant for that he inserted the name of a special Bailiff in a Warrant which was made by the Sheriff with blanks without privity or direction of the Sheriff Note in this Case it was holden that where there are several Defendants and one only is sentenced the other shall have Costs because not charged with the offence for which the sentence was but with other Offences of which they were acquitted 2. It was holden in this Case that a Defendant shall not have benefit of a general pardon at hearing of the Cause unlesse he prayes the same upon his answer put into Court Clerks Case 1008. Note in this Case being the Case of a Purveyor who was sentenced in the Star Chamber for several Offences in executing his Office of Purveyor It was said there were 7. properties incident to every Purveyor 1. He ought to be sufficient to answer the King and the party 2. He is to do his service in person and not by Deputy because it is an Office of Tâ—â—st 3. He is to be sworn in Chancery before he execute his Office for he ought to have authority under the great Seal with blank Labells to insert what he takes 5. His Authority is to continue but six moneths without renewing 6. He ought to take where is plenty and in Convenient time and no more then is sufficient 7. He is to take the things in kind and not money for them Lovice and Goddards Case 1009. The Case was A. the Grandfather had Issue two Sons T. and W. and by his Will devised to T. all his Mannors Lands c. within the Counties of D. and C. viz. to T. and the Heirs males of his body after his decease for 500. years Provided if T. or any Issue male of his body give grant c. the premises or any parcel thereof oâ—herwise then to Lease and demise the same for any term or number of years as may or shall be determinable upon the deaths of aâ—y 2. persons c. to be made in the Leases c. then all the premises for default of such Issues males of the said T to be begotten c. immediatly upon such alâ—â—nation gift grant c. shall remain and come to W. and to the Heirs males of his body c. The devisor dyed T. entred and made a Lease for 1000. years to I. S. who never entred T. dyed without Issue male I. being his Daughter and Heir W. dyed having Issue the Plaintiff who entred upon whom I. entred In this Case it was Resolved in C. B. that the devise to T. and the Heirs males was an estate Tail and the limitation for years void 2. Resolved that there ought to be a concurrence of death without Issue male and also of alienation before the rising of the Remainder 3. That the Remainder should never rise because the particular estate was destroyed by the alienation before the Remainder could commence 4. That the Lease for 1000. years made to I. S. was not an alientation within the Proviso upon which the estate might rise to W. when T. was dead without Issue male because that T. who made the Lease was but Tenant in Tail and then the Lease was determined upon his death It was the opinion of all the Justices in C. B. that the Judgment should be for the Defendant upon which Judgment the Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error in B R. and there by all the Justices upon the matter in Law the Judgment was reversed Mich 3. Jan. Cargenter and Collins Case 1010. In Debt for Rent the Case was A. had a Son and a Daughter and devised that his Son should have his Land at his age of 24. years and gave 40 l. to his Daughter to be paid at her age of 22. years and appointed that C. should be his Excecutor and should have the oversight and dealing of his Lands and goods till his Children should come to the ages aforesaid and dyed C. the Plaintiff made a Lease to the Defendant at Will rendering Rent at Mich. and our Lady-day the Daughter entred upon the Tenant at Will the Tenant attorned to her the Son dyed within the age of 24 years the Defendant did not pay the Rent for which C. brought Debt against him It was adjudged against the Plaintiff Resolved 1. The word Oversight and dealâ—ng with his Lands and goods did not give any Interest to C. the Excecutor but an authority only and that the estate discended to the Son 2. That by the death of the Son the Interest of the Executor was determined for it was noâ— the intent of the devisor to bar the Heir of the Son untill the Son should come to the age of 24 years if he lived 3. That the Tenury at Will was determined by the entry of the Daughter because she entred by Title i. e. as Heir to her Brother Lord Aburgavenny and Edwards Case 1011. An Excommengement was pleaded in Bar and the Certificate of the Bishop of Lâ—ndaph shewed of it but doth not mention by what Bishop the party was Excommenge wherefore it was adjudged void Rastoll and Drapers Case 1012. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of so much Flemish mony the Plaintiff declared for so much English money and it was holden good by the Court. Doyly and Drakes Case 1013. A man had two Closes adjoyning time out of mind and sold one of them who should make the Inclosure the Purchasor or the vendor the Court was divided in opinion Vide 21 Eliz. Diâ—r 372. Williams and Vaughans Case 1014 Scire facias by the Plaintiff against the Defendant who was bail in Debt for I. S. who did not render his body nor pay the Debt the Defendant demurred 1. Because no Capias was sued against the principal and also because the Principal was dead before the Scire facias brought but both points overruled because the Condition of the bail was broken before Whitâ—ock and Harâ—wells Case 1015. A. and B. Sisters Joynt Tenant A. Covenanted with a stranger that he should enjoy the moyety which she held with her Sister in Joynture for 60. years from the death of her Sister if she the said A. should so long live and demised to him the other moyety from her own death for 60. years if her Sister so long lived Adjudged the Lease was void for both moyeties â—he one because of her moyety after the death of her Companion and the other is
come in Question 2. because the adjunction de in W. the Town is not but to make a certainty of the Mannor for there may be two and Mannors in W. one within it and another wwithout it Harison and Haxeys Case 1095. The defendant was Bail for B. in an Action brought by I. S. against him who recovered and had Judgement B. brought Error pendant the suit I. S. dyed the Debt not paid his Administrator brought a Scire sac against the Bail who pleaded the release after the Error brought both to him and the principal B. of all Executions and Deeds It was adjudged a good barre because the duty and debt remained notwithstanding the Error brought May and the Sheriffs of Londons Case 1096. Action upon the Case against the defendant for suffering one whom they had arrested upon a Bill of Middlesex to escape The defendant said that the Prisoner was rescued from them and adjudged no Plea and so it was said it was adjudged Pasc 43. Eliz. in Walâ—o Lamberts Case which vide Cro. 3. part 867. White and Halls Case 1097. The Guardian recovered in Debt upon an Obligation made to an infant the Defendant payd the principal and costs and prayed the Guardian might acknowledg satisfacia Curia they can acknowledg satisfaction for so much as he returned and for so much they ordered him to acknowledge satisfaction and that no execution should issue for the rest 1098. A man devised Lands in London to his Son and heirs after the death of his Wife and if his Daughters overlived his Wife Son and his heirs they should have it for his life and after their deaths I. S. should have it paying 6. l. yearly to the Company of Merchant Taylors London to be bestowed in Charitable uses Resolved that the Wife hadan estate but for life by Implication 2 That the Son had Tail by Implication and not Fee-simple for as long as the Daughters lived the Son could not die without heirs collaterall 3. That the estate to I. S. after the death of the Daughters Was a Fee simple by reason of the annual payment of the money And in this case it was said that a Devise to A. and his successors was a Devise in Fee-simple Austin and Monks Case 1099. Scire fac Against the Bail upon the Statute 3. Jac. c. 8. the Defendant pleaded that after the Writ of Error allowed and before any default the principal rendred his Body in Execution adjudged a good barre for notwithstanding the Writ of Error may render his body and so excuse his Bail The Sheriffs of London and Michells Case 1100 Debt for 12. l. for their Fees upon the Statute of 28 Eliz. cap. 4. for doing Execution The Statute is they shall not receive ultra such a sum The Court said that implies that they may take so much as is not prohibited and although the Statue doth not give an Action for it yet because it is a duty an Action is given them by Law Linghill and Broughton Case 1101. Action upon the Case against an Administrator that the intestate was endebted to the Plantiff 100l and the Defendant his Administrator affirmed that if the Plantiff would forbear him per rationabile Temous he would pay him and alledged he forbore him 8. years Verdict for the Plantiff It was said in stay of Judgement the Declaration was not good because not shewed how the Testator was Indebted Resolved that he need not do because the promise of the Administrator is a sufficient acknowledgment of the debt 2. That the forbearance per rationabil Tempus uncertaine and adjudged the forbearance per paululum temporis was not good The Court said they might Judge of the reasonablenesse of the time not of the meaning of paululum temporis and 8. years is a reasonable time of forbearance it was adjudged for the Plantiff Babington and Lamberts Case 1102. Assumpsit In consideration the defendant had received 24l of divers persons for the Plantiffs use he promised to pay it such a day it was said the Declaration was not good because not expressed of what persons he received the money but it was adjudged good because a consideration executed and so not traversable Calimore and Jensons Case 1103. Assumpsit In consideration that the Defendant upon an Insimul Computaverunt the Defendant was found endebted to the Plaintiff judged a good Consideration Philpot and Ballards Case 1104. Resolved in this Case that if a Judgement be given against the Plaintiff and others in an inferior Court as a Hundred Court one of them onely if he be sole Tennant and hath the Damage may have a false judgment and restitution and it was holden that althoughthe Judgement was given upon a customary claim and not upon any matter at Common Law yet false Judgement did lye Eman and Mouldsworths Case 1105. A Prohibition was granted in C. B. because the Plantiff sued for defamation in the spiritual Court because the defendant had reported that he was incontinent It was said although the Plantiff alledged a general pardon yet this being a private Case the pardon did not discharge it Pease and Meades Case 1106. Condition of a Bond was that the Obligator should pay such a summe to such a person at such a place and day as the Obliger should name by his Last Will in Wiâ—ting he names none but makes the Plaintiff his Executor and dyed It was adjudged the Excecutor was not an assignee and so the Obligation by the Omission of the Obliger is discharged Yardly and Elices Case 1107. Woords spoken of an Atturney to his Clyent viz. Your Atturney is a bribing Knave and hath taken 20l. of you for a bribe to cozen me Adjudged the Action did lye for the words Fryer and Gildrings Case 1108. Two men were bound to a third person joyntly and severally the Obligee made the Wife of the Obligor his Excecutrix who Administred then the Husband of the Obligor made her his Executrix and dyed having assets to pay the debts then she dyed and the Plaintiff took Letters of Administration of the goods of the Obligee not Administred and brought debt against the Defendant being the surviving of the Obligor It was adjudged that the Action would not lie for the making of the Wife of one of the Obligors Executrix was a suspension of the Action and a personall Action once suspended by the Act of the party as it is here it shall be extinct for ever Quaere Norton and Syms Case 1109. Debt upon Obligation for performance of Covenants the Defendant being under-Sheriff to the Plaintiff Covenanted That he would not execute any Writ of Execution above 20l. nor any venire fac in severall Causes and also to acquit and save harmeless the Plantiff of all escapes of Prisoners taken in Execution and of all fines and amercements Resolved in this Case when there are in an Indentures Covenants in the Negative for not doing and in the Affimative for doing he is to plead specialy to the