so his Son is justly and rightly sued as Son and Heir In some Cases the persons are to be named not by way of a Title but as a Pedigree as if there be Tenant for Life the Reversion in Fee to an Ideot and an Vncle who is right Heir to the Ideot levied a Fine and died living the Ideot leaving Issue a Son named John who had Issue William who entred the Question was whether the Issue of the Vncle shall be barred by this Fine It was the Opinion of two Iudges that they were not barred because the Vncle died in the life-time of the Ideot and nothing attached in him March 94. Cro. Car. 524. and because the Issue claim in a collateral Line and do not name the Father by way of Title but by way of Pedigree But Iustice Jones who hath truly Reported the Case Jones 456. was of Opinion that the Issue of the Vncle were barred because the Son must make his Conveyance from the Father by way of Title The Iury have found that the Reversion did descend to the Defendant as Heir to the last John 't is true it descends as a Reversion but that shall not charge him as Heir to the Father Jenk's Case 1 Cro. for the other was seised of the Estate Tail which is now spent and the last who was seised of the Fee was the Father and so the Defendant must be charged as his Heir 'T is likewise true that where there is an actual Seisin you must charge all but in this Case there was nothing but a Reversion Tremaine Serjeant for the Defendant In this Case the Plaintiff should have made a special Declaration for the Estate-Tail and the Reversion in Fee are distinct and seperate Estates John the Nephew might have sold the Reversion and kept the Estate Tail if he had acknowledged a Statute or Iudgment it might have been extended and if so then he had such a Seisin that he ought to have been named A Man becomes bound in a Bond and died Debt is brought against the Heir it is not common to say that he had nothing by descent but only a Reversion expectant upon an Estate Tayl. In the Case of Chappel and Lee Covenant was brought in the Common-Pleas against Judith Daughter and Heir of Robert Rudge She pleaded Riens per descent Issue was joyned before Sir Francis North then Chief Iustice and it appearing upon Evidence that Robert had a Son named Robert who died without Issue a Case was made of it and Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Plaintiff took out a new Original and then the Land was sold so the Plaintiff lost his Debt Adjornatur Afterwards in Hillary Term a Gulielmi Mariae Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff by the Opinion of three Iustices against Iustice Eyre who argued that the Defendant cannot be charged as immediate Heir to his Father 't is true the Lands are Assets in his Hands and he may be charged by a special Declaration Dyer 368. pl. 460. In this Case the intermediate Heirs had a Reversion in Fee which they might have charged either by Statute Iudgment or Recognizance they were so seised that if a Writ of Right had been brought against them they might have joyned the Mise upon the Mere right which proves they had a Fee and though it was expectant on an Estate Tail 3 Co. 42. Ratcliff's Case yet the Defendant claiming the Reversion as Heir ought to make himself so to him who made the Gift The person who brings a Formeden in Descender must name every one to whom any Right did descend 8 Co. 88. F.N.B. 220. c. Rast Ent. 375. otherwise the Writ will abate A Man who is sued as Heir or who entitles himself as such must shew how Heir The Case of Duke and Spring is much stronger than this 2 Rol. Abr. 709. 2 Cro. 161. for there Debt was brought against the Daughter as Heir of B. She pleaded Riens per descent and the Iury found that B. died seised in Fee leaving Issue the Defendant and his Wife then with Child who was afterwards delivered of a Son who died within an hour and it was adjudged against the Plaintiff because he declared against the Defendant as Daughter and Heir of the Father when she was Sister and Heir of the Brother who was last seised But the other three Iudges were of a contrary Opinion The Question is not whether the Defendant is lyable to this Debt but whether he is properly charged as Heir to his Father or whether he should have been charged as Heir to his Nephew who was last seised It must be admitted that if the Lands had descended to the Brother and Nephew of the Defendant in Fee that then they ought to have been named but they had only a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate Tail which was incertain and therefore of little value now though John the Father and Son had this Reversion in them yet the Estate Tail was known only to those who were Parties to the Settlement 'T is not the Reversion in Fee Bro. Fit Descent pl. 30.37 Ass pl. 4. but the Possession which makes the party inheritable and therefore if Lands are given to Husband and Wife in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband then they have a Son and the Wife dies and the Husband hath a Son by a second Venter and dies the eldest Son enters and dies without Issue and his Vncle claimed the Land against the second Son but was barred because he had not the Remainder in Fee in possession and yet he might have sold or forfeited it But here the Reversion in Fee is now come into possession and the Defendant hath the Land as Heir to his Father t is Assets only in him and was not so either in his Brother or Nephew who were neither of them chargeable because a Reversion expectant upon an Estate Tail is not Assets Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Young versus Inhabitants de Totnam AN Action was brought against the Hundred for a Robbery in which the Plaintiff declared that he was Robbed apud quendam locum prope Faire Mile Gate in such a Parish He had a Verdict And now Serjeant Tremaine moved in arrest of Iudgment and the Exceptions taken were these viz. 1. That it doth not appear that the Parish mentioned in the Declaration was in the Hundred 2. Neither doth it appear that the Robbery was committed in the High-way 3. The Plaintiff hath not alledged that it was done in the day time for if it was not the Hundred is not lyable by Law But these Exceptions were all disallowed because it being after a Verdict the Court will suppose that there was Evidence given of these Matters at the Trial so the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Eggleston al' versus Speke alias Petit.
Man from having any Office whatsoever who shall affirm the King to be a Papist 13 Car. 2. cap. 1. that is a person who endeavours to introduce Popery 2. But if the word Papist is not actionable of it self yet as coupled with his Offices 't is otherwise and the Plaintiff may well maintain this Action And of that Opinion was all the Court So the Iudgment was affirmed Malloon versus Fitzgerald ERror of a Iudgment in Ireland Where an Estate Tail shall not be determined for want of notice of a Proviso to determine it for Lands in the County of Waterford the Case upon the special Verdict was this John Fitzgerald was seized in Fee of the Lands in question who had Issue Katherine his only Daughter He by Lease and Release made a Settlement of those Lands upon the Earl of Ossory and other Trustees therein named and their Heirs to the use of himself for Life and after his Decease to the use of his Daughter Katherine in Tail Provided that she Married with the consent of the said Earl and the Trustees or the major part of them or their Heirs some worthy person of the Family and Name of Fitzgerald or who should take upon him that Name immediately after the Marriage but if not then the said Earl should appoint and raise a Portion out of the said Lands for the Maintenance of the said Katherine with a Remainder to Laetitia in Tail John Fitzgerald died his Daughter being then but two years old She afterwards at the Age of fourteen had Notice of this Settlement but not by the Direction of the Trustees That on the 20th of March in the 16th year of her Age she Married with the Plaintiff Edward Villiers Esq without the consent of the Trustees or the major part of them and that her Husband Mr. Villiers did not take upon him the Name of Fitzgerald after the said Marriage That Laetitia the Aunt was married to Franklyn who likewise did not take upon him the Name of Fitzgerald 1. The Questions were Whether the Estate limited to Katherine be forfeited without Notice given to her of the Settlement by the Trustees themselves 2. Whether her Estate be not determined by her marrying Mr. Villiers without their consent And it was argued That the Estate Tail was determined And first as to the point of Notice 't is not necessary to be given to the Daughter because the Father had not made it in the Settlement He might dispose of his Estate at his pleasure and having made particular Limitations of it there is no room now for the Law to interpose to supply the defect of Notice in the Deed. And to this purpose the Mayor of London 's Case was cited which was That George Monox Devised certain Houses to his Executors in Trust and their Heirs Cro Car. 576. Idem Jones 452. upon condition to pay mony to several Charitable uses which if not performed then he devised them over to his Heir in Tail upon the same Conditions and if not performed by him then to the * The Devise to him was void because it was a possibility upon a possibility Mayor and Commonalty of London The Trusts were not performed by the first Devisees A Stranger entered and levied a Fine with Proclamations and five Years passed Then the Mayor of London brought his Action supposing he had a right of Entry for the non performance of the Trusts but was barred by the Fine although it was argued for him that he had not notice of the Devise or breach of the Trust till after the Fine levied which shews that Notice was not necessary for if it had been so when his Title accrewed he could not have been barred by the Fine As Katherine the Daughter takes notice what Estate she hath in the Land so as to pursue a proper Remedy to recover it so she ought to take notice of the Limitations in the Settlement and hath the same means to acquaint her self with the one as with the other and the same likewise as her Aunt had to know the Remainder Suppose a Promise is made to indempnifie another from all Bonds which he should enter into for a third person 2 Cro. 432. Hob. 51. Jones 207. Pop. 164. and then an Action is brought against him wherein the Plaintiff declared that he was bound accordingly and not saved harmless but doth not shew that he gave notice of his being bound yet the Plaintiff shall recover As to the Case of a Copyholder having three Sons who surrendred to the use of his Will 2 Cro. 56. and then devised to his middle Son in Fée upon condition to pay Legacies to his Sisters at full age which were not paid Now tho' it was adjudged that his Estate was not determined upon the non-performance of this Condition without an actual demand and denial and that he was not bound to take notice of the full age of his Sisters yet this is not an Authority which can any wise prevail in this Case because 't is a * If the Devise had been to the eldest Son then it had been a Limitation annexed to his Estate and not a Condition because if it had been a Condition it would have descended upon the Heir who could not be sued for the breach 1 Ventr 199. Rep. Canc. 140. Sid. Poph. 104. Condition to pay Legacies which is a thing in its nature not to be paid without a demand which implies notice In all Cases where Conditions are annexed to Estates to pay Mony there notice is necessary but where Estates are limited upon the performance of collateral acts 't is not necessary And this has been held the constant difference So is Fry and Porter 's Case which was this The Earl of Newport had two Daughters and he devised Newport House to the Daughter of his eldest Daughter in Tail which she had by the Earl of Banbury Provided and upon condition that she marry with the consent of her Mother and two other Trustees or the major part of them if not or if she should dye without Issue then he devised the said House to George Porter in Fee who was the Son of his youngest Daughter and who had married one Thomas Porter without her Fathers consent The Lady Ann Knowles the first Devisee married Fry without the consent of her Grandmother or Trustees and it was adjudg'd against her upon point of Notice that it was not necessary because her Grandfather had not appointed any person to give notice he might have imposed any Terms or Conditions upon his own Estate and all Parties concerned had the same means to inform themselves of such Conditions The third Resolution in Frances Case 8 Co. comes nearest to this now in question it was in Replevin the Defendant avowed the taking Damage Fesant The Plaintiff pleaded in Barr to the Avowry that R. Frances was seized in Fee of the place where c. and devised it to John who was his
of a person dying intestate and tells what share his Relations shall have and 't is probable that the Custom of London might guide the Parliament in the making of this Law which Custom distributes the Estate of a Freeman amongst his Wife and Children This shews that an Interest is vested in them which goes to the Administrator the consequence whereof is very considerable for if such Children should marry they have a Security by this Act that a Portion shall be paid and if the Wife should take another Husband he will be entituled to her share and this may be a means of giving credit in the World when the certainty of their Portions are so well known and secured 'T is such an Interest which is known in the Law and may be compared to that in Sir Thomas Palmer's Case 5 Co. 24. who sold 1600 Cord of Wood to a Man who assigned it to another and afterwards the Vendor sold 2000 Cord to one Maynard to be taken at his Election the Assignee of the first person cutt 600 Cord and Maynard carried it away thereupon an Action was brought and the Plaintiff had Iudgment because the first Vendee had an Interest vested in him which he might well assign This Case is a plain proof that a Man may have an Interest in a Chattle without a Property and such an Interest which gives the person a remedy to recover and where there is a remedy there must be a Right for they are convertibles 'T is not a new thing in the Law that a contingent Interest in the Ancestor shall survive to the Heir Wood's Case cited in Shelleys Case 1 Co. 99. as if a Man be seized of the Mannor of S. and covenants that when B. shall make a Feoffment to him of the Mannor of D. then he will stand seized of the said Mannor of S. to the use of the Covenantee and his Heirs who dyed leaving Issue an Heir who was then an Infant B. made a Feoffment to the Covenantor accordingly it was held that no Right descended to the Heir of the Covenantee but only a possibility of an Vse which might have vested in the Ancestor and therefore the Heir shall claim it by descent 'T is like a Debt to be paid at a day to come Lit. Sect. 512. which is debitum in praesenti though solvendum in futuro and though the Obligee cannot have an Action before the day is come yet such an Interest is vested in him that he may release it before that day and so bar himself for ever Now if this Act makes a Will it ought to be construed as such and it cannot be denied that if this Case had happened upon a Will the Executor of the Son would have a very good Title 'T is a weak Objection to affirm that this Law was made to establish the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts and that 't is only explanatory of the Statutes of Ed. 3. and H. 8. because 't is plainly introductory of a new Law for Distribution is now made otherwise than it was before 2. An Interest is vested where there is but one Child For the better understanding of this Point the Clause in the Act ought to be considered which is viz. If there be no Wife then to be distributed amongst the Children if no Child then to the next of Kin of the Intestate upon which Clause these Objections have been made Object 1. That 't is insignificant because the Statute of H. 8. gives the right of Administration to the Child 2. That Distribution cannot be made where there is but one 3. That this Clause ought to be construed according to the Law in the Spiritual Courts Answ Now as to the first Objection 't is true that before this Act the Child had a Right of Administration but that Right was only personal so that if he had died before he had administred his Executor or Administrator could not have it Besides many inconveniences did attend this personal Right of Administration which are now prevented by the vesting of an Interest For when the Right was personal and the Administrator gave Bond with Sureties to administer truly and the Ordinary had appointed Distribution to be made the Administrator was bound to perform it though not in equal degree and if he died before the Estate was got in it was lost for ever But now by this Clause Distribution must be made equally viz. one third part of the Surplus to the Wife the rest by equal portions to the Children so that what was very incertain before and almost at the Will of the Ordinary is now reduced to a certainty and therefore an Interest must vest in such persons to whom such equal Distributions of filial Portions are given 2. Object That Distribution cannot be made where there is but one Child Answ This also is true in propriety of Speech and taking the Word distribute in the strict sense But this was never intended by the Statute as may plainly appear upon the construction of the whole for the Word Children doth comprehend a Child and more and the form of the Bond directed by this Statute is that the Administrator shall deliver the Goods to such person and persons c. which shews that one is comprehended and therefore Distribuere in this Case is no more than Tribuere and must be so taken The Parliament never intended that Distribution should not be made where there is but one Child as may be easily collected from the reason of the thing and the inconveniences which would ensue 1st If a Man should die leaving a Wife and one Child the Wife would be entituled to one third and the Child to the other two thirds of the personal Estate now if the Child shall have two thirds being comprehended under the Word Children what reason can be given why he should not have the whole where there is no Wife which he could not have if the Word Children did not comprehend Child in this Case 2dly If a Man hath a personal Estate to the value of 2000 l. and dieth leaving Issue three Sons but hath in his life time made provision for the second Son to the value of 1000 l. the eldest Son dies intestate shall the youngest be totally excluded from the remaining 1000 l. because there is none left to have distribution his second Brother being preferred in the life time of his Father by an equal portion with what remains 3dly If the Father hath a Son married and two Brothers and dies intestate now if his Estate should not be vested in the Son then if he should also die intestate his Wife could have nothing but it would go to the Vncles and this would be a very hard construction of this Law to carry the Estate to the Vncles and their Executors from the Son and his Administrator But there is a Case which proves that a Child is intended by the Word Children 8 Co 96. 't is between Amner
shall not alien or sell the Lands given to her from the Heirs Male of her Body lawfully to be begotten but to remain upon default of such Issue to W. and the Heirs Males of his Body to be begotten according to the true intent and meaning of this my Will Dorothy Hopkins had Issue Richard who had Issue Henry who had Issue a Daughter now the Defendant The Question was Whether the Son of Dorothy did take an Estate Tail by this Will to him and to the Heirs of his Body in general or an Estate in Tail Male This Case was argued in Michaelmas Term 36 Car. II. And in the same Term a year afterwards by Council on both sides Those who argued for the Plaintiff held that the Son had an Estate in Tail Male and this seems plain by the intention of the Testator that if Dorothy had Issue Daughters they should have no benefit for no provision is made for any such by the Will and therefore the Daughter of her Son can have no Estate who is more remote to the Testator This is like the Case of Conveyances Turnam vers Cooper 2 Cro. 476. Poph. 138. id 25 Ass pl. 14. wherein the Habendum explains the generality of the precedent words as if Lands be given to Husband and Wife and to their Heirs habendum to them and the Heirs of their Bodies Remainder to them and the Survivor to hold of the chief Lord with Waranty to them and their Heirs this is an Estate Tail with a Feé expectant So it is here tho' the first words in the Will extend to Heirs which is general yet in the Memorandum 't is particular to Heirs Males and the words Heirs and Issues are of the same signification in a Will The Memorandum is a confirmation of the Will Ex parte Def. and the construction which hath been made of it is not only inconsistent with the Rules of Law but contrary to the intent of the Testator and against the express words of his Will Cases upon Wills are different from those which arise upon Deeds because in Conveyances subsequent words may be explanatory of the former but in Wills the first words of the Testator do usually guide those which follow As if Land be devised for Life Dyer 171 a. 1 And. 8. id Golds 16. Moor 593. Remainder to F. and the Heirs Males of his Body and if it happen that he dye without Heirs not saying Males the Remainder over in Tail this was held not to be a general Tail but an Estate in Tail Male therefore the Daughter of F. could not inherit Now to construe this to be an Estate Tail Male doth not only alter the Estate of the Sons of Dorothy but of the Issue of W. and nothing is mentioned in this Memorandum of the Limitation over to Jones so that the whole Will is altered by it But this Memorandum cannot enlarge the Estate of Dorothy because 't is inconsistent with the intention of the Testator who gave her only an Estate for Life by the Will but if she should have an Estate Tail she might by Fine and Recovery bar it and so alien it contrary to his express words Besides there is no Estate limited to Dorothy by this Memorandum and she having an express Estate for Life devised to her by the Will it shall never be enlarged by such doubtful words which follow As where a Man had 100 Acres of Land 2 Leon. 226. Moor 593. called by a particular Name and usually occupied with a House which House he lett to S. with 40 Acres parcel of that Land and then devised the House and all the Lands called by that particular Name c. to his Wife Adjudged she should only have the House and the 40 Acres and that the Devise shall not be extended by implication to the other sixty Acres So that to make the design of this Will and Memorandum to be consistent the latter words must be construed only to illustrate the meaning of the Testator in the former Paragraph of the Will and must be taken as a farther declaration of his intention Viz. that the Heirs Males mentioned in the Memorandum is only a description of the Persons named in the Will The Law doth usually regard the intention of the Testator and will not imply any contradictions in his Bequests The Court was of Opinion that it was a plain Case Judicium for in the Limitation 't is clear that 't is a general Tail and it doth not follow that the Testator did not design any thing for his Grandaughters because no provision was made for Daughters For where an Estate is entailed upon the Heirs of a Man's Body if he hath a Son and a Daughter and the Son hath Issue a Daughter the Estate will go to her and not to the Aunt Now this Memorandum doth not come to make any alteration in the Limitation because it directs that the Estate shall go according to the true intent and meaning of the Will and is rather like a Proviso than an Habendum in a Deed. And therefore Iudgment was given accordingly for the Defendant DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Hicks versus Gore ON Tuesday the 17th day of November there was a Trial at the Barr by a Somerset-Shire Iury in Ejectment The Case was thus The Plaintiff claimed the Lands by virtue of the Statute of 4 5 Ph. Mar. cap. 8. by which 't is enacted That it shall not be lawful for any person to take away any Maid or Woman Child unmarried and within the Age of sixteen years from the Parents or Guardian in Soccage and that if any Woman Child or Maiden being above the Age of twelve years and under the Age of sixteen do at any time assent or agree to such person that shall make any Contract of Matrimony contrary to the Form of the Act that then the next of Kin of such Woman Child or Maid to whom the Inheritance should descend return or come after the decease of the same Woman Child or Maid shall from the time of such Assent and Agreement have hold and enjoy all such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments as the said Woman Child or Maid had in Possession Reversion or Remainder at the time of such Assent and Agreement during the Life of such person that shall so contract Matrimony and after the decease of such person so contracting Matrimony that then the said Land c. shall descend revert remain and come to such person or persons as they should have done in case this Act had never been made other than him only that so shall contract Matrimony Benjamin Tibboth being seised in Fee of the Lands in question to the value of 700 l. per annum had Issue a Son and four Daughters the Son had Issue Ruth his only Daughter who was married to the Defendant Gore her Father died in the time of her Grandfather and her Mother
fearing that this Daughter might be stoln from her applies her self to my Lady Gore and entreats her to take this Daughter into her House which she did accordingly My Lady had a Son then in France she sent for him and married him to this Ruth she being then under the Age of sixteen years without the Consent of her Mother who was her Guardian The Question was whether this was a Forfeiture of her Estate during Life It was proved at the Trial that the Mother had made a Bargain with the Lessor of the Plaintiff that in case he recovered she should have 1000 l. and the Chirds of the Estate and therefore she was not admitted to be a Witness The Plaintiff could not prove any thing to make a Forfeiture and therefore was nonsuited The Chief Iustice said that the Statute was made to prevent Children from being seduced from their Parents or Guardians by flattering or enticing Words Promises or Gifts and married in a secret way to their disparagement but that no such thing appeared in this Case for Dr. Hascard proved the Marriage to be at St. Clements Church in a Canonical Hour and that many People were present and that the Church Doors were open whilst he married them Anonymus BY the Statute of 21 Jacobi 't is Enacted 21 Jac. c. 23. That no Writ to remove a Suit out of an Inferior Court shall be obeyed unless it be delivered to the Steward of the same Court before Issue or Demurrer joined so as the Issue or Demurrer be not joined within six Weeks next after the Arrest or Appearance of the Defendant In this Case Issue was joined and the Steward refused to allow the Habeas Corpus and the Cause was tried but not before an Utter Barrister as is directed by the Statute Curia The Steward ought to return the Habeas Corpus and they having proceeded to try the Cause no Utter Barister being Steward let an Attachment go Claxton versus Swift Hill 1 Jac. 2. Rot. 1163. THE Plaintiff being a Merchant brought an Action upon a Bill of Exchange If the Plaintiff recover against the Drawer of a Bill he shall not afterwards recover against any of Endorsers setting forth the Custom of Merchants c. and that London and Worcester were ancient Cities and that there was a Custom amongst Merchants that if any person living in Worcester draw a Bill upon another in London and if this Bill be accepted and endorsed the first Endorser is liable to the payment That one Hughes drew a Bill of 100 l. upon Mr. Pardoe paiable to the Defendant or Order Mr. Swift endorsed this Bill to Allen or Order and Allen endorsed it to Claxton The Mony not being paid Claxton brings his Action against Hughes and recovers but did not take out Execution Afterwards he sued Mr. Swift who was the first Endorser and he pleads the first Recovery against Hughes in barr to this Action and avers that it was for the same Bill and that they were the same Parties To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joyned in the Demurrer Mr. Pollexfen argued that it was a good Barr because the Plaintiff had his Election to bring his Action against either of the Endorsers or against the Drawer but not against all and that he had now determined his Election by suing the Drawer and shall not go back again though he never have Execution for this is not in the nature of a joint Action which may be brought against all 'T is true that it may he made joint or several by the Plaintiff but when he has made his choice by suing of one he shall never sue the rest because the Action sounds in Damages which are uncertain before the Iudgment but afterwards are made certain transeunt in rem judicatam and is as effectual in Law as a Release As in Trover the Defendant pleaded that at another time the Plaintiff had recovered against another person for the same Goods so much Damages 2 Cro. 73. Yelv. 65. Brown versus Wootton and had the Defendant in Execution and upon a Demurrer this was held a good Plea for though in that Case it was objected that a Iudgment and Execution was no satisfaction unless the Mony was paid yet it was adjudged that the cause of Action being against several for which Damages were to be recovered and because a Sum certain was recovered against one that is a good discharge against all the other but 't is otherwise in Debt because each is liable to the entire Sum. Chief Iustice If the Plaintiff had accepted of a Bond from the first Drawer in satisfaction of this Mony it had been a good Barr to any Action which might have been brought against the other Indorsers for the same and as this Case is the Drawer is still liable and if he fail in payment the first Endorser is chargeable because if he make Endorsement upon a bad Bill 't is Equity and good Conscience that the Endorsee may resort to him to make it good But the other Iustices being against the Opinion of the Chief Iustice Iudgment was given for the Defendant Pawley versus Ludlow DEBT upon a Bond. The Condition was That if John Fletcher shall appear such a day coram Justitiariis apud Westm c. that then c. The Defendant pleaded that after the 25th day of November and before the day of the appearance he did render himself to the Officer in discharge of this Bond and to this the Plaintiff demurred Darnel for the Defendant admitted that if a Scire Facias be brought against the Bail upon a Writ of Error 3 Bulstr 191. 2 Cro. 402. who plead that after the Recognizance and before the Iudgment against the Principal affirmed he rendred himself to the Marshal in discharge of his Bail that this is not a good Plea but that the Sureties are still liable 3 Jac. cap. 8. because by the Statute they are not only liable to render his Body but to pay the Debt recovered But if a Iudgment be had in this Court 1 Rol. Abr. 334. pl. 11. and a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer-Chamber and pending that Writ of Error the Principal is rendred the Bail in the Action are thereby discharged It was argued on the other side E contra that this is not the like Case of Bail upon a Writ of Error for the Condition of a Recognizance and that of a Bond for Appearance are different in their nature the one is barely that the Party shall appear on such a day the other is that he shall not only appear and render his Body to Prison but the Bail likewise do undertake to pay the Debt if Iudgment should be against the Principal Now where the Condition is only for an Appearance at a day if the Party render himself either before or after the day 't is not good Chief Iustice If the Party render himself to the Officer before the
day of Appearance he is to see that he appear at the day either by keeping of him in Custody or letting of him to Bail the end of the Arrest is to have his Body here If he had not been bailed then he had still remained in Custody and the Plaintiff would have his proper remedy but being once let to Bail and not appearing in Court according to the Condition of the Bond that seems to be the fault of the Defendant who had his Body before the day of Appearance Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Serjeant Hampson's Case BY the Statute of Queen Elizabeth 't is Enacted 5 Eliz. c. 23. That if the person excommunicated have not a sufficient Addition or if 't is not contained in the Significavit that the Excommunication proceeds for some cause or contempt or of some original Matter of Heresie refusing to have his Child baptized to receive the Sacrament to come to Divine Service or Errors in Matters of Religion or Doctrine Incontinency Usury Simony Perjury in the Ecclesiastical Court or Idolatry he shall not incurr the Penalties in the Act. Serjeant Hampson was excommunicated for Alimony and now Mr. Girdler moved that he might be discharged because none of the aforesaid Causes were contained in the Significavit Curia He may be discharged of the Forfeiture for that reason but not of the Excommunication Anonymus ONE who was outlawed for the Murder of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey now brought a Writ of Error in his Hand to the Bar praying that it might be read and allowed It was read by Mr. Astry Clerk of the Crown The Errors assigned were viz. That it did not appear upon the Return of the Exigent in the first Exact ' that the Court was held pro Comitatu That the Outlawry being against him and two other persons 't is said in the last Exact ' that Non comperuit but doth not say nec eorum aliquis comperuit For these Reasons the Outlawry was reversed and he held up his Hand at the Barr and pleaded Not-guilty to his Indictment and was admitted to Bail and afterwards he was brought to his Trial and no Witness in behalf of the King appearing against him he was acquitted The Mayor and Commonalty of Norwich versus Johnson A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given for the Plaintiff in the Common-Pleas in an Action of Waste Waste lies against an Executor de son tort of a Term. The Declaration was that the Plaintiff demised a Barn to one Took for a certain Term by vertue whereof he was possessed and being so possessed died that the Defendant was his Executor who entred and made Waste by pulling down of the said Barn The Defendant pleaded that Took died intestate and that he did not administer The Plaintiff replyed that he entred as Executor of his own Wrong and to this Plea the Defendant demurred and the Plaintiff joined in the Demurrer This Case was argued by Mr. Appleton of Lincolns-Inn for the Plaintiff who said That an Action of Waste would not lie against the Defendant because the Mayor and Commonalty c. had a remedy by an Assise to recover the Land upon which the Barn stood and a Trover to recover the Goods or Materials and that such an Action would not lie against him at the Common Law because he neither was Tenant by the Curtesie nor in Dower against whom Waste only lay So that if the Plaintiff is entituled to this Action it must be by vertue of the Statute of Gloucester 6 Ed. 1. c. 5. but it will not lie against the Defendant even by that Statute because the Action is thereby given against the Tenant by the Curtesie in Dower for Life or Years and treble Damages c. But the Defendant is neither of those and this being a penal Law which not only gives treble damages but likewise the Recovery of the place wasted ought therefore not to be taken strictly but according to Equity Tenants at sufferance or at Will by Elegit or Tenants by Statute Staple 11 H. 6. c. 5. and also Pernors of Profits were never construed to be within this Statute and therefore a particular Act was made to give him in Reversion an Action of Waste where Tenant for life or years had granted over their Estates and yet took the Profits and committed Waste Then the Question will be Co. Lit. 371. what Estate this Executor de sontort hath gained by his Entry And as to that he argued that he had got a Fee-simple by Disseisin and that for this reason the Plaintiff was barred from this Action for if the Son purchase Lands in Fee and is disseised by his Father who maketh a Feoffment in Fee to another with Warranty and dieth the Son is for ever barred for though the Disseisin was not done with any intention to make such a Feoffment 1 Roll. Abr. 662. yet he is bound by this Alienation So where a man made a Lease for life and died and then his Heir suffered a Recovery of the same Land without making an actual Entry this is an absolute Disseisin because the Lessee had an Estate for life but if he had been Tenant at Will it might be otherwise But admitting that the Defendant is not a Disseisor then the Plaintiffs must bring their Case to be within the Statute of Gloucester as that he is either Tenant for life or years If he is Tenant for Life he must be so either by right or by wrong He cannot be so by right because he had no lawful Conveyance made to him of this Estate besides 't is quite contrary to the Pleading which is that he entred wrongfully Neither can he be so by wrong for such particular Estates 6 Co. 25. as for life or years cannot be gained by Disseisin and so is Heliar's Case in 6 Co. Then if this should be construed an Estate for years it must be gained either by the Act of the Party or by the Act of the Law but such an Estate cannot be gained by either of those means First it cannot be gained by the Act of the Party Moor 126. Kendrick versus Burges because an Executor de son tort cannot have any interest in a Term and for this there is an express Authority in this Court which was thus viz. A Lease in Reversion for years was granted to a man who died intestate his Wife before she had administred sold this Term to the Defendant and afterwards she obtained Letters of Administration and made a Conveiance of the same Term to the Plaintiff and Iudgment was given for the last Vendee because it was in the case of a Reversion of a Term for years upon which no Entry could be made and of which there could be no Executor de son tort though it was admitted by the Court that such an Executor might make a good sale of
' Francisco Wythens Mil ' Justiciariis Richardo Holloway Mil ' Justiciariis Thoma Walcot Mil ' Justiciariis MEmorandum That the First day of this Term Sir Thomas Jones Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas had his Quietus and Sir Henry Beddingfield one of the Justices of the same Court succeeded him in that Office Likewise the Honourable William Mountagu Esq Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer had his Quietus and Sir Edward Atkyns one of the Barons of the same Court succeeded him Sir Job Charleton one of the Justices of the Common-Pleas had his Quietus but was made Chief Justice of Chester and Sir Edward Lutwich the King's Serjeant was made one of the Justices of the Common-Pleas and Serjeant Heath was made one of the Barons of the Exchequer Okel versus Hodgkinson THE Father and Son join in a Fine in order to make a Settlement upon the second Wife of the Father who was only Tenant by the Curtesie the Remainder in Tail to his said Son One of the Cognizors died after the Caption and before the Return of the Writ of Covenant and now a Writ of Error was brought to Reverse it and this was assigned for Error Curia If it had been in the Case of a Purchasor for a valuable Consideration the Court would have shewed him some favour but it being to do a wrong to a young Man they would leave it open to the Law THE first day of this Term being the 22th day of April there was a Call of Serjeants viz. Sir John Holt of Grays-Inn Recorder of London who was made Kings Serjeant Sir Ambrose Phillips made also Kings Serjeant Christopher Milton John Powell John Tate William Rawlinson George Hutchins William Killingworth Hugh Hodges and Thomas Geers They all appeared that day at the Chancery-Bar where having taken the Oaths the Lord Chancellor Jefferies made a short Speech to them after which they delivered a Ring to him praying him to deliver it to the King They went from the Inner-Temple-Hall to Westminster and Counted at the Common-Pleas and gave Rings the Motto whereof was DEUS REX LEX Dominus Rex versus Saloway SAloway drowned himself in a Pond and the Coroners Enquest found him Non Compos Mentis because 't is more generally supposed that a Man in his Senses will not be Felo de se The Kings Councel moved for a Melius Inquirendum and that the Inquisition might be quashed for that it sets forth Quod pred Defend circa horam octavam ante meridiem in quoddam stagnum se projecit per abundantiam aquae ibidem statim suffocat emergit ' erat which is insensible Pemberton Serjeant contra Here is no Exception taken to the substance of the Inquisition and the word suffocat had been sufficient if the word emergit ' had been left out The Court were of Opinion that there being another word in this Inquisition which carries the sense 't is therefore sufficient but if it had stood singly upon this word Emergit ' it had not been good And this Fact happening about the time of the general Pardon the Court was of Opinion that where an Interest is vested in the King a Pardon of all Forfeitures will not divest it but that nothing was vested here before Inquisition found 2. It was objected that this Inquisition ought to set forth that Saloway came by his death by this means Et nullo alio modo quocunque To which it was answered by Pemberton that in matters of Form only the Iudges have sent for the Coroner into Court and ordered him to amend it Rodney versus Strode AN Action on the Case was brought against three Defendants one of them suffered Iudgment to go by default In a joynt Action the Jury may sever the Damages and the other two pleaded Not Guilty The Cause was tryed the last Assises at Exeter and it was for imposing the Crime of Treason upon the Plaintiff and for assaulting and imprisoning of him there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and 1000 l. damages against Mr. Strode and 50 l. against the other Defendant who pleaded The Plaintiff entred a nolle prosequi against him who let the Iudgment go by default and against the other Defendant for the 50 l. damages and took judgment only against Mr. Strode Serjeant Pemberton moved for a new Trial by reason of the excessive Damages which were not proportioned to the quality of the Plaintiff he being a Man of mean Fortune But it was opposed by the Plaintiff for that the Defendant pursued him as a Traytor and when he was apprehended for that Crime he caused him to be arrested for 1000 l. at the Suit of another person to whom he was not indebted so that upon consideration of the Circumstances of the Case the Court refused to grant a new Tryal Then Serjeant Pemberton for the Defendants moved in arrest of Iudgment and for cause shewed that the Iury have found both guilty and assessed several Damages which they cannot do because this is a joynt Action to which the Defendants have pleaded jointly and being found guilty modo forma the Iury cannot assess the damages severally for the damage is the same by the one as the other Cro. Eliz. 860. Austen vers Millard al' and therefore it hath been adjudged that where an Action of Battery was brought against three and one pleaded not guilty and the other two Son Assault demesne and several damages found against them it was held ill for that very reason because it was a joint offence 'T is true where there are divers Defendants and damages assessed severally the Plaintiff hath his election to take execution de melioribus damnis but this is when the Trials are at several times So 't is where they plead several Pleas Cro. Car. 239. Walsh versus Bishop as in an Action of Battery one pleads not guiity and the other justifies and both Issues are found for the Plaintiff in such case he may enter a non pros against one and take Iudgment against the other because their Pleas are several but where they plead jointly the Iury cannot sever the Damages But Mr. 1 Bulst 157. Sampson vers Cramfield al' Rast Entr. 677. b. Pollexfen for the Plaintiff insisted that even in this case damages may be assessed severally for where two Defendants are sued for the same Battery and they plead the same Plea yet damages may be assessed severally So was Trebarefoot and Greenway 's Case in this Court which was an Action for an Assault and Battery and false Imprisonment one of the Defendants pleaded not Guilty and the other justified Issue was joined and there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and damages assessed severally the Plaintiff entred a nolle prosequi as to one and took judgment against the other and upon this a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and the Iudgment was affirmed So if an Action of Trespass be brought against two for taking of 100 l.
the one took 70 l. and the other 30 l. damages shall be assessed severally It was admitted that regularly the damages ought to be entire especially where the Action is joint but where the Facts are several damages may likewise be so assessed but in this Case the Iury hath done what the Court would do had it béen in a Criminal Cause Curia This is all but one Fact which the Iury is to try 'T is true when several Persons are found Guilty criminally then the damages may be severed in proportion to their Guilt but here all are equally guilty of the same offence and it seems to be a contradiction to say that the Plaintiff is injured by one to the value of 50 l. and by the other to the value of 1000 l. when both are equally Guilty Every Defendant ought to answer full as much as the Plaintiff is damnified now how is it possible he should be damnified so much by one and so little by the other But notwithstanding this Opinion Iudgment was afterwards given for the Plaintiff Peak versus Meker IN an Action on the Case for Words the Plaintiff declared that he was a Merchant and bred up in the Church of England and that when the present King came to the Crown the said Plaintiff made a Bonfire at his Door in the City of London and that the Defendant then spoke of him these words for which he now brought this Action viz. He innuendo the Plaintiff is a Rogue a Papist Dog and a pitiful Fellow and never a Rogue in Town has a Bonfire before his Door but he The Plaintiff had a Verdict and 500 l. Damages were given A Writ of Error was brought but it was adjudged without argument that the words were actionable Joyner versus Pritchard AN Action was brought upon the Statute of R. II. Admiralty for prosecuting of a Cause in the Admiralty Court which did arise upon the Land it was tried before the Chief Iustice in London and a Verdict for the Plaintiff Mr. Thompson moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that the Action was brought by Original in which it was set forth that the Defendant prosecut fuit adhuc prosequitur c. in Curia Admiralitat now the prosequitur is subsequent to the Original and so they have recovered Damages for that which was done after the Action brought Curia These words adhuc prosequitur must refer to the time of suing forth this Original like the Case of a Covenant for quiet Enjoyment and a breach assigned that the Defendant built a Shed whereby he hindred the Plaintiff that he could not enjoy it hucnsque which word must refer to the time of the Action brought and not afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Dominus Rex versus ........ AN Information was brought against the Defendant for Forgery Forgery setting forth that the Defendant being a man of ill fame c. and contriving to cheat one A. did forge quoddam scriptum dated the 16th day of October in the year 1681. continens in se scriptum obligatorium per quod quidem scriptum obligatorium praed A. obligatus fuit praed Defend in quadraginta libris c. He was found Guilty and afterwards this Exception was taken in arrest of Iudgment Viz. That the Fact alledged in the Information was a contradiction of it self for how could A. be bound when the Bond was forged 2. It is not set forth what that scriptum obligatorium was whether it was scriptum sigillatum or not Curia The Defendant is found Guilty of the forging of a Writing in which was contained quoddam scriptum obligatorium and that may be a true Bond. Iudgment was arrested MEMORANDUM On Tuesday April the 27th Sir Thomas Powes of Lincolns-Inn was made Sollicitor General in the Place of Mr. Finch and was called within the Bar. Hanchet versus Thelwal IN Ejectment a special Verdict was found Devise What words in a Will make an Estate for Life and what in Tail in which the Case did arise upon the construction of the words in a Will Viz. The Testator being seised in Fee had Issue Two Sons and Four Daughters He made his Will and devised his Estate being in Houses by these words Viz. Irem I give and bequeath to my Son Nicholas Price my Houses in Westminster and if itplease God to take away my Son then I give my Estate to my four Daughters naming them share and share alike and if it please God to take away any of my said Daughters before Marriage then I give her or their part to the rest surviving And if all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then I give my said Houses to my Sister Anne Warner and her Heirs Nicholas Price entred and died without Issue then the four Sisters entred and Margaret the eldest married Thellwel and died leaving Issue a Son who was the Lessor of the Plaintiff who insisted upon his Title to a fourth part of the Houses The Question was what Estate the Daughters took by this Will whether joint Estates for Life or several Remainders in Tail If only joint Estates for Life then the Plaintiff as Heir to his Mother will not be entituled to a fourth part if several Remainders in Tail then the Father will have it during his Life as Tenant by the Curtesie This Case was argued this Term by Mr. Pollexfen for the Plaintiff And in Hillary Term following by Councel for the Defendant The Plaintiffs Council insisted that they took joint Estates for Life and this seemed to be the intent of the Testator by the words in his Will the first Clause whereof was Viz. I give and bequeath my Houses in W. to Nicholas Price Now by these words an Estate for Life only passed to him and not an Inheritance for there was nothing to be done or any thing to be paid out of it 2. The next Clause is Viz. If it please God to take away my Son then I give my Estate to my four Daughters share and share alike Now these words cannot give the Daughters a Fee-simple by any intendment whatsoever but if any word in this Clause seems to admit of such a Construction it must be the word Estate which sometimes signifies the Land it self and sometimes the Estate in the Land But here the word Estate cannot create a Fee-simple because the Testator gave his Daughters that Estate which he had given to his Son before and that was only for Lise Then follow the words share and share alike and that only makes them Tenants in Common 3. The next Clause is Viz. If it please God to take away any of my said Daughters before Marriage then I give her or their part to the rest surviving These words as they are penned can have no influence upon the Case 4. Then followeth the last Clause Viz. And if all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then I give c. These words create no Estate tail in the
Finch contra The chief Objection is the incertainty of this Custom now if a Custom as incertain as this hath been held good in this Court 't is a good Authority to support this Custom And as to that it was said that a Custom for a person whom a Copy holder should name to have his Land after his death and that he should pay a Fine for his admitance And if the Lord and Tenant cannot agree about the Fine that then the rest of the Tenants should assess it 1 Rol. Rep. 48. 2 Cro. 368. 4 Leon. 238. Noy 3. 2 Brownl 85. this was adjudged a good Custom by the Court of Common-Pleas and affirmed upon a Writ of Error in this Court It was the Case of Crab and Bevis cited in Warne and Sawyers Case Adjornatur Afterwards the first Iudgment was affirmed and all the Court held the Custom to be a good Custom Hacket versus Herne JVdgment was had in Debt upon a Bond against Father and Son Where the Defendants in the Action must joyn in a Writ of Error and afterwards the Father alone brought a Writ of Error and the Error assingned was that his Son was under Age but because the Son did not join in the Errors the Court ordered the Writ to be abated If a Quare impedit be brought against a Bishop and others and Iudgment be against them all they must likewise all join in a Writ of Error unless it be where the Bishop claims only as Ordinary 'T is true Rol. Abr. 929. pl. 30. this is against the Opinion of my Lord Rolls in his Abridgment who puts the Case that where a Scire Facias was brought against four Executors who pleaded plene administraverunt the Iury find Assets in the Hands of two of them and that the other eant inde sine die two bring a Writ of Error and altho' at the opening of the Case it was held that the Writ should abate for that reason because brought only by two yet he says the Iudgment was afterwards affirmed and the Writ held good But there is a difference where a Writ of Error is brought by the Plaintiffs in the original Action 5 Co. 25. a Ruddock's Case and when by the Defendants for if two Plaintiffs are barred by an erronious Iudgment and afterwards bring a Writ of Error the Release of one shall bar the other because they are both actors in a personal thing to charge another and it shall be presumed a Folly in him to join with another who might release all But where the Defendants bring a Writ of Error 't is otherwise for it being brought to discharge themselves of a Iudgment the Release of one cannot barr the other because they have not a joint Interest but a joint burthen and by Law are compelled to join in Errors Mosse versus Archer COvenant by an Assignee of an Assignee of Lands which were exchanged the Breach assigned was Breach not well assigned that a Stranger habens jus titulum did enter c. There was a Uerdict for the Plaintiff and it was now moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not shewed a sufficient breach for he sets forth the Entry of a Stranger habens jus titulum but doth not shew what Title and it may be he had a Title under the Plaintiff himself 2 Cro. 315. Hob. 35. after the Exchange made and to prove this the Case of Kirby and Hansaker was cited in point and of that Opinion was all the Court. Nota It was said in this Case that an Exchange ought to be executed by either Party in their Life-time or else it is void Taylor versus Brindley THE Original in Trespass was quare Clausum fregit Variance between the Original and Declaration where 't is no Error and the Plaintiff declared quare Clausum Domum fregit and had Iudgment in the Common-Pleas and a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and the variance between the Original and Declaration was assigned for Error and that one was not warranted by the other But Serjeant Levinz argued that because the Original was certified three Terms since 2 Cro. 674. 1 Rol. Abr. 790. n. 7. Cro. Car. 272. 18 Eliz. cap. and no Continuances between it and the Declaration therefore that could not be the Original to this Action and that the Court might for that reason intend a Verdict without an Original which is helped by the Statute of Jeofails But he argued that where the Original varies from the Declaration and is not warranted by it 't is not aided by this Statute Iudgment was affrmed DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1687. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Sawyer Attorny General Powis Sollicitor General Mathews versus Cary Pasch 3 Jac. Rot. 320. TRespass for entring of his House and taking of a Silver Tankard Where the Defendant justifies by way of excuse he must set forth the Warrant and that he took the Goods virtute Warranti The Defendant made conusance as Bayliff of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for that the place where c. was within the Iurisdiction of the Leet of the said Dean who was seised of a Court Leet which was held there such a day c. And that the Iury did present the Plaintiff being a Tallow-Chandler for melting of stinking Tallow to the annoyance of the Neighbours for which he was amerced and that the Amerciament was affered to 5 l. which not being paid the Defendant by a Mandate of the said Dean and Chapter distreined the Tankard c. The Plaintiff replied de injuria sua propria absque hoc that he did melt Tallow to the annoyance of the Neighbours c. And upon a Demurrer to this Replication it was argued this Term by Mr. Pollexfen for the Defendant and Tremaine for the Plaintiff and afterwards in Michaelmas Term 1 Will. Mariae by Mr. Bonithan and Serjeant Thompson for the Defendant It was said for the Defendant that a Presentment in a Court Leet which concerns the person as in this Case and not the Free hold 5 H. 7.3 Fitz. Bar. 271. Bro. Abr. tit Travers sans ceo pl. 183. Presentment in Court pl. 15. was not traversable and that the Amerciament was a Duty vested in the Lord for which he may distrain or bring an Action of Debt Co. Entr. 572. But on the other side it was said that if such a Presentment is not traversable the party hath no remedy 't is contrary to the Opinion of Fitzherbert in Dyer Dyer 13. b. who affimed the Law to be that it was traversable and that if upon such a Presentment a Fine should be imposed erroniously 11 Co. 42. 1 Rol. Rep. 79. it may be avoided by Plea and this agrees with the second Resolution in Godfrey 's Case 2. It was objected to the Plea that it was not good for it sets
the Fine and Non-claim the Substance of which was That Robert Basket was seized in Fee of the Lands in Question who by Will devised it to Philip Basket and others for 99 years with power to grant Estates for the payment hf the Debts and Legacies of the Testator the Remainder in Tail to John Basket his Brother but that if he gave Security to pay the said Debts and Legacies or should pay the same within a time limited that then the Trustees should assign the Term to him c. John Basket entred after the death of his Brother with the assent of the said Trustees and received the Profits and paid all the Legacies and all the Debts but 18 l. The Iury find that John had Issue a Daughter only by his first Wife after whose death he married another Woman and levied a Fine and made a Settlement in consideration of that Marriage upon himself for Life and upon his Wife for Life with divers Remainders over that he died without Issue by his second Wife who entred and five years were past without any claim c. And now the Heir at Law in the name of the Trustees brought this Action The Questions were 1. Whether the Term for 99 years thus devised to the Trustees was bound by this Fine and Nonclaim or not 2. Whether it was divested and turned to a Right at the time of the Fine levied For if it was not then the Fine could not operate upon it It was agreed that as a Disseisin is to a Freehold so is a divesting to a Term and that a Fine and Non-claim is no Barr but where the Party at the time of the levying thereof had a Will to enter and when the Estate of which 't is levyed is turned to a Right That in the Case at the Barr the Entry of John Basket was tortious because the legal Estate was still in the Trustees But if he had gained any Right by his Entry 't is only a Tenancy at Will to them for they took notice of the Devise and he entred by their consent and such a Right is not assignable and then a Fine levyed is no Barr. To prove this 9 Co. 106. Margaret Prodger's Case was cited where the the Lord granted a Copyhold to John Elizabeth and Mary for their Lives and afterwards by Deed enrolled sold the Land to John in Fee and levyed a Fine to him and his Heirs c. and five years passed without any Claim John dyed his Son entred and levyed another Fine to Trustees to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for Life the Remainder to his own right Heirs the Son died and his Wife survived who having a Freehold for Life distrained and the Husband of Elizabeth brought a Replevin It was adjudged that this Fine and Nonclaim did not barr those in Remainder becase the Bargain and Sale to John did not divest their Estate and turn it to a Right for the Lord did what he might do and John accepted what he might lawfully take who being in possession by virtue of a particular Estate for Life could not by this acceptance divest the Estate of her who had the Freehold and the Fine and Nonclaim could not do it for to what purpose should he make any Claim when he was in actual possession of the thing to be demanded And he who is so in possession need not make any Claim either to avoid a Fine or a collateral Warranty Now though at the Common Law there must be Livery and Seisin to create an Estate of Freehold 3 Co. Fermer 's Case yet any thing is sufficient to make an Estate at Will in which neither the Inheritance or the Title of the Land is concerned and therefore a Fine levyed by such a Tenant is no Barr. 'T is true Sid. 458. Freeman versus Barns if a Lease be made for an hundred years in Trust to attend the Inheritance and Cestuy que Trust continues in possession and devises to another for fifty years and levies a Fine and the five years pass without Claim he being still in possession after the first Lease made is thereby become Tenant at Will and by making the second Lease the other is divested and turned to a Right though he was not a Disseisor and so 't is barred by the Fine because the Cestuy que Trust of the term of one hundred years was also Owner of the Inheritance But in the Case at the Barr John shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of the Trustees of the Term of 99 years to prove which there are many Authorities in the Books As if Tenant at Will make a Lease for years and the Lessee enters Latch 53. 1 Leon. 121. Lit. Sect. 588. 't is not a Disseisin but at the Election of him who hath the Freehold and even in such Case if the Tenant of the Freehold should make a Grant of the Land 't is good though not made upon the Land it self for he shall not be taken to be out of possession but at his own Election 'T is like the common Case of a Mortgagee for years where the Mortgagor continues in possession twenty years afterwards and pays the Interest and in that time hath made Leases and levyed a Fine this shall not barr the Mortgagee for the Mortgagor is but Tenant at Will to him The Trustees need not make any claim in this Case because there was no transmutation of the possession so they could take no notice of the Fine 'T is true John Basket entred by their consent but still as Tenant at Will to them and the Acts done by him after his Entry will not didest this Term for though he made a Bargain and Sale of the Lands yet nothing will pass thereby but what of right ought to pass He likewise demised the Lands to Vndertenants for years but 't is not found that they entred but admitting they did enter yet that could not displace this Term for these Tenants claimed no more than for one or two years and made no pretence to the whole Term. But if by either of these Acts the Term should be divested yet still it must be at the election of those who have the Interest in it Dyer 61 62 173. The Case of * Cro. Car. 302. 1 Rol. Abr. 661. Blunden and Baugh which is grounded upon Littleton's Text Sect. 588. is an Authority to this purpose which was The Father was Tenant in Tail and his Son was Tenant at Will who made a Lease for years then both Father and Son join in a Fine to the use of the Son for Life and to Elizabeth his Wife for Life the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of the Son who died without Issue Male the Lessee being in possession made a Conveyance of the Estate by Bargain and Sale to Charles Lord Effingham who was Son and Heir of the Tenant in Tail who made a Lease to the Plaintiff who was ousted by the
Where an Averment may be made of another person so as it consists with the Condition of a Bond. in which Bond the said A. B. the elder and A. B. the younger were joyntly and severally bound in the penal Sum of 1000 l. conditioned that if the above bounden A. B. omitting the word younger do and shall forbear knowingly and wittingly to come to or write Letters unto C. the Wife of D. that then the Obligation to be void The Defendant pleaded that he did not come to or write Letters to the said C. knowingly c. The Plaintiff replied that he exhibited an Information against A. B. the younger shewing in what Term and that it was agreed between them that in consideration that he would forbear to prosecute the same the said A. B. the elder together with A. B. the younger should become bound to the Plaintiff in 1000 l. that the said A. B. the younger should not knowingly or wittingly come into the Company c. then sets forth the Bond and the Condition thereof at large and avers that A. B. in the Condition mentioned is A. B. the younger and farther that the said A. B. the younger did afterwards knowingly come into the Company c. The Defendant re-joyned and said that the Plaintiff ought not to averr that the aforesaid A. B. the younger is the person in the Condition of the said Bond c. And upon a Demurrer the Question was whether the Plaintiff was estopped by the words in the Condition to make such an Averment It was argued for the Plaintiff that he might make such an Averment which is to reduce a thing to a certainty which was very incertain before if it be not repugnant in it self nay sometimes an Averment doth reduce contradictory things to a certainty 'T is plain that A. B. the younger is bound in this Bond the Objection is that A. B. the elder being of the Name and being likewise bound that the Condition might referr to either 'T is agreed there are many Cases where a Man shall be estopped to averr against a Record but this Averment is not contradictory to any thing in the Record for it appears by the Pleadings that the Information was prosecuted against A. B. the younger and therefore he must be intended to be bound not to come to the said C. knowingly c. If an Estate should be devised to A. and the Name of the Testator omitted in the Will 2 Leon. 35. yet the Devise is good by averring of the Name and by proof that it was his intention to give it him by his Will So if the Plaintiff should claim a Title under the Grant of such a person Knight and the Iury find he was an Esquire Lit. Rep. 181 223. but that the Knight and the Esquire are both the same person this is a good Declaration 'T is usual to make an Allegation even against the express words of a Condition to shew the truth of an Agreement Cro. Car. 501. as if Debt be brought upon a Bond of 100 l. conditioned to pay 50 l. within six Months the Defendant pleaded the Statute of Vsury the Plaintiff replied that he lent the Mony for a year and alledged that by the mistake of the Scrivener the Bond was made paiable in six Months The Defendant rejoyned that it was lent for six Months only And upon a Demurrer this was adjudged to be a good Allegation though it was against the very words of the Condition which is a stronger Case than this at the Barr because the Averment consists with the Condition of the Bond. If a Man should levy a Fine and declare the Vses thereof to his Son William and he hath two Sons of that Name 4 Co. 71. 8 Co. 155. a. Dyer 146. then an Averment is made that he intended to declare the Vses to his youngest Son of that Name this Averment out of the Fine hath been adjudged good for the same reason given already which is because it standeth with the words thereof and 't is a good Issue to be tried It cannot be objected that the Bond is illegal being entred into for the not prosecuting of an Information because a Nolle prosequi was entred as to that Matter so 't is the Act of the Court. Lastly It was said that every Estoppel must be certain to every intent which cannot be in this Case for by the words of this Condition 't is incertain which of the Obligors shall be intended E contra It was argued that an Estoppel is as well intended by Law as expressed by Words that if an Averment can be taken yet this is not well because the Plaintiff hath absolutely averred that A. B. in the Condition is A. B. the younger he should have said that A. B. in the Condition is intended A. B. the younger which might have been traversed and Issue taken thereon No Iudgment was given for this Case was ended by Compromise Hoil versus Clerk In the Common-Pleas THIS was a special Verdict in Ejectment for Lands in Wetherfield A subsequent Will though not made pursuant to the Statute is a Revocation of a former in the County of Essex upon the demise of Abigail Pheasant The Iury find that one John Clark was seised in Fee of the Lands in question who by his last Will in writing bearing date the 14th day of September in the year 1666. devised the same to Benjamin Clark for Life so to his first and second Sons c. in Tayl Male and for default of such Issue then to his two Sisters for Life Remainder over c. This Will was attested by one Witness only They find that the said John Clark made another dated the sixth day of February 1672. which was 13 years after the making of his first Will and that by this last Will he revoked all former Wills and Testaments by him made They find an Endorsement on this Will written by the Testator himself in these words Viz. My Will and Testament dated the 6th of February 1679. and then published by me in the presence of three Witnesses They find that this last Will was so published and attested by three Witnesses in his presence but that it was not signed by the Testator in their presence They find that Benjamin Clark entred and devised the Lands to Mary Micklethwaite who made a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff for three years upon whom the Defendant entred This Case was argued at the Bar and in this Term at the Bench Seriatim The single Question was 29 Car. 2. cap. 3. whether this last Will not being duly executed according to the Statute is a Revocation of the first Will or not It was admitted by all that it was a good Will to pass the personal Estate but as to the point of Revocation the Court was divided Iustice Lutwitch argued that it was not a Revocation He agreed that if the last Will hath any respect to the first it must be as a
Dorothy Margery survived and is since dead The Question was whether upon this Reservation the Beast of any person being upon the Land may be distreined for an Heriot Mr. Pollexfen argued that it could not because the words in the Reservation ought to be taken very strictly and not to be carryed farther than the plain expression Where words are doubtful they have been always expounded against the Lessor Cro. Eliz. 217. 2 Roll. Abr. 448. Latch 99. as if a Lease be made for years reserving a Rent durante termino to the Lessor his Executors or Assigns the Lessor dies his Heir shall not have the Rent because 't is reserved to the Executors But here is no room for any doubt upon these words for if a Lease for years be made in which there is a Covenant that the Lessee shall pay the Rent without any other words this determines upon the death of the Lessee So where a Lease was made for 99 years if A. B. C. 2 Rol. Abr. 451. Hetley 58. Cro. Car. 314. or any of them should so long live reserving Rent to him and his Executors and also at or upon the death of either his or their best Beast in the name of an Heriot provided that if B. or C. die living A. no Heriot shall be paid after their deaths A. assigns his Term and the Beast of the Assignee was taken for an Heriot but adjudged that it could not for the words his or their shall not be carried farther than to the persons named in the Limitation The Books that affirm that a Man may seize for an Heriot Service cannot be brought as Authorities in this Case because they are all upon Tenures between Lord and Tenant and not upon particular Reservations as this is The old Books say that if a Tenant by Fealty and Heriot-Service Broke tit Heriot 2. made his Executor and died that the Lord might seize the best Beast of his Tenant in the Hands of the Executor and if he could not find any Beast then he might distrain the Executor Plo. Com. 95. and the reason of this seizure was because immediately upon the death of the Tenant a Property was vested in the Lord but it was held always unreasonable to put him to distrain when he might seise And it is now held that for Heriot-Service the Lord may either distrain or seise but then if he makes a seisure Cro. Car. 260. Jones 300. it must be the very Beast of the Tenant but if he distrain he may take any persons Cattle upon the Land So that admitting this to be Law yet it proves nothing to this matter because such Services being by Tenure shall not be extended to those which are created within time of memory upon particular reservations for by those ancient Tenures the Lords had many Priviledges which cannot be upon Reservations Besides the seisures in those Cases were by the Lords who continued so to be at the very time of the seisure but in our Case the Lease is determined by the death of the last Life so the Priviledge is lost and then it must stand upon the particular words in the Deed. Sed adjornatur into the Exchequer Chamber the Iudges being divided in Opinion Vid. 2 Sand. 165. Shipley versus Chappel Pasch 3 Jac. Rot. 404. THE Plaintiff Shipley as Administrator of Hannah his Wife Condition of two parts in the disjunctive and one part becomes impossible to be done yet the other must be performed according to the subsequent matter brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Chappel an Attorny for 140 l. The Defendant craved Dyer of the Condition which was Viz. Whereas Hannah Goddard who was Wife to the Plaintiff and Thomas Chappel of Greys-Inn in the County of Middlesex are Coparceners according to the Common-Law of one House with the Appurtenances in Sheffeild in the possession of William White and whereas the said Hannah Goddard hath paid unto Thomas Chappel the Father for the use of his Son the Sum of 72 l. in consideration that the said Thomas Chappel the Son when he attains the Age of 21 years which will be about Midsomer next do by good Conveyance in the Law at the costs and charges of the said Hannah Goddard convey his said moiety of the said House with the Appurtenances unto her and her Heirs Now the Condition of this Obligation is such That if the said Thomas Chappel the Son shall at the Age of 21 years convey his said moiety of the said House or otherwise if the said Thomas Chappel the Father his Heirs Executors or Administrators shall pay or cause to be paid the sum of 72 l. with lawful Interest for the same unto the said Hannah Goddard her Executors Administrators or Assigns that then this Obligation to be void Then he pleaded that his Son Thomas Chappel was Coparcener with Hannah Goddard as Co-heires of Elizabeth Goddard that Thomas came of Age and that before that time Hannah died without Issue The Plaintiff replied that true it is that before Thomas Chappel the Son came of Age the said Hannah died without Issue of her Body that Elizabeth Goddard before the making of the said Bond died seised in Fee of the said Messuage but that she first married with one Malm Stacy by whom she had Issue Lydia that Malm her Husband died and Elizabeth married John Goddard by whom he had Issue Hannah their only Daughter and Heir that John Goddard died and that Lydia Stacy married the Defendant Thomas Chappel by whom he had Issue Thomas Chappel his Son that Lydia died in the life-time of Elizabeth that Thomas Chappel hath not paid the 72 l. to Hannah in her life time or to John Shipley after her death The Defendant demurred and the Plaintiff joyned in Demurrer The Question was since the word Heirs in the Condition being a word of Limitation and not of any designation of the person whether the death of Hannah Goddard before Chappel the Son came of Age and who was to make the Conveyance shall excuse the Defendant from the payment of the Mony Those who argued for the Defendant 5 Co. 21. b. chiefly relied upon Laughter's Case which was viz. Laughter and Rainsford were bound that if R. after marriage with G. together with the said G. shall sell a Messuage c. if then R. do or shall in his life-time purchase for the said G. and her Heirs and Assigns Lands of as good value as the Mony by him received by the said Sale or leave her as much Mony at his decease then c. G. died R. did not purchase Lands of an equal value with that he sold and upon Demurrer it was held that where a Condition consisteth of two parts in the disjunctive and both possible at the time of the Bond made and afterwards one is become impossible by the act of God there the Obligor is not bound to perform the other part because the Condition is made for
the benefit of the Obligor and shall be taken most beneficially for him who had election either to perform the one or the other to save the penalty of the Bond. But the Council for the Plaintiff said that the whole intent of the Condition in that Case was to provide a Security for G. who died before her Husband so that no body could be hurt for the non-performance of that Condition there being no manner of necessity that any thing should be done in order to it after her decease 'T is quite otherwise in the Case at Bar for Hannah Goddard paid Mony for the House and certainly it was never intended that Chappel the Father to whom the Mony was paid should have both House and Mony If she had lived the House ought to have been conveyed to her now she is dead the Mony ought to be paid for 't is not lost by her death In Laughter's Case the person who was to do the thing was the Obligor himself but here the Father undertakes for his Son that he should convey when he came of Age or to repay the Mony so that 't is not properly a Condition in the disjunctive for 't is no more than if it had been penn'd after this manner Viz. The Father undertakes for his Son that he shall convey at the Age of 21 years if he refuse then the Father is to repay what mony he received Besides Cro. Eliz. 399. Laughter's Case is Reported by Iustice Croke and therein he cites two other Cases of Chew and Baker That of Chew was viz. A. promised B. that if C. did not appear at Westminster such a day he would pay him 20 l. The Defendant pleaded that C. died before the day and ruled to be no Plea for he ought to pay the Mony which Case is parallel to this for 't is the same in Reason and Sense That of Baker was viz. A Man was bound that A. should appear the first day in the next Term at the Star-Chamber or he would pay 20 l. A. died before the day so as by the act of God he could not appear yet it was adjudged that the Mony must be paid The like Case was adjudged between Huntley and Allen in the Common-Pleas in my Lord Hale 's time 't is entred Pasch 1658. Rot. 1277. The Rule in Laughter's Case cannot be denied viz. where the Condition is in the disjunctive consisting of two parts and one becomes impossible by the act of God the Obligor is not bound to perform the other but then it must be governed by the subsequent matter As in Greningham's Case Cro. Eliz. 396. Moor 395. viz. Debt upon Bond conditioned that if the Defendant delivered three Bonds to the Plaintiff wherein he was bound to the Defendant or a Release of them as should be advised by the Plaintiff's Council before such a day then c. The Defendant pleaded that neither the Plaintiff or his Council did advise a Release before the day c. and upon Demurrer it was adjudged that the Plea was good for the Defendant had an election to deliver or release as the Plaintiff should devise which if he will not do the Defendant is discharged by the neglect of the Plaintiff for the Defendant being at his choice to perform the one thing or the other 't is not reason that the Plaintiff should compel him to perform one thing only It was argued on the other side E contra that this is a disjunctive condition and not only an undertaking of the Father for the Son Where a Condition is to perform two things and if either be done no Action will lye such Condition is in the disjunctive as in this Case if the Son had conveyed or the Father repaid the Mony By the Condition of this Bond the Father did as much undertake for his Son as Laughter did for Rainsford viz. to convey the House or pay the Mony to Hannah Goddard now the last part of the Condition being discharged by the Act of God he is acquitted of the other Suppose the Condition had been single to convey to Hannah Goddard if she die the Bond is void There is an Authority to this purpose Cro. Eliz. 380. Reported by Iustice Croke which was an Action of Debt was brought by the Plaintiff as Executor c. The Condition of the Bond was for the yearly payment of a Sum of Mony twice in a year viz. at Michaelmas and Lady day during the Life of a Lady or within 30 days after either of the said Feasts the Lady died after one of the Feasts but within the 30 days it was adjudged that by her death that payment which was due at the Feast preceding was discharged In the Case at Bar the Condition is that if the Son should not convey when of Age or otherwise if the Defendant re-pay c. Now certainly these words or otherwise make the Condition disjunctive 'T is like the common Case of Bail entred into in this Court whereby the Parties undertake that the Defendant shall render himself to Prison if condemned in the Action or they shall pay the condemnation mony this is a disjunctive condition and if the Defendant dye before the return of the second Sci. Fa. the Bail are discharged Iustice Allibon said Roll. Abr. tit condition 450. pl. 4. that if a condition be to make an Assurance of Land to the Obligee and his Heirs and the Obligee dies before the Assurance made yet it shall be made to the Heir for this copulative is a disjunctive Sed Adjornatur Franshaw versus Bradshaw Mich. 1 Jac. Rot. 45. DEbt upon a Iudgment obtained in this Court 34 Car. 2. Matter of Form not amendable upon Demurrer setting forth the said Iudgment c. Sicut per Recordum processum inde remanen ' in eadem Curia nuper Domini Regis coram ipso Rege apud Westmonast plenius liquet apparet And upon a Demurrer to the Declaration this Objection was made viz. It doth not appear that the Iudgment was in force or where the Reeord was at the time of this Action brought he should have declared Coram ipso nuper Rege apud Westm sed jam coram Domino Rege nunc residen ' c. plenius liquet c. The Court held it was but matter of form but being upon a Demurrer it was not amendable Letchmere versus Thorowgood al' Vic. London TRespass by the Assignees of Commissioners of Bankrupcy for taking of their Goods When a Judgment is once executed the Goods are in Custodia Legis and shall not be taken away by an Exchequer Process or Assignment of Commissioners of Bankrupts upon not Guilty pleaded the Iury find a special Verdict the substance of which was viz. one Toplady a Vintner on the 28th of April became a Bankrupt against whom a Iudgment was formerly obtained the Iudgment Creditor sued out a Fi. Fa. and the Sheriffs of London by virtue thereof did
c. yet one Commoner may bring an Action against his Fellow besides in this Case they are not Tenants in Common for every Man is seized severally of his Freehold Adjornatur Ayres versus Huntington AScire Facias was brought upon a Recognizance of 1000 l. Amendment of the word Recuperatio for Recognitio after a Demurrer to shew cause quare the Plaintiff should not have Execution de praedictis mille libris recognitis juxta formam Recuperationis where it should have been Recognitionis praed And upon a Demurrer it was held that the words juxta formam Recuperationis were Surplusage The Record was amended and a Rule that the Defendant should plead over Mather and others versus Mills THE Defendant entred into a Bond to acquir Non damnificatus generally where 't is a good Plea discharge and save harmless a Parish from a Bastard Child Debt was brought upon this Bond and upon Non damnificatus generally pleaded the Plaintiff demurred and Tremain held the Demurrer to be good for if the Condition had been only to save harmless c. then the Plea had been good but 't is likewise to acquit and discharge c. and in such Case Non damnificatus generally is no good Plea 1 Leon. 71. because he should have shewed how he did acquit and discharge the Parish and not answer the Damnification only E contra E contra 2 Co. 3. 2 Cro. 363 364 2 Sand. 83 84. It was argued that if the Defendnat had pleaded that he kept harmless and discharged the Parish such Plea had not been good unless he had shewed how c. because 't is in the affirmative but here 't is in the negative viz. that the Parish was not dampnified and they should have shewed a Breach for though in strictness this Plea doth not answer the Condition of the Bond yet it doth not appear upon the whole Record that the Plaintiff was dampnified and if so then he hath no cause of Action Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Memorandum That on the 4th day of November last past the Prince of Orange landed here with an Army and by reason of the Abdication of the Government by King James and the Posture of Affairs there was no Hillary-Term kept Coram Johanne Holt Mil ' Capital ' Justic Gulielmo Dolben Mil ' Justiciar Gulielmo Gregory Mil ' Justiciar Egidio Eyre Mil ' Justiciar Kellow versus Rowden Trin. 1 Willielmi Mariae Rotulo 796. IN Debt by Walter Kellow Where the Reversion in Fee is expectant upon an Estate Tail and that being spent it descends upon a collateral Heir he must be sued as Heir to him who was last actually seized of the Fee without naming the intermediate Remainders Executor of Edward Kellow against Richard Rowden The Case was this viz. John Rowden had Issue two Sons John and Richard John the Father being seized in Fee of Lands c. made a Settlement to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to John his eldest Son in Tail Male the Remainder to his own right Heirs The Father died the Reversion descended to John the Son who also died leaving Issue John his Son who died without Issue so that the Estate Tail was spent Richard the second Son of John the elder entred and an Action of Debt was brought against him as Son and Heir of John the Father upon a Bond of 120 l. entred into by his Father and this Action was brought against him without naming the intermediate Heirs viz. his Brother and Nephew The Defendant pleaded Quod ipse de debito praed ut filius haeres praed Johannis Rowden Patris sui virtute scripti obligatorii praed onerari non debet quia protestando quod scriptum obligatorium praed non est factum praed Johannis Rowden pro placito idem Richardus dicit quod ipse non habet aliquas terras seu tenementa per discensum haereditarium de praed Johanne Rowden patre suo in feodo simplici nec habuit die exhibitionis billae praed Walteri praed nec unquam postea hoc parat est ' verificare unde pet judicium si ipse ut filius haeres praed Johannis Rowden patris sui virtute scripti praed onerari debeat c. The Plaintiff replied that the Defendant die Exhibitionis billae praed habuit diversas terras tenementa per discensum haereditarium a praed Johanne Rowden patre suo in feodo simplici c. Vpon this pleading they were at Issue at the Assises in Wiltshire and the Iury found a special Verdict viz. that John Rowden the Father of Richard now the Defendant was seized in Fee of a Messuage and 20 Acres of Land in Bramshaw in the said County and being so seised had Issue John Rowden his eldest Son and the Defendant Richard that on the 22th of Januarii 18 Car. I. John the elder did settle the Premisses upon himself for Life Remainder ut supra c. That after the death of the Father John his eldest Son entred and was possessed in Fee-Tail and was likewise entituled to the Reversion in Fee and died in the 14th year of King Charles the II. that the Lands did descend to another John his only Son who died 35th Car. II. without Issue whereupon the Lands descended to the Defendant as Heir of the last mentionted John who entred before this Action brought and was seised in Fee c. But whether upon the whole matter the Defendant hath any Lands by by descent from John Rowden in Fee-simple the Iury do not know c. The Council on both sides did agree that this Land was chargable with the Debt but the Question was whether the Issue was found for the Defendant in regard the Plaintiff did not name the intermediate Heirs It was argued that the Defendant ought to be sued as immediate Heir to his Father and not to his Nephew for whoever claims by descent must claim from him who was last actually seised of the Freehold and Inheritance this is the express Doctrine of my Lord Coke in his first Institutes and if so Co. Lit. 11. the Defendant must be charged as he claims Seisin is a material thing in our Law for if I am to make a Title in a real Action I must lay an actual seisin in every Man 8 E. 3.13 Bro. Assise 6. F.N. B. 212. F. 't is so in Formedons in Descender and Remainder in both which you are to run through the whole Pedegree But none can be Filius Haeres but to him who was last actually seised of the Fee-simple and therefore the Brother being Tenant in Tail and his Son the Issue in Tail in this Case they were never seised of the Fee 1 Inst 14. b. for that was expectant upon the Estate Tail which being spent then John the Father was last seised thereof and
not avoid such Acts done by their Ancestors as well as Privies in Blood because the Incapacity of the Grantor goes to both Those who argued on the other side held that the Acts of Infants and persons non compos were not void in themselves but only voidable E contra 'T is true some Deeds made by an Infant are void not meerly Cro. Car. 502. because executed by him for some are good and those only are void which are made to his prejudice Such also are void which give Authority to a third person to do an Act as if an Infant enter into a Bond Perk. Sect. 139. March 141. and give it to a Stranger to deliver to the Obligee when he shall attain his full Age this is void because the person derived his Authority from an Infant who by reason of his Nonage could not give such a Power but if the Infant himself had delivered the Bond to the Obligee it had been only voidable Lit. Sect. 259. The Father of the Demandant was an Infant when he sold his Estate 46 E. 3.34 his Son brought the Writ Dum fuit infra-aetatem against the Alienee and it was held good which would not have been allowed if the Grant had been void All the old Authorities prove that the Acts of Infants and Ideots are not void but voidable If an Infant is bound in an Obligation 't is not void Cro. Eliz. 127. 2 Inst 483. for he may agree to it when of Age he cannot plead Non est factum and he may refuse to plead his Infancy If he be entituled to a Term for years Cro. Eliz. 126. Cro. Car. 502. and maketh a Surrender by the acceptance of a new Lease 't is good if 't is for his advantage either by the lessening of the Rent or the encreasing of the Term but if he hath no benefit by it 't is voidable only So he may purchase Lands because the Law intends it for his benefit and he can receive no damage by such a Purchase for he may either perfect or avoid it at his full Age which shews that such Acts are not voidable ab intio but only voidable as the Case shall require The Statute of 23 H. 6. Enacts 23 H. 6. c. 10. That Sheriffs shall take no Bonds upon an Arrest but for the Appearance of the Party and to themselves only and that a Bond otherwise taken colore officii shall be void that is not in its self but by pleading the Statute for 't is not to be avoided by pleading Non est factum So upon the Statute of Additions 1 H. 5. c. 5. 3 Co. 59. a. where a Man is outlawed without the addition of his condition or place of abode in the original Writ such Outlawry shall be void not of its self but it may be avoided by Writ of Error In like manner there are many Authorities to prove that the Acts of a person non compos are not void but voidable So is the first Resolution in Beverly 's Case that a Deed or Feoffment made by him is to be avoided by any other person but not by himself Thus stood the Law in the time of E. 35 Ass pl. 10. 3. For in an Assize the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had released to him by Deed who replied that at the time of the making of the Deed he was Non compos The Court of Common Pleas seemed then to be of Opinion that the Replication was not good which shews that the Deed in its self was not void 't is true the Assize was then adjourned because that Opinion was directly against the Register which is that the Writ of Dum non fuit compos may be brought by the person himself notwithstanding his own Alienation But this hath since been denied to be Law Cro. Eliz. 398. for in Debt upon Bond the Defendant pleaded that he was Non compos and upon a Demurrer the Plea was over-ruled And of this Opinion was Sir William Herle Chief Iustice of the Common Pleas in 5 E. 5 E. 3.70 3. which was long before the Book of Assize So the Law continued till the Reign of H. 35 H. 6. f. 42. 6. viz. that the person himself could not avoid his own Feoffment either by Entry or Action The Writs de Ideota inquirendo and Dum non fuit compos import the same thing viz. that Acts done by them are not void for the first recites that the Ideot alienavit and the other that the Lunatick * Dimisit is there intended where the Estate is conveyed by Livery or for life and Alienavit is a Conveiance by Feoffment 17 E. 2. Stamf. Praerog 34. Dimisit terras Now if their Acts had been void ab initio then they cannot be supposed either to alien or lease their Lands which shews that such Acts are only voidable And as a farther Argument to enforce this the Statute de Praerogativa Regis was mentioned which gives the Custody of the Ideots Lands to the King during their Lives provided that afterwards it be given to their right Heirs ita quod nullatenus per eofdem fatuos alienetur Now to what purpose were these Words added if such an Alienation was void in it self Besides the Cases of Ideots mentioned on the other side and Lunaticks are not parellel for an Ideot hath a different incapacity from one Non compos 't is perpetual in an Ideot and for that reason the Law gives the King an Interest in him But a person non compos may recover his Senses Co. Lit. 2. b. Fitz. tit Issue 53. he may purchase Lands may grant a Rent-charge out of his Estate and shall not plead his insanity to defeat his own act If therefore this Surrender was not void at the time of the execution thereof but voidable only during the Life of the Surrenderor by office found then the Question cannot properly be whether the Lessor of the Plaintiff shall avoid it for that would be to revest the Estate in some body but the Surrender was good and the Estate for Life was utterly determined so that nothing being left to support the contingent Remainders those are also destroied And to prove this Chudleigh 's Case was relied on which was Co. 120. Sir R. C. was seised in Fee of the Manor of Hescot in Devon and having Issue Christopher and three other Sons made a Feoffment to the use of himself and his Heirs on the Body of Mary then the Wife of Mr. Carew to be begotten and for default of such Issue then to the use of his last Will c. for ten years and after the Expiration of that Term then to his Feoffees and their Heirs during the Life of Christopher Remainder to the Issue Male of Christopher in Tail with like Remainder to his other Sons Remainder to his own right Heirs He died without Issue by Mrs. Carew But before Christopher had any Son born the
said Feoffees made a Feoffment of the Land in Fee without any consideration afterwards Christopher had Issue two Sons Now the Vses limited by the Feoffment of Sir R. C. being only contingent to the Sons of Christopher and they not being born when the second Feoffment was made to their Father the Question now was whether they shall be destroied by that Feoffment before the Sons had a Being in Nature or whether they shall arise out of the Estate of the Feoffees after their Births And it was adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber that the last Feoffment had divested all the precedent Estates and likewise the Vses whilst they were contingent and before they had an existence and that if the Estate for Life which Christopher had in those Lands had been determined by his death before the birth of any Son the future Remainder had been void because it did not vest whilst the particular Estate had a being or eo instanti that it determined So in this Case Mr. Leach cannot have any future Right of Entry for he was not born when the Surrender was made so that the contingency is for ever gone Suppose a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife and to the Heirs of the Survivor The Husband afterwards makes another Feoffment of the same Lands Cro. Car. 102. and dies and the Wife enters the Fee shall not vest in her by this Entry for she had no right the Husband has destroyed the contingent use by the last Feoffment so that it could not accrew to her at the time of his death Nay tho' the particular Estate in some Cases may revive yet if the contingency be once destroyed it shall never arise again As where the Testator being seized in Fee of Houses 2 Sand. 380. devised the inheritance thereof to such Son his Wife should have after her Life if she baptized him by his Christian and Sir-Name and if such Son dye before he attain the Age of 21 years then to the right Heirs of the Devisor He died without Issue the Widow married again then the Brother and Heir of the Testator before the birth of any Son conveyed the Houses thus Viz. To the Husband and Wife and to their Heirs and levied a Fine to those uses Afterwards she had a Son baptised by the Testator's Christian and Sir-Name Then the Husband and Wife sold the Houses to one Weston and his Heirs and levied a Fine to those Vses It was adjudged that by the Conveyance of the Reversion by the Brother and Heir of the Testator to the Baron and Feme before the Birth of the Son her Estate for Life was merged and tho' by reason of her Coverture she might waive the Joint-tenancy 2 Roll. Abr. 796. Wigg versus Villiers and reassume the Estate for Life yet that being once merged the contingent Remainders are all destroied Curia Cro. Car. 502. The Grants of Infants and of persons non compos are parallel both in Law and Reason and there are express Authorities that a Surrender made by an Infant is void therefore this Surrender by a person non compos is likewise void If an Infant grants a Rent-charge out of his Estate 't is not voidable but ipso facto void for if the Grantee should distrain for the Rent the Infant may have an Action of Trespass against him In all these Cases which have been cited where 't is held that the Deeds of Infants are not void but voidable the meaning is that non est factum cannot be pleaded because they have the form though not the Operations of Deeds and therefore are not void upon that account without shewing some special matter to make them of no efficacy Therefore if an Infant maketh a Letter of Attorny though 't is void in it self yet it shall not be avoided by pleading non est factum but by shewing his Infancy Some have endeavoured to distinguish between a Deed which giveth only authority to do a thing and such which conveys an interest by the delivery of the Deed it self that the first is void and the other voidable But the reason is the same to make them both void only where a Feoffment is made by an Infant 't is voidable because of the solemnity of the Conveyance Now if Simon Leach had made a Feoffment in Fee there had still remained in him such a Right which would have supported this Remainder in Contingency This Surrender is therefore void and all persons may take advantage of it Afterwards a Writ of Error was brought to reverse this Iudgment in the House of Lords but it was affirmed Cases Adj. 150. Hall versus Wybank THE Statute of Limitations is Statute of Limitations whether it extendeth to the Defendant being beyond Sea six years 21 Jac. cap. 16. that if any person be entituled to an Action and shall be an Infant Feme Covert Imprisoned or beyond Sea that then he shall bring the Action at full Age Discovert of saue Memory at large and returned from beyond Sea The Plaintiff brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit to which the Defendant pleaded non assumpsit infra sex Annos The Plaintiff replied that the Defendant was all that time beyond Sea so that he could not prosecute any Writ against him c. And upon a Demurrer Serjeant Tremaine argued that the Plaintiff was not barred by the Statute which was made to prevent Suits by limiting personal Actions to be brought within a certain time and it cannot be extended in favour of the Defendant who was a Debtor and beyond Sea because 't is incertain whether he will return or not and therefore there is no occasion to begin a Suit till his return 'T is true the Plaintiff may file an Original and Outlaw the Defendant and so seise his Estate but no Man is compelled by Law to do an act which is fruitless when 't is done and such this would be for if the Plaintiff should file an Original 't is probable the Defendant may never return and then if the Debt was 1000 l. or upwards he would be at a great Expence to no purpose or if the Party should return he may reverse it by Error 'T is a new way invented for the payment of Debts for if the Debtors go beyond Sea and stay there six years their Debts would by this means be all paid The words of the Statute do not extend to this Case for the Proviso is That if the Plaintiff be beyond Sea when the cause of Action doth accrew Cro. Car. 246. 333. that then he have shall liberty to continue it at his return yet 't is within the equity of Law for him to bring his Action when the Defendant returns who cannot be sued 'till then That Statutes have been expounded according to Equity is not now a new Position 2 Roll. Rep. 318. for Constructions have been made according to the sense and meaning and not according to the Letter of many Statutes
that at the Common Law a Man might exercise what Trade he would therefore this Statute is penned in the Negative to prevent many inconveniences which happened before the making of this Law Some Authorities there are where Informations have been brought upon this Statute Cro. Car. 347. 1 Sand. 312. and the Defendants have pleaded the the Custom of London for a Man Educated in one Trade to exercise another and upon Demurrer such Pleas have been over-ruled but reason in this Case is the best Authority Iourny-men who work for Hire cannot be within the meaning of this Statute but the Defendant by employing such had an influence upon the Trade and so 't is found viz. That he provided Materials and paid the Workmen and therefore he and not the Master workman who is but a Iourny-man is the person who did exercise the Trade not being an Apprentice the management was for his Profit the Workmen had no more but their Wages and it would be very mischievous if the Statute should be otherwise construed A Widow shall not exercise her Husbands Trade Hutt 132. unless she is enabled by the Custom of the place and possibly she might live so long with him as to be very skilful in it but the Act being penned in the Negative must have a large construction and therefore an Vsage against it will not take away its force Paying the Wages is as much as using the Trade himself 't is properly his driving the Trade by the Hands and Labour of his Servants 1 Jac. 1. c. 22. And it seems plain by the Statute of 1 Jac. 1. that this may be done for that Statute Enacts that no person using the Mystery of Tanning Leather by himself or any other person shall exercise the Craft of a Shoe-Maker c. which shews that the Trade may be carried on by Servants and Workmen A Goldsmith never makes his own Plate he only provides Materials for the Workmen but yet he is a Trader within the Statute because he makes profit of the Plate An Inn-keeper who sells Beer Bread c. in his House is not within this Statute because 't is part of his Trade to provide such things for his Guests but if he sells any quantities out of Doors 2 Bulst 187. he is then within the reach of this Law which ought to have a very beneficial construction because 't is made to maintain skilful Men in Trades which is for the publick good of Mankind 2. 'T is plain that he who useth one Trade cannot exercise another therefore a Coach-maker shall not make his own Whéels if he doth 't is exercising the Trade of a Wheel-right and so of the Iron and Leather and the other Materials which make up a Coach In Mr. Noy 133. Hunter versus Moon Attorney Noy 's Reports there is a Case of an Information brought upon this Statute against the Defendant being a Felt-maker for dying of his own Hatts and it was adjudged for him that 't is part of his Trade but this is but a single Authority and many have been against it since that time At the Assises in Cambridge the like Information was tryed against a Comb-maker for exercisng the Trade of a Horner it was insisted on that it was part of his Trade for he fitted the Horn for his use in making of Combs but there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff for it was held to be an exercising of the Trade of an Horner and the Council for the Defendant who were learned Men did acquiesce under that Iudgment He who is a Servant who undergoes no hazard but is to have a certain reward for his labour doth not exercise a Trade but 't is the Master who emploies him who hath all the Profit and who in this Case sells at the same rate as if he paid the Clothworker The Statute saith That none who hath not served as an Apprentice in any Mystery c. shall use the same c. Now he who employs Men in his House useth the Trade c. For suppose a Merchant should hire Iourny-men Shoemakers to work in his House for the Plantations this can be no other thing than the exercising of the Trade of a Shoemaker Private usage is not within the meaning of this Law but if what is done be for profit and gain and not confined to a particular Family 't is an exercising of a Trade within the intention of this Statute If the Defendant had sold these Cloths in England he had been a Draper and having exported them he is a Merchant Wherefore for these Reasons Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But Iustice Dolbin was of another Opinion he said that no encouragement was ever given to Prosecutions upon this Statute and that it would be for the common good if it was repealed for no greater punishment can be to the Seller than to expose Goods to Sale ill wrought for by such means he will never sell more In this Case there is no inconvenience to the Company of Clothworkers because that Trade is a manual Occupation for hire the Master Workman is the person who useth the Trade and the Defendant hath done nothing but what is the proper work of a Merchant in his own House which cannot be a publick use of the Trade The intent of the making of this Statute was to prevent Idleness and that there might be generally a good Manufacture Now the Defendant hath well answered both these ends for he hath employed Men in the working and not only so but such Men who were bound Apprentices and served seven years in that very Trade such who could work well and to whom he gave good Wages 'T is the interest of a Merchant that his Cloth be well wrought but the Clothworker careth not how 't is done so he hath his Wages and by this care and industry of the Defendant that Trade which was almost lost abroad is now come into Reputation again Bradburn versus Kennerdale Mich. 4 Jac. Rot. 640. ERror to reverse a Iudgment in an inferior Court at Chester in Replevin for the taking of a Cow Replication whether good without a Traverse The Defendant made Cognizance as Bailiff to Sir Peter Warburton setting forth that before the taking c. Sir Peter was seised in Fee of the Mannor of Arkey of which the locus in quo was parcel and for that the Cow was there Damage Feasant he took it c. The Plaintiff in barr to the Avowry confesseth That Sir Peter Warburton was seised in Fee c. but that before that time Sir George Warburton his Father was seised of the said Mannor and likewise of one Mesuage in Fee c. and being so seised made a Lease thereof for three Lives viz. for the Life of G. H. the Father and for the Lives of his two Sons George and John alterius eorum diutius viventis that one of them was dead and that the other entred and was seised as
intestate leaving one Son an Infant Administration was granted durante minore aetate he died before 17. whether Administration de bonis non of the Father shall be granted to the next of Kin of him or his Son 61 62 7. Whether an Interest is vested in an Infant where Administration is granted durante minore aetate so that if he die before 17. it goes to his Executor 61 8. Before the Statute of Distribution if there was but one Child he had a right of Administration but it was only personal and if he died before it was granted to him by the Court it would not go to his Executor 62 9. Husband hath a right of Administration to the Goods of the Wife because the Marriage is quasi a Gift in Law 64 10. If Administration had been granted to a Stranger before the Statute of Distributions and no Appeal within fourteen days he who had right though beyond Sea was barred 64 11. Husband and Wife Administratrix to her first Husband recover in Debt the Wife died and the Husband brought a Scire Facias to have Execution it will not lie by him alone because it was a Demand by the Wife as Administratrix in auter droit ibid. 12. Judgment was had in Somersetshire the Plaintiff died intestate Administration is committed by an inferior Diocess 't is void because the Entry of the Judgment in Middlesex where the Records are kept made him have bona notabilia in several Diocesses and so Administration ought to be granted in the Prerogative 324 13. If the Intestate hath two Sons and no Wife each have a Moiety of the personal Estate if but one an interest is vested in him 59 14. At Common Law none had a Right to an Intestate's Estate but the Ordinary was to distribute it to Pious Uses ibid. Admiral and Admiralty There was a Sentence in the Admiralty for taking of a Ship and afterwards Trover was brought for taking of the same Ship whether it lies or not 194 2. Pawning of a Ship for Necessaries at Land and a Libel was exhibited in the Admiralty whether good or not 244 3. Where things arising upon Lands may be sued for in the Admiralty 245 Addition See Indictment Where it makes a thing certain as an Ejectment de Tenemento is incertain but with the addition vocat ' the Black Swan 't is made certain 238 Admittance See Baron and Feme 9. A Custom cannot warrant an incertain Fine upon an Admittance to a Copyhold 133 2. The Lord may refuse to admit without a tender of the Fine where 't is certain ibid. 3. Where 't is incertain the Lord is to admit first and then to set the Fine ibid. 4. Custom that upon every Admission the Tenant should pay a years value of the Land as it was worth tempore admissionis t is good 132 5. For a Fine upon an Admission an Action of Debt will lye for though it favours of the realty yet 't is a certain duty 230 6. Before Admittance the Estate is in the Surrenderor and he shall have an Action of Trespass against any person who enters before another is admitted 226 7. Before an Admittance the Surrendree cannot enter but by special Custom to warrant it 225 Affidavit See Action on the Case for a Wrong 4. See Baron and Feme 11. Infant 21. Agreement and Disagreement Whether assent is necessary to a Surrender it being a Conveyance at the Common Law 't is not necessary in Devises or in any Conveyances directed by particular Statutes or by Custom 298 2. Whether the Estate shall be in the Surrendree immediately upon the execution of the Deed if he doth not shew some disassent to it 300 3. Agreement is not so much necessary to perfect a Conveyance as a Disagreement is to make it void ibid. 4. A Feoffment to three and Livery is made to one the Estate is in all till disagreement 301 Alien Leases made to Alien Artificers are void by the Statute of 32 H. 8. This Statute was pleaded by an Alien who was a Vintner and held to be no Artificer 94 Amendment See Mistrial Costs 2. 1. Of the Distringas by the Roll after a Verdict the Day and Place of Assizes being left out 78 2. In matters of Form the Court have sent for a Coroner to amend his Inquisition 101 3. Of a Mis-entry of a Writ of Enquiry without paying of Costs 113 4. Return to an Homine Replegiando amended by Rule of Court 120 5. A Riot was laid to be committed after the Indictment it was amended being only a Misprision of the Clerk 167 6. Where matter of Form is cured by a Verdict but 't is not amendable upon a Demurrer 235 7. Scire Facias upon a Recognizance to have Execution for 1000 l. juxta formam Recuperationis it should have been recognitionis amended after a Demurrer 251 Amerciament See Court 3. 1. Differs from a Fine for that is the act of the Court but an Amerciament is the act of the Jury 138 2. It need not be to a Sum certain for that may be affered 138 3. A Bailiff of a Liberty cannot distrein for an Amerciament Virtute officii but he ought to set forth the taking Virtute Warranti ibid. Appeal Against three for a Murder the Count was that O. gave the wound of which the person died the Jury found that L. gave the wound and that O. and M. were assisting this varies from the Count and yet held good 121 2. The Wound was given in one County and the Death ensued in another and the Party was Tryed where the Wound was given and held good ibid. 3. At Common Law it was at the Election of the Appellant to bring the Appeal in either County and the Tryal to be by a Jury of both but now it may be brought in the County where the Party died 122 4. Whether Auter foitz Convict of Man-Slaughter is a good Plea to an Appeal of Murder 156 157 5. If a Woman be slain her next of Kin shall maintain an Appeal 157 6. How many things are required by the Statute of Gloucester to be alledged in an Appeal of Murder 158 7. The Appellee pleaded in Abatement but did not plead over to the Felony whether good or not 267 8. Where the Appellee must plead in propria persona and where per Attornatum 268 Apportionment Where a Contract under Hand and Seal for a Sum certain shall not be apportioned in an Action pro Rata as if it be for a Years Service the Plaintiff must serve a Year and aver it tho' the Contract is executory 153 2. But if a Promise is for a Years Board an Action may be brought for three Quarters of a Year for if there is a Variance between the Agreement and the Declaration 't is for the benefit of the Defendant 154 Apprentice Whether Justices of Peace have any power to compel men to take poor Children Apprentices since the Statute gives power to Church-wardens to raise
certain or 't is not good 134 4. Must be taken strictly when it goes to the destruction of an Estate 224 5. A Custom that every Copyholder who leases his Land shall forfeit it doth not bind an Infant 229 6. Amongst Merchants where it must be particularly set forth 226 7. It must be certain and therefore where it was laid for an Infant to sell his Land when he can measure an Ell of Cloth 't is void for the incertainty 290 8. To have solam separalem pasturam hath been held good 291 9. Prescription must have a lawful commencement but 't is sufficient for a Custom to be certain and reasonable 292 10. Whether a Custom likewise ought to have a lawful commencement 293 D. Damages See Ejectment 3. Ioint Action 2. Trespass 2. Baron and Feme brought an Action for words spoken of the Wife and concluded ad damnum ipsorum 't is good for if she survive the Damages will go to her 120 Det See Admittance 5. Assignment 1. Iudgment 1. Quantum meruit Where 't is brought upon a Specialty for less than the whole Sum it must be shewed how the other was discharged 41 2. Whether it lies for a Fine upon an admission to a Copyhold Estate for it doth not arise upon any Contract 240 3. There must be a personal Contract or a Contract implyed by Law to maintain an Action of Debt ibid. Deceit See Action on the Case Deputy See Office 6 7 9. Devise See Tail Where it shall not be extended by implication 82 2. Where the word Estate passeth a Fee where not 45 105. 3. I give All to my Mother passeth only an Estate for Life for the Particle All is a Relative without a Substantive 32 4. To A. and the Testator's Name is omitted in the Will yet 't is good by averring his Name and proving his Intention to devise it 217 5. The Testator after several Specifick Legacies and Devises of Lands gave all the rest and remaining part of his Estate c. by those Words the Reversion in Fee passed 228 6. By the Devise of an Hereditament the Reversion in Fee passeth 229 Disseisin See Election 1. Interest 2. The Son Purchased in Fee and was disseised by his Father who made a Feoffment with Warranty the Son is bound for ever 91 2. Lessor made a Lease for Life and died his Son suffered a Common Recovery this is a Disseisin ibid. 3. Where an Estate for Life or years cannot be gained by a Disseisin ibid. 4. A wrongful Entry is never satisfied with any particular Estate nor can gain any thing but a Fee-simple 92 Distribution Before the Statute if there was but one Child he had a right of Administration but it was only personal so that if he died before Administration his Executor could not have it 62 E. Ejectment THE Demise was laid to be the 12th of Junii habendum a praed duodecimo die Junii which must be the 13th day by vertue whereof he entred and that the Defendant Postea eod 12 die Junii did Eject him which must be before the Plaintiff had any Title for his Lease commenced on the 13th day not good 199 2. De uno Messuagio sive Tenemento not good because the word Tenementum is of an incertain signification but with this addition vocat ' the Black Swan 't is good 238 3. If the Term should expire pending the Suit the Plaintiff may proceed for his Damages for though the Action is expired quoad the possession yet it continues for the Damages 249 Election Where the Cause of Action ariseth in two places the Plaintiff may choose to try it where he pleases 165 2. Tenant at Will made a Lease for years the Lessee entreth this is no disseisin but at the Election of him who had the Interest in it 197 Entry In Feoffments Partitions and Exchanges which are Conveyances at the Common Law no Estate is changed until actual Entry 297 2. Lease for years not good without Entry 297 3. Tenant for Life Remainder in Tail Male levied a Fine and made a Feoffment having but one Son then born and afterwards had another Son the eldest died without Issue the Contingent Remainder to the second was not destroy'd by this Feoffment for it was preserved by the right of Entry which his elder Brother had at the time of the Feoffment made 305 Escape Debt upon an Escape would not lie at the Common Law against the Goaler it was given by the Statute of W. 2. 145 2. The superior Officer is liable to the voluntary Escapes suffered by his Deputy unless the Deputation is for life 146 3. If an Escape is by negligence it must be particularly found 151 4. A person was in Execution upon an erroneous Judgment and escaped and Judgment and Execution was had against the Gaoler and then the first Judgment was reversed yet that against the Gaoler shall stand 325 Evidence See Witness An Affidavit made in Chancery shall not be read as Evidence but only as a Letter unless Oath is made by a Witness that he was present when it was taken before the Master 36 2. What shall be Evidence of a fraudulent Settlement ibid. 3. An Answer of a Guardian in Chancery shall not be read as Evidence to conclude an Infant 259 4. Whether the return of the Commissioners in a Chancery Cause that the person made Oath before them is sufficient Evidence to convict of Perjury 116 5. Whether a true Copy of an Affidavit made before the Chief Justice is sufficient to convict the person for the like Offence 117 6. A Verdict may be given in Evidence between the same Parties but not where there are different persons unless they are all united in the same interest 142 7. Conviction for having two Wives shall not be given in Evidence to prove the unlawfulness of a Marriage but the Writ must go to the Bishop because at Law one Jury may find it no Marriage and another otherwise 164 Exchange Ought to be executed by each Party in their Life time otherwise 't is void 135 Excommunication Stat. 5 Eliz. For not coming to the Parish Church the Penalties shall not incurr if the person hears Divine Service in any other Church 42 2. The Causes are enumerated in the Statute which must be contained in the Significavit otherwise the Penalties are not to incurr 89 Executor See Grants Notice 5. Whether an Executor de son tort can have any interest in a Term for years 91 93 2. An Executor may sell the Goods before Probate 92 3. May pay Debt upon a simple Contract before a Bond of which he had no notice 115 4. Whether an Action of Debt will lie against an Executor upon a Mutuatus 5. By what words he hath an Authority only without an Interest in the thing devised 209 210 6. He had both Goods of his Testator and of his own and granted omnia bona sua that which he hath as Executor will not pass for
Demise and the Word Assignes is in the Deed yet they are not bound if they have no Estate so that 't is not the naming of them but by reason of the Estate in the Land they are made chargeable No Iudgment is entred upon the Roll. FINIS ERRATA FOlio 88. Line 13. for Defendant read Plaintiff f. 106. l. 26. for no r. an f. 119. l. 7. after must be r. Error f. 147. l. 13 18 38. for coram r. quorum f. 189. l. 23. for reasonable r. unreasonable f. 196. l. 28. for devises r. demises f. 199. l. 1. for 23. r. 13. f. 201. l. 14. before merged r. not f. 218. l. 17. for 1672. r. 1679. f. 203. l. 31. after Berkley r. and Mr. Killigrew f. 222. l. 31. leave out and marrieth f. 226. l. 21. leave out she marrieth f. 237. l. 29. for devise r. demise f. 255. l. 31. for Father r. Nephew f. 256. l. 12. for joyned r. tryed f. 287. l. 6. after delivered r. tied f. 303. l. 16. for Grantee r. Guarantee f. 307. l. 36. for voidable r. void A TABLE to the Third Part of Modern Reports A. Abatement See Ioint Action 8. 1. DEBT was brought by four Plaintiffs one of them died before Judgment the Action is abated as to the rest 249 2. Waste is brought against Tenant pur auter vie and pending the Writ Cestui que vie dieth the Writ shall not abate because no other person can be sued for the Damages ibid. 3. Two Jointenants are Defendants the death of one shall not abate the Writ for the Action is joint and several ibid. 4. Where two or more are to recover in a personal thing the death of one shall abate the Action as to the rest ibid. 5. But in Audita Querela the death of one shall not abate the Writ because it is in discharge ibid. Abeiance See Acceptance 1. Resignation of a Benefice passes nothing to the Ordinary but putteth the Freehold in Abeiance till his acceptance 297 See Acceptance Resignation Surrender Acts of Parliament See Iustice of Peace 2 Pardon 2 Ought to be construed according to the intention of the Law-makers and ought to be expounded according to the Rules of the Common Law 63 2. Where a particular punishment is directed by a Statute Law it must be pursued and no other can be inflicted upon the Offender 78 118 3. When an Act is penal it ought to be construed according to Equity 90 157 312 4. Preamble is the best Expositor of the Law 129 169 Action upon the Ease Assumpsit A Feoffment was made upon Trust that the Feoffee should convey the Estate to another the Cestuy que Trust may have an Action if the Feoffee refuseth to convey 149 2. In consideration that the Plaintiff would let the Defendant have Meat Drink c. he promised to pay as much as it was reasonably worth the word valerent was in the Declaration it should have been quantum valebant at the time of the Promise but held good after Verdict 190 3. Where a personal promise is grounded upon a real Contract the Action will lie 73 4. It will not lie for Rent reserved upon a Demise but where a Promise is made to pay Rent in consideration of occupying a House it will lie 240 Action on the Case See Bankrupts 2 Indictment 2 Slander where it lieth 1. He is a Papist spoken of a Deputy Lieutenant 26 2. Where the words injure a person in his Profession or bring him in danger of punishment 27 3. He stole the Colonel's Cupboard Cloth there being no precedent Discourse either of the Colonel or his Cloth 280 4. He is broken and run away and never will return again spoken of a Carpenter 155 5. He is a Rogue a Papist Dog and a pitiful Fellow and never a Rogue in Town has a Bonfire before his door but he spoken of a Merchant who made a Bonefire at the Coronation of King James 103 6. He owes more Mony than he is worth he is run away and is broak spoken of an Husbandman 112 7. The Wife was called Whore and that she was the Defendant's Whore the Husband and she brought the Action and concluded ad dampnum ipsorum it lies without allegding special Damages 120 8. Sir J. K. is a buffle headed Fellow and doth not understand Law he is not fit to talk Law with me I have baffled him and he hath not done my Client Justice spoken of a Justice of Peace 139 9. J. P. is a Knave and a busie Knave for searching after me and other honest men of my sort and I will make him give satisfaction for plundering me spoken of a Justice of Peace no Colloquium was laid the Court was divided 163 Where it doth not lie Words were laid to be spoken ad tenorem effectum sequen ' which is not an express allegation that they were spoken 71 72 Action on the Case against a Common Carrier Where it was brought against him upon an Assumpsit in Law and likewise upon a Tort the Declaration is not good 322 Action on the Case for a wrong See Pleading For diverting of a Water-course the Antiquity of the Mill must be set forth 49 2. It lies against a wrong doer upon the bare possession only and the Plaintiff need not set forth whether he hath a Title by Grant or Prescription for that goes to the right 51 52 132 3. If the Declaratien is for the diverting of the Water ab antiquo solito cursu this amounts to a Prescription which must be proved at the Trial or the Plaintiff will be non-suited 52 4. Whether it lieth for the making of a scandalous Affidavit in Chancery 108 5. For selling of Oxen affirming them to be his own ubi revera they were not but doth not say sciens the same to be the Goods of another or that he sold them fraudulenter or deceptive 't is naught upon a Demurrer but good after Verdict 261 6. Where several are guilty of a wrong the Action may be brought against either 321 7. Debt upon the Statute of Ed. 6. for not setting out Tithes brought against two Tenants in Common one of them did set out the Tithes and the other carried them away it ought to be brought only against the wrong doer 322 8. For disturbing of a Man in a Common Passage or Common High-way no Action on the Case lieth without a particular damage done to himself for the proper remedy is a Presentment in the Leet 294 Administrator Vide Infant 18 Ordinary Interest 2 Pleading 2 Administrator durante minore aetate hath no power over the Estate 24 2. Administration could not be granted by the Spiritual Court before the Statute of Ed. 3. 24 3. Where 't is once granted whether it ought to be repealed 25 4. Administrator had the whole Estate in him before the Statute of Distributions 60 5. He then gave Bond to distribute as the Ordinary should direct ibid. 6. The Father died