Attornment and not as a Surrender but if the Lessee be not upon the Land then it is not a Feoffment and when the Lessee enters again he shall have his Term and the Feoffee the Reversion and if the Lessee be upon the Land and denyes the Lessor to make Livery notwithstanding that Livery be made nothing passeth by the Feoffment nor is a grant of the Reversion 42. Lessee for life of a Mannor seizeth an Estray and dyeth before the year and the day passed Resolved the Executors of the Lessee shall have it and not he in the Reversion for although the Lessee had not an absolute propriety in it during his life yet when the year is past the property shall have relation to the time of the Seizure 1 2 Ma. Stapleton and Trewlocks Case 43. Debt by Executors of I. S. against A. Trewlock Administratrix of Rich. Trewlock The Will was That the Testator made the Plaintiff and Rich. Trewlock his Executors but said further in his Will I will my Friend Rich. T. shall pay to my other Executor all such debts as he oweth me before he shall meddle with any thing of this my Will by reason I have made him one of my Executors for the discharge of the said Debt The Defendant averred Trewlock in the Will and Trewlock the Intestate to be one and the same Person and said He in his life had paid to the Executor the debt in demand and all other debts which he owed at the time of the death of the Testator Adjudged that the Dfendants plea was not good because she ought to have pleaded an Acquittance of the said debt for that payment without an Acquittance is no plea and for the other Debts she ought to have shewed them certain and pleaded payment of them and she should have shewed that T. administred with the other Executor Agar and Bishop of Peterborough's Case 44. Quare Imp. And for Title to the Avoidance the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. taking a second Benefice with Cure was pleaded Issue was upon the Induction By which it seemed to be admitted That Admission and Institution did not make the first Benefice void without Induction 45. Resolved That upon an Appeal of Manslaughter the Party may challenge 20. peremptorily as well as upon an Indictment 46. Upon an Habere facias seisinam upon Recovery of Dower of 3. Mannors Resolved The Sheriff cannot give her seisin of one Mannor but he must give her seisin of the third part of every Mannor But if the Recovery be of all Lands viz Meadow c. Pasture the Sheriff may assign her her Dower in the Meadow only The Queen and Deans Case 47. Writ of Disceit by the King and Queen upon a Fine levyed by C. to D. of Lands in antient Demesne who rendred to C. for life reversion to K. D. dyed pendent the Writ Resolved The Writ shall not abate because it is in the nature of a Trespasse which doth not demand the Land but is to punish the Disceit Tuck and Frenchman's Case 48. A. seized of Lands in Fee holden in soccage devised the same to C. F. and the Heirs males of his body and if he dyed without Heirs males of his body the Remainder c. C. F. dyed without Issue male of his body Resolved That C. F. had not general tail but special tail to him and the Heirs males of his body Joslin and Chelstons Case 49. Assumpsit In consideration of a Marriage of the Son of the plaintiff with the Defendants Daughter the Defendant assumed to pay to the Plaintiff 40 l. in 7. years next following by equal portions Found upon Non Assumpsit for the Plaintiff and because one of the 7. years was to come at the time of Action brought the Judgement was stayed 3 4. Ma. Eaton Colledge Case 50. A Lease was made by the Dean and Chapter of the Colledge was of Eaton whereas they were incorporated by the name of Dean and Chapter of the Colledge of St. Maryes of Eaton Resolved the Lease was void for the Misnosmer Stokes and Porters Case 51. Debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant Executor of I. S. who pleaded that he was not Executor nor administred as Executor It was found that he received a Debt of 7 l. which was due to the Testator and made an Acquittance thereof and took possession of other Goods of the Testator and converted them to his own use Adjudged That it was an Administration Hill 2 Eliz. Helior and Okedens Case 52. A Lease was made to I. S. of the Mannor of F. Habend from Mich. last past for 20. years and by the same Deed it was agreed That after hold expiration of the 20 years that the said Lessee his Wife and their Son should have hold and enjoy the Mannor Habend for their lives cuilibet diutius vivent and he made a Letter of Attorney to make Livery secundum formam of the said Grant and Lease Resolved If the Deed was delivered by the Attorney and Livery made at one time it was a good Lease for years with a Remainder for their Lives but if the Deed was first delivered by the Lessor to the Lessee and after Livery and Seisin by the Attorney there the Livery was void Thorn and Rolfes Case 53. Dower The Defendant pleaded that the Husband of the Demandant was alive at Canterbury in Com. Kent The Defendant said her Husband dyed at F. in the Parish of P. in the said County of K. upon which they were at Issue Day given to make Proofs the Plaintiffe examined her Witnesses in Court the Defendant examined no Witnesses Judgement was the Plaintiffe should â—â—cover her Dower Hill 3 Eliz. Corket and Sheldons Case 54. A. in consideration of a Marriage intended betwixt him and B. by Deed covenants with S. to execute an Estate in Fee to the use of the said A. for life and after to the use of the said B. for by and untill the Son or one of the Sons of the said A. of the body of the said B. begotten shall accomplish the age of 21. years The Marriage takes effect A. dyed without Issue between them and before any Issue had Resolved That B. had a good Estate for life before any Issue and in Case there was no Issue But if there had been Issue which had accomplisht 21. years the Estate of B. had been abridged 3 4 Eliz. in C. B. Gower and Andrews Case 55. In Trespass for cutting down of Trees the Case was A. a Woman in her Widdow-hood by Indenture bargained and sold to B. and C. all those Woods Underwoods and Hedgerowes as have accustomedly been used to be fallen and sold standing growing and being in upon and within the Mannor of D. to have and to hold for the life of the said A. B. dyed C. survived and cut down by vertue of the said Bargain the VVoods and Underwoods growing and standing at the time of the making of the said Deed. Resolved upon this Bargain
Praecipe but the Recovery as to the estate of the Husband took effect only by way of Estoppel but it was no bar as to him who was in Remainder and in this case it was said That if Lands be given to husband and wife and the heirs of their two bodies and the Husband alone suffers a common Recovery that the same should not bind the Estate tail although the husband doth survive the wife Martin and Wilks Case 335. It was adjudged in this Case in B. R. That Land in Antient Demesne is extendable upon a Statute Staple or Statute Merchant Hill 11. Jac. in t C. B. Cox and Barnesbyes Case adjudged accordingly Wolstan Dixies Case 336. A seised in Fee of Lands in London made a Lease to I. S. for years and after by Deed enrolled in the Chancery he sold the reversion to Dixie and his wife and afterwards the Rent was behind and he brought debt against I. S. The Defendant said That after the Lease and before the Sale to Dixie A. the Lessor by Deed enrolled in London bargained and sold the Land to him It was adjudged a forfeiture of the Term and judgment was for the Plantiff Rudhall and Milwards Case 337. Rudhall Serjeant at Law Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27. H. 8. Devised the use to C. his younger Son and the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to I. his eldest Son and his Heirs upon condition that C. should not alien nor discontinue but for the Joynture of his Wife and only for the life of such wife C. after the death of his Father entred and levyed a fine to a stranger and declared the use to himself and his wife and to the Heirs Males of his own body the Remainder to the right Heirs of his Father afterwards C. having Issue male died the Wife died the Heir of I. the eldest Son entred upon the Lessee It was adjudged that because the Statute of 27. H. 8. gave the possession in quality and condition with the use and also gave to Cestuy que the same advantages as the Feoffees had that the said Heir was enabled to take advantage of the Condition be it a Condition or a Limitation The Vis-Countess Bindons Case 338. The Executors of Viscount Bindon brought Detinue against the Widdow of the deceased Viscount and declared upon the Detainer of certain Jewels The Defendant did justifie the Detainer of them as her Paraphronalia It was agreed in this Case by the Chief Baron and others That Paraphronalia ought to be allowed to a Widdow having regard to her Degree and in this Case the Husband of the Defendant being a Viscount that 500. Marks was but a good allowance for such a matter Mich. 28 Eliz. in Cur. Wardor Mounsons Case 339. A Commission in the Nature of Diem clausit extremum after the death of Robert Mounson issued to Enquire what Lands and Tenements he had the day of his death of whom by what services the yearly value of them who was his next Heir and of what age he was It was found that the Father of Robert was seised of the Mannor of B. in Fee and gave the same to Robert in tail the remainder to G. brother of Robert the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father That G. died in the Life of Robert and Robert died without Issue and that F. the Son of G. was within age and the Lands holden of the Queen in Capite and that Robert long before his death was seised in tail of H. Farm and N. and 17. Eliz. levied a Fine to the use of himself in tail the Remainder to F. the Son of G. in tail and died such a day without Issue of his body and upon this Office one Mounson the Heir general prayed a new Office for it was said that the said Office was insufficient to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. It was the opinion of the Court that the Office was good to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. But if it was not then a Melius inâ—quirendum should issue forth and not a New Office Branches Case 340. In the Case of a Prohibition It was Resolved that an Union of Copyhold Lands and of the Parsonage in the hands of the Parson as Parson Impersonce was no discharge of the Tythes of the Copyhold Lands and in this Case also it was adjudged That a Farmer of Lands might prescribe in modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando Moor and Williams Case 341. Assumpsit The Case was Lessee for years the reversion to M. the Lessee in defence of the Plantiffs Title spent such a Sum money and prayed contribution or recompence Moor said in consideration thereof he should have the like Lease after the expiration of the Term which Williams the Defendant required and the said Lessor refused to make upon which Williams brought Assumpsit Resolved it did not lie because the Consideration was executed before the promise Stanley and Bakers Case 342. A man possessed of a Lease for years devised the same to his eldest Son and the Heirs of his body and if he died without issue to his youngest Son and the heirs of his body and for want of such Issue that the Term should remain to his Daughters he died having two daughters and afterwards another daughter was born The eldest Son sold the Term and died without Issue the youngest Son died without Issue the three daughters entred It was adjudged they all three should have the Term although the youngest Daughter was not born at the time of the death of the Devisor Owens Case 343. Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail Tenant in tail bargained and sold to him and his Heirs and levied a Fine which was not alledged to be with Proclamation It was adjudged that the Bargainee was not such a Grantee of the Reversion as should maintain Wast because it was no discontinuance and but for the Life of Tenant in tail Higham and Harwoods Case 344. A man had houses and Land which had bin in the tenure of those who had the Houses and he devised his Lands with the appurtenances It was adjudged That the Lands did pass by the words with the appurtenances for that it was in a Will in which the intent of the Devisor shall be observed Watkins and Ashwels Case 345. A seised in Fee made a Feoffment upon condition that if he or his Heirs paid such a sum such a day to reenter He died his Son and Heir within the age of 14. years The Mother of the Infant without the privity of the Infant and who was not Guardian in Socage in the name of the Infant tendred the mony at the day It was resolved it was an Insufficient tender otherwise if she had been his Guardian in Socage Carewas Case 346. The Abbot of M. was seised and made a Lease for years De scitu Manerii Rectoriae suae de omnibus aedificis
the Cause and they do award an Erroneous Process or Misaward a Capias by which the party is taken in Execution yet it is a lawfull Execution and the Sheriff is chargeable with the Escape and he is not to examine the Error of the Court in avoiding the Execution Second that the Conviction of the Felony was no discharge of the parties Execution and it was adjudged against the Defendant 412. Debt brought in Co. B. for an Amercement in a Court Baron the Defendant would have waâ—ed his Law the Court doubted of it and some Presidents were shewed as Trin. 6. Eliz. Tindal and Tuckers Case that he might in such Case wage his Law Quare The Queen Bishop of Lincoln and Skiffings Case 413. Quare Imp. The Case was the Countess of Kent had two Chaplains by Patent a third had no Patent of Chaplainship but he was first Retained and took two Benefices by Dispensation It was adjudged he was Lawful Chaplain for the Patent is not of necessity but only in Case where he hath Cause to shew it and he hath no cause to shew it because her Retainer was good without a Patent Bâ—rd and Adams Case 414. In this Case a Case of a Prohibition to stay a Suit in the Spiritual Court for Tythes of the Rakings of Lands after the Crop of corn was carried away It was holden That the prohibition would not lye but that Tythes should be paid of Rakings But vide 42. Eliz. in B. R. in Gree and Haales Case It was adjudged that by the Custom of the Realm Tythes should not be paid of Rakings Battey and Trevillions Case 415. Replevin The Defendant avowed That I. and A. his Wife were seised in Fee in the right of his Wife and devised the Land in which to I. H and I. his Wife with E. their Daughter for 60. years rendring four Marks Rent Afterwards 38. H. 8. I. and A. his Wife levyed a Fine and the Conusees rendred the Land to A. for Life the remainder to Tho. their Son in tail with remainder over A. died Tho. entred upon the Lessees and made a Feoffment to I. D. and others to perform his Will the Lessees reentred Tho. 7. Eliz. by his Will ordained that his Feoffees should stand seised untill they had levied sufficient to pay his debts and Legacies which were not payed and therefore the Defendant as Bayliff to the Feoffees made conusance and as to the rest he avowed for that Tho. was seised in Fee of the place in which c. and 6 Eliz. devised the same to H. L. and M for Life rendring 30. s. Rent and afterwards entred upon the Leslees and levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself in Fee and afterwards infeoffed thereof the first Feoffees to the use of his Will the Lessees reentred and he made his Will as above and died and for 3. l. rent for two years he made conusance as Bayliff to the surviving Feoffees The Plantiff to the first Avowry said that Tho. was seised in Tail by the render of the Fine and the tail descended to H. his Son and then E. one oâ— the Lessees who survived to husband the Plaintiff bâ—que hoc that Tho. enfeoffed the Feoffees to such uses as the Defendant hath a ledged and as to the other Conusance the Plaintiff demurred in Law The Jury found the seisin of A. and her Husband and the Lessee for years to the three persons and the Fine and Render to the seisin of Tho. and the Feoffment of Tho. to I. D. and others to perform his Will and they found a Letter of Attorney to persons whereof the said I. H. one of the Lessees was one conjunctim divisim to enter in all the Premises and take possession and deliver the same to the Feoffees or one of them and that after Tho. made his Will as before and that C. one of the Attorneys to one of the Feoffees and D. another of the Attorneys delivered seisin to another of the Feoffees There were divers points in this Case First because the Jury have sound a Devise of Land and no Tenure if the Justices could judge the Tenure to be Knight Service or Soccage this point the Justices said they would not meddle with Second point admit the Land to be holden in Capite and that the Land passed by the Willâ— they held that but two parts of the Land passed by the Devise 3dly When he devised that his Feoffees should stand seised and he had not Feoffees but he himself was in possession the Justices held it was devise of the Land it self 4thly They held where one of the Lessees made Livery as Attorney to the Lessor that he did not thereby extinct or surrender the Term. 5thly When an Authority is to four conjunctim divisim to execute Livery that one might execute Livery in one part and the other in another part 6thly They held when Tenant in tail of Lands in lease for years makes a Feoffment and the Lessee reentred it was a discontinuance 7thly They held when Tenant in Fee simple of a Reversion expectant upon Lease for years deviseth two parts of the Land that no part of the Rent passeth 8thly In this Case because the avowry is made for the whole Rent and it appeareth he hath title but to two parts It was holden he should not have a Return for any part 9thly They held when the Avowant makes title but to two parts of the Rent and the Jury assesse damages for the whole Rent that the Avowant could not have Judgment unlesse he Released the damages 10thly When the Lessor entred upon his Lessee for life and made a Feoffment and the Lessee reentred the Justices doubt if the Rent was revived Keale and Carters Case 416. False Imprisonment the Defendant Justified that he was Constable and that the Plaintiff brought a Child of the age of 2. years and no more into the Church and there left it to the intent it might dye for want of sustenance wherefore he Imprisoned him till he agreed to take away the Child It was the opinion that the Justification of the Defendant was good because the Act of the Constable was but to prevent a felony which he might do by virtue of his Office Fenwick and Mitsorths Case 417. The Case was A. man seised of Lands in Fee Levyed a Fine thereof to the use of Wife for life the remainder to the use of his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his body the remainder to the right Heirs of the Conusor The Conusor made a Lease for 1000. years to B. the eldest Son dyeth without Issue having a daughter the Conusor dyeth the Wife after dyeth the eldest Son Leaseth the Lands to the Plaintiff It was adjudged in this Case it was a Reversion and no Remainder and this limitation to his right Heirs was meerely void Sir Moiâ—e Finch and Throgmortons Case 418. The Case in effect was this The Queen made a Lease for years rendring rent
a good sale by the intent of the Will 3. Resolved that the devise that his Excecutors might sell was a good sale within the Statute of Wills though the words of the Statute are That a man having Lands holden in socage might devise two parts of it and that by the Equity of the Statute Yelverton and Yelvertons Case 442. A man seised of Lands Covenanted to stand seised thereof to the use of his eldest Son and also of all the other Land which he after should purchase he Covenanted that he and his Heirs would stand seised to the use of his eldest Son Afterwards he purchased Lands to him and his Heirs by bargain and sale Adjudged that the purchase could not be intended to other use then to him and his Heirs Sir Hugh Cholmeleys Case 443. The Case is very long but is this in effect viz. Tenant in Tail the remainder in Tail he in the Remainder bargained and sold his Remainder to A. for the life of the Tenant in Tail and after his death the remainder to the Queen in Fee Tenant in Tail in possession suffered a Common Recovery The Queen granted her remainder to Tenant in Tail and his Heirs Afterwards he in the remainder bargained and sold his remainder to B. the remainder to the Queen upon Condition another Recovery was had Tenant in Tail dyed without Issue It was Resolved in this Case that he in the Remainder and all Claiming under him were barred by the Recovery 2. That the Common Recovery did bar the Tenant in Tail and the estate of A. in the remainder although the Remainder was in the Queen 3. That the grant of the Queen to the Tenant in Tail and his Heirs was a good grant Corbett and Marshes Case 444. Error brought upon a Recovery in Dower because the Tenant was not summoned by 15. dayes nor Proclamation made thereof at the Church door Because the party had remedy against the Sheriff the Court would not allow of the Error Crispe and Fryers Case 445. Copyholder in Fee rendring Rent at Mich. and our Lady-day The Lord at the last instant of the day of payment demands the Rent upon the Land and the Copyholder is not there to pay it Qu. If it be a forfeiture the better opinion of the Justices was that it was a forfeiture Paramour and Verwolds Case 446. False Imprisonment the Defendant justified by a Recovery in Debt in Warda de F. London and a Writ of Execution in Sandwich in Kent absque hoc that he was culpable in London The Plaintiff said that he was culpable at London absque hoc that there is tale Recordum in Sandwich Adjudge the Yraverse upon the Traverse was good because the place is material Pannell and Fens Case 447. A man seised of Lands and possessed of a Term devised all his Lands and Tenements to his Executors untill they had paid all his Debts and Legacies and levied all charges which they should expend against I. S. or others in Execution of his Will and made two Executors and died the Executors entred generally into the Land and Term and one of them sold the Term to one man and the other sold it to another It was adjudged they took the Term as Executors and not as Devisees and yet they took the Freehold as Devisees and they said that the words of the Will as to the Term was no more then the Law gave and that they should have it as Executors Blackwell and Eyres case 448. Issue was joyned betwixt the Lessee of the Plaintiff and the Defendant in an Ejectione firme which was to be tryed at the Assizes The Defendant in consideration the Plaintiff and his Lessee should forbear to enforce their Title and give slender evidence against the Defendants promised to pay a certain Sum of money to the Plaintiff Vpon Non assumpsit it was found there were two Issues joyned in the Suit and the Defendants had not joyned but one of them had pleaded the general Issue and the other a special Plea It was adjudged for the Plaintiffs because the common Speech is the Parties have joyned issue Walker and Harris Case 449. It was adjudged in this Case That although Lessee for years assignes over his Term yet Debt lyeth against himself for the Rent by the Lessor or his year Moss and Packs Case 450. A Recoverie was had against the Executor of I. D. of debt and damages And Fire fac issued de bonis testatoris si si non damna de bonis propriis the Executor dyed the Sheriff did execution of the Goods of the Testator before the Return of the Writ and adjudged good Portman and Willis Case 451. It was adjudged in the Case that by a Devise of omnia bona a Lease for years did pass if there be not other circumstances to guide the intent of the Devilor 2. Resolved That if a Copyholder for life or years surrender to an use that the surrender is good and the use void as a surrender rendring Rent with Warranty shall be a good Surrender and the Rent and Warranty void Beswick and Combdens Case 452. Action upon the Case for not keeping a Bank by reason of which the River drowned his Land It appeared upon the evidence that it was levyed and kept before by one who enfeoffed the Defendant Yet it was adjudged that the Action did lye against the Feoffee for the continuance of it Fuller and Fullers Case 453. The Case was A man had four Sons and devised his Land to his youngest Son named R. and the Heirs Males of his Body with the Remainder successively to the other three and the Heirs Males of their Bodies the first Devise dyed in the life of his Father having Issue Male After which the Father said I will that my Will stand good to the Children of R. as if he had over lived me but the words were not put in writing The point was If the Children did take by the devise or by discent Quaere The Court was divided in opinion The Dean and Canons of St. Pauls and others Case 454. King Edward the Fourth by his Letters Patent granted to the Dean and Canons and their Successors that they should be discharged of Purveyance the Charter was confirmed by King Henry the Seventh and also by King Henry the Eight The Statute of 27. H. 8. was made That Purveyors assigned by the Kings Commission for provision for him his Queen and Children might provide all Victual Corn c. as well within Liberties as without any Grants or Allowances to the contrary Queen Mary granted that no Purveyance should be taken of the Dean and Canons and their Successors against their Wills notwithstanding the Statute of 27. H. 8. and Queen Elizabeth reciting all the Patents granted to the Dean and Canons doth confirm them It was Resolved That the Charter granted to them was good Wherefore that they should be discharged from all Composition for Provisions for the Queen Preston and Hinds Case 455. Error
made Title by a Demise in Fee to himself the Plaintiff traversed the Custome and the Custom was found to demise in Fee or for Life but not in Tail It was adjudged that the Issue was found for the Defendant because the substance was found for him and the tail was but Inducement Ewer and Heydons Case 468. A. seised of three Houses and other Lands Pastures and Meadows in W. in the County of H. and of Land in the County of O. devised in this manner viz. I give my Capital Messuage in the County of O. and all other my Lands and Meadows and Pastures in the Parish of W. That the Houses passed by the Devise for that Land comprehends Houses The Bishop of Worcesters Case 469. The Bishop presented a Felon at the Sessions at Newgate who had stollen a Bason and Ewer from him for which the person was attainted and a Writ of Restitution awarded to the Bishop In Bar of the Restitution a Scrivener of London a Freeman came and said That every Shop in London is a Market overt and that he bought the Bason and Ewer in his Shop being a Scriveners Shop Adjudged the sale of it in the Scriveners shop did not alter the propriety of the Plate for it was not a Market overt for such things And it was said That any Shop in London by Custom was a Market overt for the buying of all things It was Resolved that such a Custom was an unreasonable Custome The Lord Norths Case 470. Christ Church in Oxon is incorporated by the Name of Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi de Oxon and they made a Lease by the name of Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi in Academia de Oxon and the Liberties de Accademia did extend further then the Liberties of the City yet it was adjudged a good Lease because the substance of the Corporation was inserted in the words of the Lease Bullen and Bullens Case 471. The case was S. B. being Cestuy que use before the Statute 27. H 8. devised to his Wife certain Lands for her Life and that after her decease R. B. his eldest Son shall have the Land 10 l. under the sum or price it cost and if he died without Issue F. â— his Second Son should have the Land 10. l. under the price it cost and if he died without Issue of his Body then his two Daughters A. and E. shall have the Land paying the value thereof to the Executors of his Wife The Question was if R. B. the Devisee had an Estate Tail or not It was argued it was an Estate tail and it was compared to Frenchams case 2. Eliz. Dyer where a man devised Lands to his Wife for use the Remainder to C. F. and the Heirs Males of his Body and if he die without Heirs of his Body the Remainder over and it was clearly taken that the general Limitation if he die without Heirs of his Body shall not alter the especial Tail On the other side it was said that the Estate was Fee-simple for that the words are That he shall have the Land 10. l. under the price and so the word paying implies a Fee-simple The Court enclined to be of opinion It should be a Fee-simple But the Case was not Resolved but Adjourned Germin and Ascotts Case 472. A. seised of Lands â—n Fee devised the same to his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his body the remainder to his second Son and the Heirs males the like remainder to his third Son the remainder to his Daughter in Tail with remainder over Proviso That if any of the Devisees or their Issues shall go about to alien discontinue and incumber the premisses that then and from the time they shall go about to alien discontinue c. their estate shall cease as if they were naturally dead and from thenceforth it should be Lawfull for him in the next remainder to enter and hold for the life of him who shall so alien c. and presently after his death the Land shall go to his Issue the Devisor dyeth the eldest Son and all the other but the second Son levy a Fine the second Son claimes the said Land by the Devisor It was Resolved in this Case by all the Justices that the Proviso of ceasing of the estates upon an attempt to alien or upon an Alienation was repugnant to the estate Tail and that remainder which was limited to the second Son upon such attempt was void in Law St. Johns Case 473. A. Capias ad satisfaciend was directed to the Sheriff who made a Warrant to a special Bayliff to execute it who arrested the party after a new Sheriff was elected but had not received his Writ of discharge adjudged the Writ was executed well but otherwise if the party had been arrested upon the Warrant after his Writ of discharge was delivered Godwin and Ishams Case 474. Error of a Judgment in debt upon an Oblation to perform Covenant in an Indenture The Covenant was That if the Plantiff pay the Defendant 100 l. at Mich. then the Defendant would pay him 10 l. yearly after during his life and it was alledged that the Defendant did not pay him the 10 l. yearly but did not mention the payment of the 100 l. by him which was assigned for Error It was adjudged No Error because the Defendant by pleading Conditions performed which he did plead had confessed the payment of the 100 l. to him by the Plaintiff The Judgement was affirmed Woodlife and Vaughans Case 475. Words viz. He hath forsworne himself and I will prove him perjured or else I will pay his charges Adjudged the words are actionable notwithstanding the Disjunctive or else I will pay his charges Barton and Lever and Brownloes Case 476. Tenant in tail upon a Recovery had came in as Vouchee It was Resolved that in such Case he had barred his Issue from any Writ of Error to reverse the Fine and it was said That it was adjudged Mich. 32 Eliz. in Carringtons Case That if Tenant in Tail levyeth an Erronious Fine and afterwards levyeth another Fine the Issue in Tail was barred of his Writ of Error upon the first Fine Rolls and Germins Case 477. It was Resolved in this Case where the Testator retained an Attorney of the Common Pleas to prosecute a Suite in that Court That an Action will lye for his Fees which be due to him in that Suit against the Executor of the Testator because the Testator in such Case could not wage his Law but for monies expended in Suites in other Courts by the Attorney the Action will not lye Welcombs Case 478. Debt brought to answer to Tho. Welcomb Excecutor of Joh. Welcomb The Judgment was Quod praedict Johis recuperet where it should have been Quod praedict Tho. recuperet Resolved it was not amendable because no default in the Judgment is amendable being the Act of the Judges and not of the Clarks 479. The Bargainee Covenanted
levied a Fine Come Ceo c. he in the Remainder entred In this Case it was Resolved first that the Grant to C. was void for that an Estate of Freehold cannot begin at a day to come 2. That the Grant being void at the beginning the attornment afterwards cannot make it good 3. When C. entred by color of the Grant he was a Disseisor 4 If the Fine had been levied to the Disseisor himself he who had the right to the Remainder might have entred for the forfeiture 5. That the Fine levyed to the Tenant at Will was a forfeiture and he in the Remainder entring upon it had purged the Diseisin 6. It was Resolved in this case that if the Diseisee levieth a Fine to a Stranger the Diseisor shall retain the Land for ever for that the Diseisee against his own Fine cannot claim but by the Fine the Right is extinct of which the Diseisor shall take advantage Abraham and Twiggs Case 569. A seised of Land in Fee by his Will in writing devised 40. l. annuity to I. S. for Life with clause of distress payable at Mich. and our Lady-day and died The Rent was behind at our Lady-day 35 Eliz. I. S. distrained a Replevin was brought and the Plaintiff in the Replevin said â—hat before A. was seised that B. was seised in Fee and enfeoffed divers persons to the use of himself and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder to the use of G. Et haeredum masculorum suorum legitimè procreatorum pro defectu talis exitus ad usum I. D. et haeredum masculorum suorum legitimè procreat pro defectu talis exitus ad opus usum rect haered dicti G. imperpeâ—uum B. died without Issue G. had Issue A. the Devisor The principal point in the Case was If the Limitation to the use of G. and his Heirs Males lawfully begotten and for want of such Issue ut supra without the words Heirs Males of his Body was an Estate tail or a Fee simple in G. for if tail then the Devisor his his Son was seised in tail and his Will of the Rent void It was Resolved he was seised in Fee-simple and not in tail for default of the words Heirs of his body in the limitation of the use Wrights Case 570. In a Prohibition in this case it was holden by the Court that the Bishop of Winchester might prescribe that he and his Praedecessors Farmers and Tenants of Temporal Lands had held their Lands discharged from the payment of Tythes and so might any other spiritual person but Temporal persons could not prescribe in non Decimando but in modo Decimando they might prescribe Marsh and Curties Case 571. Ejectione firme The case was A seised in Fee let a Messuage and 20. acres of Land for years rendring Rent Provided the Lessee shall not parcel out any of the Lands from the House The Lessee devised the house and 10. acres for half a year reserving the other 10. acres the Lessor at the next day accepted of the Rent and notwithstanding entred upon the Land the Lease not being expired It was Resolved That the words in the Proviso were a condition 2. That the condition was broken by the Devise of the House with parcell of the Land as well as if he had devised the whole Land But some of the Justices were of opinion that the acceptance of the Rent after the condition was broken had dispensed with the condition and had barred them of his entry for the condition broken especially if the Lessor had notice of the Condition broken at the time of the acceptance of the Rent Quaere The Lord Norris and Barretts Case 572. Debt for an Amercement in a Leet The case was The Abbot of A. was seised of the Hundred of H. in Com. B. and of Leet appendant to it to be holden by prescription once in the year at Easter The Dissolution of the Abby was found and that the Towns of C. and N. with 20. other Towvs were in the Hundred King Edward the Sixt granted to L. divers Lands in N. which was parcel of the possessions of the Abby and also granted to him Omnes omnimodas Curias Leetas Perquisitiones proficua Curiarum Leetarum fines amerciamenta in N. seu in eorum aliqua seu alicui inde parcellae modo spectant sive pertinent With a further Clause that L. and his heirs should have tot talia tanta hujusmodi consimilia curias Leetas fines amerciament quaecunque prout Abbas c. Infra Messuagia terras tenementa caetera praemissa quamlibet inde parcellam Afterwards Ed. 6. granted the Hundred and the Leet to I. B. and I. D. which by mean conveyances came to the Plaintiff L. conveyed the Land to his second Son under whom the Defendant claims It was the opinion of the Justices That L. had not any Leet by the Grant nor any Amercement nor was discharged from the general Leet because the first clause of the Patent is restrained to Leets and Amercements belonging or appertaining to the Land granted and the Leet which the Abbot and King had was appertaining to the Hundred and not to Land 2. That L. could not have the like Leet as the Abbot for when eadem may be had and the Plaintiff hath words to have eadem if he fail of eadem he shall not have Consimile for eadem remains in the King and if the King hath a Leet none other can have a Leet in the same place because two Leets cannot be in one place simul semel Laughton and Gardiners Case 573. In Action upon the Case Upon a Latitat the Sheriff returned a Cepi habeo Corpus paratum which he had not and the Defendant did demur to it Adjudged the Action did lie because by his demur the Defendant hath confessed his false Retorn but if he had pleaded the Statute of 23. H. 6. and shewed he had taken Bail the Action would not lie Nicholas and Badgers Case 574. The Defendant in an Action upon the case for words by his Council gave in evidence That one I. S. had stollen certain Sheep and that by compart betwixt the Plaintiff and I. S. the Plaintiff did take a Lease of a Close of I. S. in D. to help him to cloak and to keep him from the Felony and that he said He would affirm all to be true that the Council had said It was adjudged that for these words a new Action did lie for although they do not accuse him as an accessary to the Felony but for misprision of Felony which is not Fineable yet it is a great-scandal of any man to say That he cloaks Felony Note in this Case It was Resolved that an Action upon the Case doth not lie against a Counsellor for delivering slanderous words in evidence Boneham and Springs Case 575. Assumpsit in London The Defendant pleaded a Concord in another County for all Matters in any County except London
of himself for Life the Remainder to F. in tail the Remainder to the Defendant in tail and the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Father F. had Issue I. the Lessor of the Plaintiff and died in the Life of his Father The Father made a Lease for years the Lessee for years made a Feoffment in Fee the Father Releases with Warranty to the Feoffee and dyed The Feoffee enfeoffed the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices in this Case that the Warranty by reason of the Covyn should not bar and that it was a Warranty which did commence by disseisin The Earl of Lincoln and Fishers Case 644. The Defendant gave the Plaintiff the Lye openly in the Leer for which the Steward assessed a Fine of 20. s. upon him The Plaintiff brought Debt for the Fine It was adjudged the Action was maintainable because they are words of contempt in a Court of Justice to a Judge for which the Judge might fine him Canes Case 645. A Venire fac at the Suit of the Plaintiff was prayed to the Coroners because the Sheriff was his Master and the Defendant confessed it It was tried for the Plaintiff It was said it was a Mis-Tryal because a Venire fac ought not to be to the Coroners upon any suggestion if it be not a principal Challenge But the Court held it good although he did not conclude his Challenge and so favorable Revera and Baptistaes Case 646. Assumpsit The Jury found the Assumpsit but that it was upon another consideration and not upon the consideration layed in the Declaration Adjudged against the Plaintiff Tarrants Case 647. The Father made a Feoffment to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his eldest Son and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to his own Right Heirs Proviso That if any of them to whom the Estates are limited or any Issue Male of their Body intend or attempt or do any Act by which the Premises or any part of them should be discontinued that then of that part his Feoffees should be seised to the use of him to whom the Premises after the death of the said party should come as if he were naturally dead The Defendant being Tenant in tail suffered a common Recovery he in the Remainder entred It was Resolved that Tenant in tail could not be restrained from suffering a common Recovery vide accordingly Chomeleys case and Germin and Ascotts case before The Lord Cromwell and Andrews Case 648. In Assise the Case was A seised of a Mannor with an Advowson appendent granted bargained and sold the Mannor and the Advowson to B. and his Heis rendring Rent to A. and his Heirs and covenanted to suffer a Recovery to the use of B. and his Heirs and covenanted to levy a Fine to B. and his Heirs with a render of the Rent to A. and his Heirs Proviso that B. shall regrant the Advowson to A. for his Life so as he shall present as often as it should be void during his Life B. and A. both joyn in a Fine to I. S. who renders the Rent to A. in tail with the Remainder to I. D. and renders the Land to B. and his Heirs Afterwards B. died before a Regrant of the Advowson A. enters upon the Heir and enfeoffs the Lord Cromwell upon whom the Heir of B. reenters There were three points in this Case 1. If the Proviso for the regrant of the Advowson made the Estate of B. conditional in the whole Mannor 2. If the condition by the death of B. without regrant of the Advowson be broken 3. If the Condition be extinct by the Conusance and fine and revived as a Limitation in the use of the Fine The case is here only largly argued but not adjudged Vide Resolution of this Case Coo. â— pa. and here before pl. 229. Hiddy and Welhouses Case 649. In Trespass for taking of his Chattel The sole point in the Case was Whether Toll was incident to a Fair of common Right It was Resolved that Toll is not incident to a Fair of Common Right and that none shall have Toll in a Fair if he hath it not by Grant or Prescription But it was agreed that the King might grant Toll with a new Fair if the Toll be reasonable and not excessive but if it be to have 1 d. upon every Beast they took it to be unreasonable vide Cro. 3. part 559. accordingly The Queen and Doddingtons Case 650. In account against the Defendant Executor of Sir Walter Mildmay The Case was The Marquiss of Winton 1 Eliz. being Treasurer of England and Sir Walter Mildmay Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Court of Augmentation then lately dissolved and united to the Exchequer allowed Sir Walter Mildmay 100 l. per an for diet and 40. l. per an for his attendance in the Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer After which 2 Eliz. a Privy Seal came to the Treasurer Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay the Fees and Allowances by Patent or Parliament to the Treasurer Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Offices and to give such Rewards to other Officers they should think they deserved There were divers points in this Case 1. If the Treasurer alone ex officio might increase Fees or Allowances to the Queens Officers 2. If a Privy Seal was a sufficient Warrant to do it 3. If he might give a Reward to the Chancellor by the Warrant 4. If the Privy Seal being after the allowance made and before payment come in time to excuse the payment 5. If account did lie against Sir Walter Mildmay himself 6. If his Executors were chargable in account This Case is in this Report only argued but not Resolved But vide in Coo. 11. pa. in the Earl of Devonshires case this case is put and there it was said it was Resolved in this case that no officer of the King might ex officio issue or dispose of the Kings Treasure although it be for the honor and profit of the King without a Warrant from the King and a Warrant by word of mouth or under his privy Signet is not sufficient but the Warrant ought to be under the Great Seal or Privy Seal and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer doth receive the Kings Treasure to his own use he shall be charged in account for the same Worme and Websters Case 651. A seised in Fee of Lands holden in capite made a Feoffment thereof to B. and C. to such intents and purposes and to such uses and estates and in such manner as are declared and limited or should be declared in the last Will of the said A. Afterwards he made his Will in this manner viz. I Will and Devise that E. my wife during her Life shall have and take the profits of all my Mannors and Lands and after her decease I devise them to G. P. and the Heirs of his body and died E. entred and died G. P. entred 1. Question if the
Devisees took their estates respectively by the Will or by the Feoffment if by the Will it was void for a third part and a Tenancy in common If by the Feoffment it was good for the whole 2. point when the use of the Feoffment is expressed to such persons as should be declared by the Will and he deviseth the Land if the same shall be said to be a limitation of the use according to the Authority The case not Resolved because the Justices were divided in their opinions It was adjourned Prat and Phanners Case 652. Debt upon Obligation The condition was Whereas Suits have bin brought prosecuted betwixt the Defendant and A his Wife which controversies are now finally to be ended betwixt them if the Defendant do not from henceforth commence and prosecute any Suit or Action in any Court or Courts Spiritual or Temporal against the said A. his Wife for any matter precedent or cause from the beginning of the World but shall from henceforth during the natural Lives of him the Defendant and A. his Wife account of use and maintaine the said A. as his lawful wife to all intents c. then c. The Defendant pleaded he had not brought any Action in any Court against the said A. after the said Obligation and that before A. was married to him she was married to I. S. who is yet alive for which cause he cannot accept of and maintain the said A. as his lawfull wife according to the Form of the Condition upon which it was demurred It was Resolved that the material part of the Condition did consist in the first part of the Condition if he do not prosecute any Suit and the Defendant having pleaded an Issuable Plea to that it is not material if he plead to the latter part of it or not and if his Justification be insufficient the Plaintiff ought not to have demurred upon it But the Court held his Justification to be good because the Condition as to that part is against the Law of God and so the Obligation void And whereas it was objected that he is estopped to plead the special matter of her former Marriage because in the Condition she is called A. his wife The Court said he was not estopped by it because he may confess and avoid it for she may be his Wife as to some purposes but as to use her as a lawfull wife she is not his wife Lloyd and Wilkingsons Case 653. In Ejectione firme the case was A. Rector of C. by Indenture between him of the one part and E. R. W. and T. of the other part devised the same to E. for 80. years if she should so long live and should not alien the premises and if she should die within the Term or should alien that then her Estate should cease and that then the same should remain to R. pro durant ' residuo praedicti termini praedict ' 80. annorum and if he should alien c. ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the same should remain to W. pro durant ' tot annis praedict termini 80. annorum si c. and if he should alien ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the said A. concessit praemissa durante tot annis praedict ' 80. annorum quod ad tunc continuarent remanerent in expiratis to T. his Executors and Assignes A. died F. died E. and R. died The Administrator of F. entred and assigned over the same In this Case it was Resolved That the Demise to R. and W. were void because that the Estate which E. had was not for 80. years absolutely but sub modo under a condition and then the Demise to them pro tot annis quot remanerent after the death of the said E. pro durante residuo termini praedict ' 80. annorum was void for there could not be a residue of the said Term because that determined by the death of E. 2. Resolved That the Lease and Limitation to F. was void for the uncertainty for it was uncertain at the making of the Lease how many years should be behind at the time of the death of E. 3. Resolved That the Demise and Limitation to T. was not good because that R. and W. survived F. which was against the express Limitation for his Estate was limited upon two Contingents Pigot and Hearns Case 654. In Trover and Conversion the case was this The Lord of the Mannor of B. in the Parish of D. did prescribe that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estate c. had used from time to time whereof c. to pay to the Parson of D. the now Plaintiff and his Predecessors 6 l. per an for all manner of Tythes growing within the said Parish and that by reason thereof he and all those whose Estates c. Lords of the said Mannors had used time whereof c. to have Decimam garbam decimum cumulum garbarum of all of his Tenements within the said Mannor It was in this case Resolved that it was a good Prescription and that a Modus decimandi by the Lord for himself and all the Tenants of his Mannor from barring the Parson to demand tythes in kind is a good Prescription because it might have a lawful commencement 2. It was Resolved That it was a good Prescription to have Decimam garbam in or Decimum cumulum garbarum or gramorum or the tenth Shock for he hath it as a profit appender and not as Tythes 3. Resolved in this case that if the Queen be Lady of the Mannor she might prescribe to have Tythes for that she is capable of them she being Persona mixta capax Spiritualis Jurisdictionis Holcrofts Case 655. A seised of Lands in Fee levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to B. his Son for the Term of his Life only so long and untill he attempt to alien and then to the use of C. and the Heirs Males of his Body during the Life of B. and immediately after his death to the use of the first begotten Son of B. then after to be begotten and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to his Second Third or Fourth Son to be begotten in lawful Marriage and if it fortune the Fourth Son to die without Heir Male of his Body then to the use of C. and the Heirs Male of his Body with diverse Remainders over in tail the remainders to the right Heirs of A. A. dyed B. having only one Son born after the Indenture and Fine which dyed without Issue Male joyned in a Fine with C. to I. S. and I. D. who rendred the Land to B. for 80. years next following if the said B. so long lived and immediately after his Decease to the first begotten Son of the said B. or which afterwards he should beget and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to the Second or Third
Large At last it was Resolved That that Ordinance although it had the Warrant of a Charter was against the Common Law because it was against the Liberty of the subject for every subject by the Law hath Freedom and Liberty to put his Cloth to be dressed by what Clotheworker he pleases and cannot be restrained to any persons for that in effect would be a Monopoly Creswell and Holms Case 756. Debt upon Obligation the Condition was If the Obligee his Heirs and assignes shall and may Lawfully hold and enjoy a Messuage c. without the let c. of the Obligor or his Heirs or of every other person discharged or upon reasonable request saved harmlesse by the said Obligor from all former guifts c. the Defendant said no request was made to save him harmlesse It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the Defendant hath not answered to all the Condition viz. to the enjoying of the Land and there were 2. Conditions viz. the enjoying and the saving harmlesse Chowley and Humbles Case 757. A Covenanted to make a Feoffment within a year to the use of himself for life the Remainder to H. his younger Son and the Heirs males of his body which remain over and if he did not make the Feoffment he Covenanted for those uses for the Continuance of the Land in his name and Blood Proviso if H. or any Heir male make a Feoffment or Levy a Fine his estate to cease as if he were dead and then the Feoffees to stand seised to the use of such person to whom the Land should Remain No Feoffment was made within the year A. dyed H. the Son levyed a Fine to the Defendant Resolved 1. That the Proviso to cease the estate was repugnant upon his estate for life 2. That his estate could not cease when he had levyed a Fine because then he had no estate 3. That the Feoffees and their Heirs could not stand seised to the use of the person next in discent or Remainder because no Feoffment was ever made Nevil and Sydenhams Case 758. In valore Moritagii The opinion of the Justices seemed to be That a tender was not material but that the value of the mariage was due withot a Tender Atkins Case 759. The Father devised his Land to his Son and the Heirs of his body and further I will that after the decease of my Son John the Land shall remain to G. Son of John Adjudged John had Tail and his Wife should be endowed Carter and Cleypales Case 760. All-Soules Colledge made avoid Lease by the Statute of 13 Eliz. because no Rent was reserved It was a Lease only to try title and Judgment Error was brought and assigned after that the Lease was void The Judgment was affirmed because the party did not plead the Statute for otherwise the Judges are not to take Notice of it Clarke and Dayes Case 761. A man devised Lands to his daughter for life And if she marry after my death and have issue of her body then I will that her Heir after my Daughters death shall have the Land and to the Heirs of their bodies begotten the Remainder in Fee to a Stranger It was adjudged she had not tail but only for Life and the Inheritance in his Heir by purchase and therefore in this case it was Resolved the Husband of the wife could not be Tenant by the Curtesie Deacon and Marshes Case 762. A seised in Fee of a house and possessed of Goods Devised in these words The rest of my Goods Lands and Moveables after my Debts paid c. To my three children B. C. and D. equally to be divided amongst them Adjudged they had but an Estate for Life in the House and that they were Tenants in Common of it and not Joynt-Tenants Smith and Mills Case 763. Adjudged that a Sale made of his goods by a Bankrupt after a Commission of Bankrupt is awarded is utterly void Gibons and Marltiwards Case 764. A. devised certain Land to B. and C. his wife who was the daughter of A. upon condition that they within 10. years should give so much of the Land as was of the value of 100 l. per an to F. F. and that he should find a Preacher in such a place and if they failed their Estate to cease and that then his Executors should have the Land to them and their Heirs upon trust and confidence that they should stand seised to the same uses B. within the 10. years made a writing of Gift Grant and Confirmation but no Livery nor Enrolment of it till after the 10. years The Executors refused to take upon them the Execution of the Will yet it was adjudged they should take the Land by the Devise and that the words upon Trust and Confidence made not a condition to their Estates Arrundells Case 765. In Indictment of Murder the Murder was alledged to be apud Civitatem Westm in Com. Middl. in Parochia St. Margaret and for Tryal a Jury was retorned de Vicineto Civitate Westm Resolved the Tryal not good for the Visne ought to have bin of the Parish and not of the city for a Parish is to be intended more certain then a city and when a Parish is alledged to be in a city the Visne shall come out of the Parish Alderion and Mans Case 766. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff would give his good Will and furtherance to the Marriage the Defendant promised after the Marriage had to give him 20 l. he alledged he had given his good Will and that he did further it but did not show particularly how yet the Court held it to be a good consideration and adjudged the Action did lie Savage and Brookes Case 767. Upon an Indictment of Murder It was Resolved by the Justices that the Queen could not challenge Peremptorilie without shewing cause of her challenge 768. Note It was Resolved by the Justices That if a man buy Corn and converts it to meal and afterwards sells it it is not an ingrossing within the Statute of 5. E. 6. Staffords Case 769. Debt upon Obligation the Condition to make such further assurance as the Council of the Obligee shall Devise The Obligor comes to the Obligee and shews his Council had advised him to make to the Obligee a Lease for years which he required him to do and he refused It was adjudged the Obligation was forfeited otherwife if it were to make such assurance as the Council should devise for then the Council ought to draw and engross it ready to be sealed Plaine and Binds Case 770. Assumpsit 11. Septemb. to deliver certain goods to him if no claime be made to them before 14. September and alledged no claime was made post 11. diem usque 14. Septemb. It was said in stay of Judgment that the Declaration ought to have been that no claim was made after the Assumpsit until the 14. day and not post 11. diem The Court adjudged the Declaration good because the
especial matter upon the division of the day ought to come on the other side otherwise it shall not be intended Bullock and Bibleys Case 771. A Woman Copyholder in Fee took Husband who without his Wife surrendred to the use of a Stranger who was admitted and surrendred to the use of D. the Defendant who was admitted the Husband died the wife survived and died the Heir before admittance made a Lease to trie the Title It was adjudged that the Surrender of the Husband alone made no discontinuance of the Copy-hold of the wife 2. Resolved that the Lease was good before Admittance otherwise it was of a Surrender before Admittance Gooles and Granes Case 772. An Infant surrendred Land which was Copyhold to the use of a Stranger who was admitted It was adjudged that the Infant at his full age might enter because it was no bar nor discontinuance Ford and Holborns Case 773. A. let the Mannor of D. to H. for 17. years rendring yearly to D. G. 10 l. and he was bound in an Obligee to A. to pay the said Rent to D. G. if she so long lived and the said H. or his Assignes should or might so long enjoy the Premises In Debt by the Executors of A. against H. he pleaded that after the Lease to him he himself surrendred the Lease to A. which he accepted and that till the Surrender no Rent was unpaid It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the acceptance of the Surrender was no conclusion against the collateral payment to a Stranger and H. but for his own Act might have enjoyed the Land still Savage and Bechams Case 774. In Action upon the case for an Escape against the Prisoner brought by the Plaintiff Sheriff It was Resolved that upon a voluntary escape the Sheriff should not maintain an Action against the Prisoner but otherwise upon a negligent escape West and Blackwells Case 775. A. Outlawed after Judgment was taken upon the Capias utlagatum and afterwards escaped Resolved that he was not in Execution for the party without prayer Williams and Beathles Case 776. Debt upon an Obligation after Verdict and Judgment it was assigned for Error that the Teste of the Original was before the day of payment in the Condition It was holden Error and the Judgment for that cause reversed Wells and Dennyes Case 777. Upon a Recovery in Debt of 400 l. upon 2 Fieri fac 100 l. was levyed and returned Afterwards a Capias ad satisfaciend issued for the whole 400 l. It was the opinion of the Court it ought to issue forth but 300 l. and the Judgment for Execution was reversed May and Middletons Case 778. After Debt brought the Plaintiff attached in London a debt due by another man to the Defendant and had Judgment to recover Adjudged a good bar to the Action for so much Bufkin and Edmonds Case 779. It was adjudged in this Case That a Rent payable off the Land upon Cesser of an Estate ought to be demanded where no entry may be Hughton and Princes Case 780. Resolved Tythes shall not be paid of Turkies nor their Eggs nor of tame Patridges or Pheasants quia ferae naturae Beswick and Cundens Case 781. It was adjudged in this case That the Feoffee shall have Action upon the case for a Nusance continued though it was erected before his time Sharington and Fleetwoods Case 782. It was Resolved if a Parson Libells for Tythes and a Prohibition is granted and after he libelleth for the Tythes of another year the first Suit not being determined an Attachment upon Prohibition lieth against him Hall and Vaughans Case 783. If the Jurors eat and drink at their own proper costs before Verdict after their departure from the Bar it is fineable only but it shall not make their Verdict void Adams and Albons Case 784. Resolved that if a Venire facies bears date the day it is retornable it is amendable by the Roll. Gregory and Blasâ—fields Case 785. An Action upon the Statute of 4. and 5. Philip and Mary for using the Trade of a Clothier not having bin bound an Apprentice for seven years was brought by Plaint in the Court of Ludlow and Judgment there The Judgment was reversed because first it ought to be by Original or Information and Secondly because it ought to be brought in the Courts of Record at Westminster and not in Borough Courts Varrel and Wilsons Case 786. Conspiracy The Defendant pleaded his goods were Feloniously Stollen and he found them in the possession of the Plaintiff for which he Indicted him and gave evidence against him and upon the Tryal the Plaintiff was acquitted and traversed the Conspiracy aliter vel alio modo It was adjudged a good Justification because the finding of the goods in his possession was a sufficient cause of Suspition Marrow and Tarpins Case 787. Debt against two Administrators for Rent behind after the death of the Intestate they pleaded that before the Rent behind one of the Administraters assigned all his Interest to I. S. of which the Plaintiff had notice and accepted of the Rent by the hands of the Assignee before the day in which the Rent in arrear was due It was Resolved that the privity of contract as to the Action of debt was determined by the act of the Lessee and therefore the action of Debt after the Assignment did not lie against the Administrator Smith and Johnsons Case 788. Error of a Judgment in Action upon Assumpsit in the Court of Reding The certificate was Plita c. ad Cur. Dominae Reginae Burgisui de Reding tenend per consuctudinem Libertat Major Burgensibus concess I without saying per consuetudinem ex antiquo usitot or alledging by what person the Liberties were granted and for this cause the Judgment was reversed Corbet and Corbets Case 789. A seised of Lands for real affection covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of R. and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to C. and the Heirs Males of his Body Provided if R. or any Heir Male of his Body shall intend or go about any act to cut off the Estate tail then it shall be lawful for him that is next to enter A. died R. suffered a common Recovery Resolved the Proviso was repugnant to the Estate tail and that the Cesser of the Estate tail as if the party had bin dead was impossible and the going about it such a secret thing that an Issue cannot be upon it Grar Marshal and Marshals Case 790. A. levyed a Fine of five yard Land to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to the use of his eldest Son who was the Plaintiffs husband and the Plaintiff and the Heirs of the Body of the Husband Proviso if the Husband died living A. his Father then G. the Plaintiff his wife should have yard Land and a half for her Life in possession without shewing which Land the Husband died
A. granted a Rent to B. and his Heirs for the Life of I. S. B. devised the Rent to I. D. The Rent was behind I. S. died I. D. avowed for the Rent It was Resolved in this Case that by the Common Law such a Rent was not deviseable but by the Statute of 32 and 34 H. 8. it was though but a Freehold discendable 2. Agreed that no general Occupant could be of it and they held that if it be deviseable by Custome the devise did prevent the Occupancy Web and Webs Case 814. It was Decreed in Chancery in this Case That the Terre-Tenant should be compelled to pay a Rent seck devised by Will out of Land notwithstanding no seisin was had of it Sir Charles Rawleighs Case 815. A. seised of Curson Park executed an estate of it to the use of himself for Life and to the use of D. his Wife for life so long as she should be effectually ready to demise it to his Heir at 50 l. Rent when she should not dwell on ir her self and for so long as she should not dwell upon it A. dyed B. his Son entred because D. did not dwell upon it but removed with Sir Charles Rawleigh her Husband into Darset sheet and did not demise the Park to him 50 l. Rent There were many points in this Case but none of them particularly Resolved 1. If the Husband D. had taken was bound to performe the demise 2. If her taking of Husband had disabled her to make the demise 3. If she being a Feme Covert had made the demise which was void in Law if she had performed the Condition 4. If the Husband and Wife had joyned in a demise if that had been a performance of the Condition the words extending to her alone 5. If the Heir B. ought to demand the demise or D. the Wife ought to offer it 6. If the demand ought to be by word or by tender of a Writing with a Reservation of 50 l. Rent Agars Case 816. It was agreed in this Case That the Queens Attorny might have an Information in the Star Chamber against a Receiver of the Queens Rent for a perjury supposed in advantage of the Queen and so might any other person assigne perjury in an Oath for the advantage of the Queen if he be greived by it 2. That perjury is assignable at an Inquest of Office as a Misdemeanor but not upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. Wants Case 817. It was holden in Star Chamber in this Case by the Justices That a Libeller is punishable there although that the matter of the Libell be true and so is he who disperseth Libells although he doth not know the effect of them nor ever heard them read 818. Note it was said and agreed That if one exhibits an Information in the Star Chamber but as a Common Informer for a Misdemeanor although he hath not any particular grief and dyeth his Executor or administrator shall not Revive it by a Bill of Reviver but the Kings Attorney may Revive the Bill Carewes Case 819. A Justice of Peace was censured in the Star Chamber because he going to a place to view Riotors and to remove the force and the offenders being gone before his comming he was requested to go to the House where they were and he refused to do it Gellibrand and Habards Case 820. Gellibrand was sentenced in the Star Chamber for levying a Fine by the name of Gellibrand who was then beyond the Seas affirming himself to be the same person and the sentence of the Court further was that the Fine so levyed by him should be vacated upon Record 821. The Case was King Hen. 3. Anno. 41. of his Raign by Letters Patents did recite whereas R. N. held of him by money Rent Corne Cheese and Soccage Tenure he granted to him that from thence forth he should hold by 4 s. Rent and by Knights service for all services The point was if this acceptance of the Patent should make a Tenure by Knight service It was the opinion of the Justices that it did not unlesse the estate of the Land was then in the King because the King might discharge the services either in part or in all by his Patent but could not reserve services of a new nature where he did not give the Land Anthony Mildmay and Mildmays Case 822. Sir Walter Mildmay the Father in consideration of Love and Affâ—ction Covenanted to stand seised of Lands to the use of himself for life without impeachment of wast the remainder to A. his Son and the Heirs males of his body the remainder to H. and the Heirs males of his body Provided if any of the said partes shall go about to resolve determine or devise to do any act or shall consent to any act whereby the estates of them in remainder shall be aliened discontinued barred c. then his remainder shall cease as if he were naturally dead The Father dyed A. entred and suffered a Common Recovery Resolved that the Proviso was against Law and an estate Tail could not cease as if Tenant in Tail were naturally dead Wells and Fentons Case 822. A. seised in Fee executed an estate to the use of himself and his Wife for life the remainder to such Woman as he should afterward marry which should survive him the remainder to B. his Son in Tail his Wife dyed he took another Wife and they both reciting the former Conveyance granted the Lands to I. S. for 40. years by Fine if A. and his Wife or any of them should so long live Afterwards A. dyed the Wife entred It was the opinion of the Court That the Wife was barred of the possibility by Estopel and yet they agreed the Case that if a Lease be made for life the remainder to the right Heir of I. S. and the Heir Levies a fine in the life of his Father the same shall not bar the possibility Peck and Channells Case 823. A. seised in Fee devised the same to a Woman for life the Remainder in Tail to B. his Cosen the Remainder to his right Heirs the Woman and B. entermarried and levyed a Fine with Proclamation with a Render to them and the Heirs of the body of the Husband and after they suffered a Common Recovery of the Husband and his Heirs who enfeoffed the Defendant and dyed without Issue Resolved the Fine did not make any discontinuance because the Conusor was not seised in Tail in possession but in the right of his Wife and the Recovery did not bar the Issue in Tail nor the Remainder because the Tenant was in of another estate to whom the recompence was and not of the estate Tail anciently devised Rayman and Golds Case 824. A man possessed of a Terme for 80. years devised that after the death of his Wife who he made his Executrix his two Sons B. and C. shall have the whole profit of my Farm and the longest liver of them shall appoint who shall have the
sold Lands to B. and C. by Deed enrolled they suffered a Recovery to the use of A. and his Wife who was the Daughter of B. for her Joynture the Remainder over in Tail to their Issues A. dyed his Heirs within age Resolved in this Case it was an Assurance by A. himself for the advancement of his Wife and her Issues within the Statute of 34 H. 8. and the Heir of A. should be in Ward for the third part of the Land The Earl of Bedfords Case 954. The Case was this Francis Earl of Bedford made a Feoffment in Fee of the Mannor of D. to the L. St. John and others to the use of himself for 40. years and after to the use of John his second Son and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Afterward Edward Lord Russell Heir apparent of the Earl dyed without Issue male of his body having issue Eliz. and Anne Daughters Afterward Francis by Indenture between him and I. S. and others for the advancement of the Heirs males of the body of the said Earl and the establishing of his Mannors in his blood Covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannor to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of Francis Lord Russell his youngest Son and the Heirs males of his his body with divers Remainders over Afterwards Francis Lord Russell dyed having Issue Edward Lord Russell and after dyed and if the Daughters of the said John Lord Russell or the Earl of Bedford should have the Mannor of D. was the Question in the Court of Wards It was Resolved the Daughters should not have the said Mannor but the Earl because there was no right Heir to take as purchasor when the estate Tail was determined by the death of John Lord Russell without Issue male for the Remainder to the right Heirs cannot be preserved by the mean estate for years for it ought to be a Freehold at least which ought to preserve such a Remainder till there be one to take it by the name of a purchasor as right Heir Andrews and Sheffields Case 955. A. hath Issue three Sons B. C. and D. and seised of Lands in P. by Will deviseth them in this manner viz. I will that all my Lands in P. shall Remain after the death of my Wife to C. my Son and his Heirs and if it fortune that D. liveth untill the said Lands come to C. then I will that C pay to D. 10 l. every year as long as D. liveth A. dyeth C. commeth to the Lands and payeth the Rent hath Issue and dieth It was Resolved that in this Case the devise did enure as a Rent-seck for the life of D. and the Lands in the hands of the Heir or Assignes of C. should be chargeable with the same Wrotesleys Case 956. A. seised in Fee of the Mannors of N. and W. of the Mannor of D. in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife and to his own right Heirs Afterward he dyed seised of these Mannors and also sole seised of other Lands in Fee The Mannor of D. was holden in Capite It was found that A. dyed his Heirs within age the body and Lands of the Mannor of D. was committed to I. S. and I. D. the committee ousted the Wife of D. It was Resolved that the Wife of A. should have recompence to the value of the said Mannor of D. out of the other Lands of the Heir of which his Ancestors dyed seised Boydell and Walthalls Case 957. The Case was A. seised of Land in Fee an Indenture was made purporting a Feoffment to B. and C. with Waranty There was another Indenture bearing date the same day with the first between the Feoffees and the Feoffor whereby the Feoffer reciting the former Feoffment to them granted that immedâ—atly after the said Feoffees and their Heirs and Assignes have taken and received the profits of the Lands during the Terme of 100 years then it should be Lawfull for A. his Heirs and Assignes to reenter and have the said Lands in their first right and Title It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that the Intent upon the Livery was that the Feoffor should have the Lands after the 100. years quit possession of the Feoffees and that the use did immediately arise to the Heirs of the Feoffor as soon as the Lands had been enjoyed for 100. years and that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the Heir of the Feoffor might enter The Earl of Rutlands Case 958. Ed. Earl of R. seised in Fee of and in the Reversion or Remainder of the Mannor of E. expectant upon the death of B. Countesse of B. who held the same for life for the augmentation of the Joynture of I. his Wife Covenanted 21 Eliz. with I. S. and I. D. before the last day of Trinity Term next following by Fine or other assurance to assure the Reversion or Remainder of the said Mannors to them and their Heirs and the parties thereof seised should stand seised of and in the Reversion and Remainder of the said Mannor to the use of the said Earl and the said I. his Wife and the Heirs of the said Earl for ever Afterwards in the same year by another Indenture made between the said Earl the Lord Treasurer and the said I. S. and others of the other part for the advancement of him who should succeed him in the Earldom and the advancement of the Heirs male of T. late Earl of R. his Grandfather to convey the Castle and Honor of B. and the said Mannor of E. amongst other Lands to the said Lord Treasurer and others to the use of the said Earl and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the Heirs males of Tho. his Grandfather with divers Remainders over and by the last Indenture further Covenanted that if the said Earl before the Feast of our Lady next should not sufficiently convey all the said Honors Mannors c. in the last Indenture in manner and forme as therein is mentioned that then he and all other persons seised should from thenceforth stand and be seised to the uses in the last Indenture No Fine was levyed of the Mannor of E. before the end of Trinity Term but in Mick Term a Fine was levyed of the said Mannor within the time limited in the last Indenture and another Fine was levyed of other Land but not of the Mannor of E. and after the Earl died The Quest on in this case only was whether I. the wife of the said Earl might during the Life of B. Countess of B trayerse the Office found after the death of the Earl viz. That the Fine levyed of the Mannor of E. was not to the uses limited in the latter Indenture Resolved that the Office was insufficient for the Incertainty where it found the Earl was seised of the Reversion
levyed another Fine to all the said uses but only the Estate for 20. years to his Executors and made his wife his Executrix the wife married Sir Robert Remington It was adjudged in this case that by the second Fine the Lease for 20 years to his Executors was extinct Littletons Case 971. A seised of Lands holden in copite in consideration of a Marriage of M. his Daughter with W. L. Son of Sir John and of 1300 l paid by Sir John the Father of W. levyed a Fine of part of the Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to W. and M. and the Heirs of the Body of W. upon the Body of M. the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. and the residue to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his first Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. with power to make a Joynture â—o his second Wife and to make Leases for Twenty one years or three Lives The marriage took effect A. took a wife and had Issue by her I. and died I. his Son and Heir within age W. died without Issue G. L. being his Brother and Heir the second wife of A. living and also M living It was upon â— Melius Inquirend found that M. was the Daughter of A. It was Resolved in this case that the Queen should have the Wardship of the third part of the whole Land during the minority of I. the Son of A. Also it was Resolved by them that although money was paid and so the consideration of the Marriage was a mixt consideration yet â—hat should not alter the Law for the duty to the Crown 1. and one Ciffias case was cited to have been so adjudged The Lord Ross and the Earl of Rutlands Case 972. H. Earl of Rutland 2 Elâ—z levyed a Fine with Proclamation to the use of himself and B. his Wife and the Heirs of his own Body and died B. married the Earl of Bedford they covenanted with Edward Earl of Rutland Son of H. Earl of Rutland to levy a Fine which Fine was levyed with Proclamation sur concâ—ssit of the said Mannors and Lands by the said Edward Earl to the said B. for Life Afterward Edward Earl of Rutland 29 Eliz. covenanted with the Lord Burâ—eigh and others to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of Thomas Earl of Rutland his Grandfather Edward Earl 29 Eliz. died without Issue Male having a Daughter which was the Lady Roâ—s the Mother of the Lord Ross the plaintiff B. died the entail made by the Earl of Rutland and the discent to the Lord Ross the Plaintiff was found by Office It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That the Mannors did belong to the Plaintiff the Lord Ross as Issue in tail of Henry Earl of Rutland notwithstanding the Fine levyed by Edward Earl of Rutland because the Fine being sur concessit the same remained a Bar no longer then during the Life of B. Also they held the taking of the Fine by B. to be a surrender of her Estate but to be no discontinuance because not seised of the Tail at the time 3. Resolved the Lands should be in the King during the Minority of the Lord Ross Anno 1. Jacobi 973. It was Resolved by the Justices that Informations for the Queen alone in any Latin Court should not abate by the Demise of the Queen and so like of Informations tam pro the party quam for the Queen and so also it was of Informations in English Courts they were not discontinued by the Demise of the Queen Handall and his Wife and Browns Case in Chancery 974. The case was A. possessed of a Term for years had Issue a Son and two Daughters and by Will he devised his Term to John his Son and if he died to his two Daughters and if they died to his Wife he made his Son his whole Executor who entred claiming by the Will and after Probate he died Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and for mony sold the Term to Brown the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices that the Assignee of the Administrator should have the Term and not the two Daughters and Decreed in Chancery accordingly 975. Upon the cases of claims at the Coronation of the King these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. That where a Barony or a Mannor or Land holden by grand Serjeanty to do special Service at the Coronation is come to many hands by purchase there each Tenant is chargable with the whole Service but the King may appoint which of them shall do the Service and he which doth the Service shall alone have the Fee but if the Division be by Copartners there the eldest is only to do the Service and the other shall contribute to the charge and the eldâ—st shall have the Fees but if each Sister sell her part the Feoffee of the eldest shall not have the preheminence 2. Resolved where Grand Serjeanty is to be done at the Coronation by Tenure and the Lands come to an ignoble person who is unmeet to do the Service the Lord Steward may appoint a Noble or meet person to do the Service as Deputy to the Tenant of the Land 3. Resolved where Land is given to hold as to be Hostiarius Câ—merae Regis or the like In such Case the Tenants are to make their claims yet they are not to be admitted to the said Services by the Commissioners for claims or the Lord Steward but they are to be referred to the King himself their Tenure being perpetual and continuing Leigh and Helyers Case 976. A man supposing he had Title to certain Lands which were in the possession of I. S. contracted to sell them to I. D. and sealed a Lease for years to a third person to the use of I. D. with whom the contract made and the year and day long before expired Resolved it was maintenance by the Common Law but not within the Statute of 32. H. 8. Foster and Kings Case 977. A man made his Will and gave diverse Legacies and devised that the rest and residue of his Goods after his Debts and Legacies paid to his wife and after in the same Will he devised that his Overseers should enter into the Lands and cut down so much of the Woods as would suffice to pay his Debts Quere in this case if the Debts and Legacies shall be paid of the Woods if the Goods be not sufficient to pay them Skipwiths Case 978. Tenant in tail and he in the Reversion bargaineth and sells the Lands to the King and before enrollment Tenant in tail suffers a common Recovery Quere if the Issue in tail be barred by the Recovery not Resolved Lucas Case 979 Resolved in this case that before the Statute of 13 R. 2â— Murder was pardonable by the name of Felony but since that Statute the
the Tenant in Dower shall not avoid it Hall and Fettiplaces Case 993. A man prescribed to make the first crop of the Hay in little Cocks that is no good prescription to discharge the Tythe of After-mouth but other it is of a Prescription to make it into great Cocks or to carry it into the Parsons Barn the same is a good Prescription Forster and Browns Case 994. Lessee for years devised his Term to his Wife for life the Remainder to A. for life if I. S. within two years after her death be not bound in 100 l. to pay 5 l. per an to the said A. for her life and if he do become bound he devised the Term to the said I. S. and the Heirs males of his body and if he dyed without Issue he devised the Remainders A. dyed within a Moneth I. S. never entred bond but dyed having Issue male and the Issue dyed during the Continuance of the Term It was in this Case holden 1. That it was a good Remainder 2. That the Remainder limited to I. S. upon this condition precedent was good and should take effect although he never entred Bond for he had time to do it within two years and then when A. dyed within the two years the Condition was discharged by the Act of God and so the Remainder was good Banks and Brownâ—s Case 995. Copyholder for life surrendred to the Lord of the Mannor in Tail the Reversion in the Crown the Tenant in Tail made a Lease for three lives the Lease to begin from the day of the Date and the old Rent was Reserved and more It was Resolved by the Justices that it was a good Lease within the Statute of 32 Hen. 8 if Livery was made after the day of the date Combes Case 996. It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case 1. That the omitting of a thing or Legacy out of a Will which is appointed to be inserted in it is not Forgery But if a man directs one who writes his Will to limit Land to one for life the Remainder to another in Fee and he leaves out the estate for life so as the Remainder takes present effect the same is Forgery 2. It a man writes a Will without direction and brings it to the Devisor who is non Compos mâ—nt is and he allowes of it the Will is void but it is not Forgery But if a man writs a Will with blanks and then the Devisor is not of perfect memory and the writer fâ—ills up the blanks though this be not Forgery yet it is a Misdemeanor punishable in the writer of it Stoâ—kwells Case 997. It was Resolved in the Star Chamber in this Case That a Purveyor or his Debuty cannot take any thing by way of purveyance without shewing of his Commission 2 That no Purveyor can take Wood or Trees growing upon the Land without agreement made with the owne of the Land 3. That no Purveyor can take any thing by Purveyance which is provided by the Owner for his own provision but of those who have the things to sell 4. That the King is to have the preemption of all things put to sale before others at reasonable Rate Bâ—llew and Brookes Case 998. The Plaintiff exhibited a Bill into the Star Chamber for the pulling up of 16 foot of hedging for putting of his Cattel to take Common there Both the Plaintiff and the Defendants were both Fined the Plaintiff for the Suit being to small a Ryot and the Defendants for the Act done Holloway and Pollards Case 999. A. bargained and sold Lands to B. and his Heirs for 500 l. upon Condition that if he paid 500 l. he should re-enter and be seised to the use of himself and his Heirs untill he should attempt to â—dien without the assent of the bargainee then to the use of the bargainee and his Heirs a Fine was Levyed to the uses the â—00 l. was paid A. aliened to I. S. and I. D. without the assent of the Bargainee Resolved that the use could not rise to the bargainee because the bargainor entring for the Condition broken was in of his old use and estate and the bargainor who came in by the use of the Fine could not â—tand seised to another use for then there should be an use upon an use which cannot be Springs Case 1000. In a Case of a Prohibition It was Resolved that a Parson cannot prescribe against the Composition made by the Vicar for things allowed to the Vicar upon Composition Heywards Case 1001. A. acknowledged a Statute and dyed Extent issued he was returned dead a new extent issued against his goods it was Returned that his Widdow Administratrix had sold them a new Extent Issued against her and her second Husband Andrews and Lord Cromwells Case 1002. In the Case of a Writ of Right it was Resolved That the demy mark may be tendred at the time of the appearance of the Jury 2. That the Tenant shall begin first to give evidence 3. That in this Action the Jury cannot finde a speciall verdict Reynolds Case 1003. Resolved by the Justices in the Case of a Prohibition That Tythes shall not be payd of the Lopping of Trees above the age of 20. years but Tythes shall be paid of Acorns Browne and Wottons Case 1004. In Trover and Conversion of Plate It was Resolved that it was was a good plea that the Plaintiff had brought Trover and Conversion against a stranger for the same plate and had Judgment But it is not so in Debt where a certain sum is demanded Richards Case 1005. He was sentenced in the Star Chamber for divers offences 1. That he took divers sums of mony from the Kings people affirming to them That the King had granted to him the penalty of penal Lawes for which he had Exhibited Informations whereas in truth he never had exhibited any Information and that he being a Deputy Purveyor had charged the people with so great sums of money for purveyance of Beans and Oates and to the purpose to take money for Composition which money he divided betwixt him and others and for divers the like Misdemeanors In this Case it was Resolved 1. That Purveyance was due to the King by Prerogative at the Common Law 2. Purveyors cannot take Trees growing nor transplant fruit Trees nor take without apprisement nor without shewing their Commission 3. That their deputies were under the same penalties as the Masters were and that the Masters should answer for the offences of their Deputies for all the wrong done to the subjects 4. That a Deputy could not make a Deputy 5. That the selling of things which the Purveyors took by way of Purveyance was Fellony The Countesse of Rutlands Case 1006. Information in the Star Chamber against divers Sâ—rjeants at Mace in London for arresting the body of the Countesse The case upon the matter appeared to be this A Capias was awarded against the Countesse out of Common Pleas In which Case
for not paying of Prisage she pleaded she was Libera foemina de London and pleaded the Charteâ— of 1 E. 3. vide the Charter at large put in this case in Buâ—strodes Reports It was after many loâ—g Arguments adjudged in this case that the husband of the Defendant was a compleat citizen in every respect and that those Wines remaining in the hands of his wife were bona civium and so within the discharge to be freed from the payment of Prisage Wheeler and Heydon Case 1056. Debt upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tythes and declared that I. S. was Parson of S. and let him the Rectory for six years if he so long lived and continued Parson there It was found that the Parson made the Lease for six years and the words if he continued Parson there were omitted in the Lease It was the opinion of the Justices that this variance betwixt the Lease and the Declaration and the Lease found is all one in substance and the addition in the Declaration is no more then what the Law tacite implies Heydon Shepherd and others Case 1057. Error in Parliament the case was In Assize brought against the Defendant Judgment was given for the Plaintiff he brought Error in the Kings Bench and there the Judgment was affirmed and upon that Judgment he brought Error in Parliament It was Resolved that a Writ of Error did not lie in Parliament to reverse a Judgment given in the Kings Bench in Error brought there for that there is a double Judgement and the reversal of a Judgment in a Writ of Error given shall not reverse the first Judgment but that execution shall issue upon the first Judgment in the Assize The Case of the Sheriffs of Bristol 1058. The Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupts committed a Bankrupt to their custody for refusing to be examined upon Interrogatories and they let him escape whereupon Action upon the case was brought against them It was objected the Action did not lie because he was not committed till satisfaction of the Debt But Resolved the Action did well lie the commitment being only for refusing to be examined upon Interrogatories although it doth not appear what the Interrogatories were so as the Court might judge whether they were lawful or not for they shall be intended lawfull till the contrary be shewed Hill and Hawkes Case 1059. Trover and Conversion of four Bushels of Wheat The Defendant justified that the Bayliffs of L. time out of mind had used to choose one to be Bell-man for keeping the Market-place clean and the Bell-man and his Predecessors had used time out of mind c. to take out of every Sack of Corn which contained more then a Bushel a Quart for the Toll of the corn brought in Sacks to the Market to be sold and that he was chosen Bell-man by the Bayliffs and that the Plaintiff brought a Sack of corn containing four Bushels to be sold and he took a Quart for Toll It was adjudged a good custom although the corn was not sold but only brought there to be sold but without a special custome Toll shall not be paid of Corn brought to sell if it be not sold 1060. Debt upon an Obligation The Defendant pleaded non est factum it was so that the Bond was sealed and delivered by the Defendant but that afterwards viz. Vicecomiti Comitatus Oxon without the privity of the Plaintiff were interlined in a place not material wherefore adjudged it was a good Bond but if it had bin in a place material or with the privity of the Plaintiff the Obligor the Bond had bin void Poole and Godfreys Case 1061. Action upon the case against the Defendant a Sommoner in the Spiritual Court and having a Citation against the Plaintiff he retorned that he had summoned the Plaintiff whereas in truth he never summoned him for which the Plaintiff was excommunicated to his great damage It was adjudged that the Action did lie Mansfields Case 1062. Information against him because he being a Recusant convict went five miles from the place of his confinement he pleaded a License of four Justices of the Peace but because he did not show that he did take the Oath of Allegiance before the License nor that the License was granted by the privity of the Bishop or the Lieutenant the Plea was disallowed Jesson and Bruns Case 1063. Debt in Yarmouth there the Bail was taken The Cause was removed in B. R. and there new Bail found and the same Term a Procedendo was awarded Adjudged the first Bail should stand and was not discharged by removing of the Record but otherwise if the Procedendo had been awarded in another Term. Wrights Case 1064. It was Resolved in this Case That if any English Court holds Plea of a thing whereof Judgment is given at the common Law a Prohibition lies upon the Statute of 27 E. 3. cap. 1 and 4 H. 4. cap. 23. And therefore whereas the Plaintiff brought Trespass in B. R. and Judgment was against him and after he exhibited a Bill in the Court of Dutchy for the same matter a Prohibition was awarded Worrali and Harpers Case 1065. A seised in Fee of the Mannors of G and N. both holden in capite covenanted to stand seised of G. to the use of himself and his wife and the Heirs Males of their two bodies the Remainder over in tail and of N. to the use of himself and his wife for their Lives the remainder to the Heirs of his own body Afterwards he purchased Soccage Lands and devised that they should be sold by his Executors who sold them to the Plaintiff It was Resolved that the Devise was good for two parts of the Soccage Lands only and not void for the whole Soccage Lands for they held that the Reversion expectant upon the Estate tail of the Land holden in capite was a good Impediment to devise more then two parts of the Soccage Lands Glanviles Case 1066. The case was A Jewel of Gold with a Diamond was sold by Glanvile to Courtney It was affirmed by Glanvil to be a good Diamond whereas it was but a Topaz so as Courtney was deceived for the Jewel was sold to him for 300 l whereas in truth it was not worth 30 l. Glanvil got a Judgment in the Kings Bench against Courtney for 800 l. upon non suum informatus by assent of the parties Upon a Bill preferred in Chancery and upon examination of the cause it was decreed that Glanvil should take back the Jewel and should have a 100 l. and should acknowledge satisfaction of the Judgment which he refused to do and for breach of this Decree he was committed and upon an Habtas corpus brought in B. R. he was discharged and it was said a Suit in Chancery after a Judgment at the common Law and to be reversed was not good by the Statute of 27 Ed. 3. and the Statute of 4 H. 4. and divers
was adjudged Murder for the Malice which he had to Herbert 208. A man made a Lease for years upon Condition if the Rent was behind the Lease to be void the Rent is behind the Lessee continued possession for 3. years after the Lessor brought debt for the Rent for all the time Quaere if it doth lye the Justices were divided in opinion Moreton and Hopkins Case 209. In a second Deliverance by A. against H. the Defendant he made Conusance as Bayliff to I. S. and M. his Wife The Case was the Plainâ—iff 17 Octob. 4. 5. Mar. by deed granted a Rent of 10 l. to B. and to E. and W. the younger Son of the said A. Habend for the life of E. to the use of E. and gave seisin of it W. and E. so seised W. dyed E. took Husband I. S. who for 5 l. Rent arrere avowed The Plaintiff said That the said I. S. Z October 7. Eliz. acknowledged that he had received 5 l. of the Plaintiff of the said Rent It was adjudged that the said receipt and acquittance of I. S. the Husband was a good barre of the Conusans Howse and the Bishop of Elys Case 210. In Debt the Plantiff declared that the predecessor of the Bishop granted to him the Office of keeping the Mansion House of D. of the Bishop for the Term of his life with the Fee of 2 d. per diem to be issuing and paid out of the profits of the said Rents and Farme of D. by the Receiver of the Bishop and also an yearly Robe which grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter the Bishop dyed the Annuity and Robe was not paid for which the Plaintiff brought his Action against the Successor Bishop who pleaded that the Plaintiff did not exercise the said Office and because D. was within the Isle of Ely where the Kings Writ did not run a Venire was to the Sheriff of Cambridge from S. next adjoyning to D. in the said â—sle of Ely who found for the Plaintiff and he had Judgment to recover the Annuity and the Arerages and the Robe and that the grant did binde the Successor Luken and Eves Case 211. In Replevin The Defendant avowed for that A. was seised of the Mannor of D. in Fee and had a Leet within the Mannor to be holden in the Feast of c. and let the Mannor to the Defendant for years And that the Defendant held the Court Leet such a Feast and that the Plaintiff was an Inhabitant within the Leet at the time and being Summoned to appear at the said Leet did not appear which being presented by the Homage he was Amerced 5 s. which was afferred and for the Amercement the Defendant did destrain The Defendent pleaded that he was not a Resient within the Leet at the time which was found against him wherefore the Defendant was adjudged to have a Return of the Cattel and his damages Stephens and Clarks Case 212. Quare Imp. King Henry 8 seised of the Mannor of D. and the Advouson Appendent presented I. S. the Mannor with the Advouson by Discent came to the Queen who granted it to the Lord Stafford and his Wife and the Heirs of the body of the Lord the Lord Stafford dyed His Wife and eldest Son granted the Mannor and Advouson to I. D. and his Wife for their lives The Incumbent dyed who during the Avoydance granted the Advouson to the Plaintiff It was Resolved That the grant of the next Avoidance to the Plaintiff during the Avoidance was void in Law Playn and Crouches Case 213. A Villein was Regardant to a Mannor the Lord of the Mannor had not seisin of the Villein nor any of his Ancestors from 1. H. 7. to this time but they had seisin of the Mannor to which the Villein was Regardant and if seisin of the Mannor was seisin of the Villein was the Question The Issue in an Assise being upon the seisin Quaere It was not Resolved It was Conceived that in favore Libertatis the Lord could not now seise the Villein No Judgment was in the Case 214. If the Husband be seised of Land in the Right of his Wife the Husband makes a gift in Tail of it rendering Rent and afterward the Husband and Wife grant the Reversion by Fine It was holden it should bar the Wife of the whole but if they had granted the Rent only then the Wife after the death of the Husband might enter into the Land 215. A man Leaseth a Mannor for years rendring Rent with a Reentry a stranger recovers in Debt against the Lessor and hath Elegit upon the Judgment Resolved he shall have the moyety of the Reversion and the moyety of the Rent in Execution and the Condition is suspended for the whole vide before 216. Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for 21 years and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery who enters and ousts the Lessee and make Livery Adjudged It was a discontinuance And it was said That it was adjudged in the Earl of Warwicks Case A man made a Lease for life and afterwards made a Feoffment in Fee and a Letter of Attorney to make Liver who ousted the Lessee and made Livery That it was a good Feoffment and if the Lessee for life reentred the Reversion remainder in the Feoffee 217. A maid Servant conspires with her Lover to rob her Mistrisse the Man comes in the night the Maid hides him and after the Man kills the Mistresse Adjudged Murder in the Man and Petty Treason in the Maid Servant Symonds Case 218 A. 24. H. 8. Covenants with I. S. that all persons who were Feoffees of Certain of his Land should be seised thereof to the use of the said A. for life and after his decease to the use of W. his Son and M. S. and the Heirs of their bodies begotten and for want of such Issue the remainder to the Right Heir of A. and after he makes a Feoffment to those uses W. and M. S. intermary A. dyeth After 27. H. 8. the Husband aliens the whole and dyeth his Wife enters into the whole Adjudged her entry into the whole was not Lawfull but only for a moyety and it was agreed that several moyeties may be of an Estate tail aswell as of a Fee simple between Husband and Wife 219. A man made a Feoffment to the use of a Woman for â—â—fe who was a Feme sole at the time the remainder to the right Heirs of their two bodies the remainder to his right Heirs in Fee after they intermarried and the Husband having Tenants at Will of the Lands Devised that the Wife should have the Reversion in Fee so as she pay his debts and Legacies and performe his Will and by his Will deviseth his Tenant should have the Tenements for life and dyeth the Wife takes another Husband who ousts the Tenants at Will It was Resolved the same was no forfeitute of her remainder But if the Will
had been upon condition that his last Will should be performed It had been otherwise 220. A man made a Lease for 30. years The Lessor Covenanted to Repair the House The Lesse granted parcel of the Term for 10 years It was holden that his Grantee should not have an Action of Covenant by the Statute of 32. H. 8. of Conditions for he is not Tenant to the first Lessor But if the Lessor ganteth his Reversion for years his Grantee shall have Covenant or benefit of the Condition with which the Lessee is charged for he is an Assignee within the Statute because the Lessee holdeth of him 221. If the Ancestor of the Husband Covenant to stand seised of Certain Lands to the use of the Husband and Wife in Consideration of Marriage and also for a Certain Sum of Mony If the Wife alien that Land after the death of the Husband It was said that the Heir of the Husband might enter by the Statute of 11. H. 7. for the Consideration of Marriage shall be preferred before the Consideration of Mony and then it shall be said the gift of the Ancestors of the Husband and within the Statute as it was said it was adjudged in Villiers Case The Lord Treasurer and Bartons Case 222. A man made a Lease for 100 years The Lessee made a Lease for 20. years rendering Rent with clause of Reentry the first Lessor granted the Reversion in Fee attonement was had the grantee purchased the Reversion of the Term It was holden and adjudged that he should not have the Rent not the reentry for that the Rent which was incident to the Reversion was extinct by the purchase of the Reversion in Fee 223. A man was Tenant by the Curtesie of a Mannor a Copy-hold came to his hands by forfeiture Afterwards he was bound in a Statute and afterwards demised the Copyhold Land again It was holden this Copyhold should be lyable to the Statute because it was once annexed to the Freehold of the Lord and bound in his hands Pasch 12. Eliz. 224. If the Lord grant to his Copyholder the Trees growing upon the Land and which afterwards shall grow and that it shall be Lawfull for the Tenant to cut and carry them away It was holden to be No forfeiture of his Copyhold because he hath dispensed with the forfeiture by his grant but he cannot cut the Trees which shall after grow for as to them the grant is void Brabrokes Case 225. I. D. 19. H. 8. gave the Mannor of N. to I. S. and A. and the Heirs of the body of the said I. S. on the body of A. remainder to a stranger in Tail the remainder in Fee I. S. Maried A. and after 26. H. 8. he suffered a Common Recovery with single voucher to the use of him and his Heirs the Statute of 27. H. 8. was made and after he in the remainder in Tail was attainted of Treason and 28. H. 8. It was Enacted in Parliament that all his Lands and hereditaments which he had or ought to have should be forfeited the Recovery was without any Original Afterwards I. S. gave the Mannor to I. D. and his Heirs who made a Joynture thereof to M. his Wife for life after the death of I. D. M. took to Husband the Plaintiff against whom Intrusion was brought It was adjudged against the Plaintiff for one moyety Hil. 14. Eliz. 226. The Earl of Oxon. Tenant for life of certain Mannors made a Copy in reversion to I. S. for life and dyed the Copyholder in possession dyed The Heir of the Earl demised the same by Copy to I. S. It was the opinion of all the Justices that the Copy in Reversion was not good But it was agreed If it come in possession during the Tenant for life then it is good 227. Two Acres discend to two Coparceners one of them before Partition grants a Rent Charge out of one of the Acres and upon Partition the Acre charged is allotted to the other Sister It was adjudged she should hold it discharged of the Rent Pledall and Pledalls Case 228. It was Adjudged in this Case That the Jurours are not to to take Notice of matters of Estoppel which are given in Evidence between the parties upon pain of Attaint for they are strangers to the Conclusions of the parties Evans Case 229. A man had issue two Sons and devised Lands to his youngest Son in Tail and dyed the eldest having Issue a Son the younger Son aliened the Land in Fee with Warranty and went beyond Sea and there dyed without Issue the Son of the eldest being within age It was the opinion of the Justices the same was a Collateral Warranty and without asserts was a bar to the Issue of the eldest Son notwithstanding his Nonage Muttons Case 330. A man seised of Land levyed a Fine to the use of himself and such Woman as he should after Marry and after their decease to the use of I. his daughter and the Heirs of her body afterwards he Married A. and dyed who entred It was the opinion of the Justices to A. for her life Appowel and Monnoux Case 231. A. seised of the Mannors and Rectories of B. G. and D. let the same except the scite of the Mannor of B. to I. S. for 25. years Reserving for the Mannor of B. 76 l. for the Mannor and Reversion of B. 30 l. for the Rectory of B. 14 l. and for the Rectory of D. and the Lands to it belonging â—3 l. payable yearly at â— Feasts in the Church of F. not parcel of the Premisses upon Condition if the said Rents or any of them were behind for the space of 7. Weeks it should be Lawfull for him his Heirs and Assignes to Reenter on all the premises and afterwards he bargained and sold the Scite of the Mannor of B. and the Reversion of all the Mannors and Rectories to I. D. and his Heirs who enfeoffed certain persons and granted the Reversion of all the Mannors and Rectory to have and hold the Scite of the Mannor of B. and the Reversion of the Rectory of D. to the use of himself and Eliz his Wife for their lives and the life of the Survivour of them the remainder to W. his Son and his Heirs for ever And to have the Reversion of all the other Mannors and the Rectories of B. and C. to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said W. his Son and his Heirs I. S. the Lessee attorned I. D. dyed Eliz. his Wife held the Scite of B. and the Reversion of the Rectory of D. by Survivour W. seised of all the Mannors and Rectories as aforesaid granted the Reversion of a Messuage parcell of the Mannor of B. to W. D. and his Heirs to which grant I S. attorned and afterwards by Bargain and sale enrolled granted the Reversion of all the said Mannors and Rectories to H. I. and K. and their Heirs half a years Rent reserved for the Mannor
of B. was behind for which the grantees destrained by their Bayliffs In this Case it was Resolved 1. That this demise and Lease was joynt and entire and so was the Condition of it notwithstanding the several Reservations of the Rents 2. That the grantee of parcell of the Reversion could not take advantage of the Condition but that the Condition as to the grantee was determined 3. That the bargainee was a sufficient Assigne within the Statute to take advantage of the Condition by the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses which gives Cestuy que use the possession and the Estate of the Feoffees and all the advantages which the Feoffes might have and they agreed the Condition to be determined upon this difference viz. When it is entire one cannot divide it by his own act but by act of Law in may be divided and apportioned and so it was in this Case Hunks and Alboroughs Case 232. A man made his Will and gave divers Legacies and in the end of it he gave all the rest of his goods to his Wife who he made his Executor to pay his debts she took Husband who made the Defendant his Executor and dyed against whom the Wife Executrix brought Detinue of the goods of her first Husband and adjuged maintainable because she took the goods not as Legatee but as Executrix Harwell and Lucas Case 233. A. seised the Mannor of K. leased 6. acres parcel of it to I. S. for 21. years without any Remainder and after lets the 6. Acres to I. D. for 26. years to begin after the expiration of the first Lease rendring rent and afterwards made a Feoffment of the Mannor and all his Lands to the use of the Feoffees their Heirs upon Condition if they did not pay 10000 l. within 15. dayes then it should be to the use of himself and his wife the Reversion to their second Son in tayle with divers Remaâ—nders over the Remainder to his right Heirs Livery was made of the Land in possession and not in the 6. Acres the Money was not paid afterwards the first Lessee for years attorned the Husband and wife dyed the first Lease ended the second Lessee dyed his Wife married the Defendant The Son of A. distreyned for the Rent It was adjudged in this Case That although the reversion of the 6. Acres did not passe by the Livery without attornment yet the attornment of the first Lessee was sufficient and although the use to the Feoffees and their Heirs was determined before the attornment yet the attornment was good to passe the Reversion to the last contingent use and so the Title of the Sonne of A. to the Rent was good Cranmers Case 234. King Henry 8. made a Lease of Land for 21. years the Reversion came to E. 6. who Anno primo of his reign granted the same to Cranmer Bishop of Canterbury He 6 E 6. granted the Reversion to D. and C. to the use of the Bishop for life the Remainder for 20. years to the use of the Executors of the Bishop the Remainder in tayle to the Grantor the Remainder to his right Heirs The Bishop in time of Queen Mary was attainted of Treason and all his Lands and Chattels given to the Queen by Act of Parliament The Queen was possessed of the Term for 20. years and granted the same to I. S. It was adjudged That the term for years in remainder was never in the Bishop to forfeit but it was only an authority to nominate Executors in whom the Term should vest by purchase and because by reason of his Attainder he could not make Executors the Term for 20. years did never rise and so the Grant of it by the Queen Mary to I. S. not good See Dyer 310. contr Plastow and Batchâ—llors Case 235. Aâ—man brought a Formedon in Discender and pending it he brought a Writ of Estrepment which he delivered to the Defendant who notwithstanding the Writ afterwards committed Waste It was adjudged the Plaintiff should recover his Dammages and Costs Manwoods Case 236. Wast was brought and assigned in digging of Clay and selling of it and in plowing of Meadow and cutting down of 100. Oaks The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty as to all but cutting down of 6. Oaks which grew in a Hedge row which he said were Pollards not sufficient for building upon which it was demarred and adjudged for the Plaintiff Calthrops Case 237. Ejectione formae The Case was A. seised in Fee 26 H. 8. in consideration of Marriage between E. his Brother and F. the Daughter of W. and 200 l. of Money paid by W. covenanted to execute an Estate of the Mannor of N. to the uses following viz. of Lands of the value of 20 l. to the use of the said E. and F. for their lives and after carnal Copulation to the use of the Issues of their Bodyes with remainder over to E. and the Heirs of his Bodye the remainder to the right Heirs of A. and of the residue to the use of A. for life the remainder to E. F. for their lives and after carnal Copulation the remainder as before and afterwards he executed the estate by Fine and Recovery to the said uses The Marriage did not take effect but E. by another Wife had Issue 3. Daughters A. took a Wife and had Issue by her and dyed E. and F. dyed C. conveyed the Mannor to D. upon whom the eldest Daughter of E. entred and made a Lease of her part In this case It was resolved 1. That the use for the life of E. and F. did well rise although the marriage took no effect the use being declared upon an Estate executed which needs not any consideration but otherwise if it had been upon a Covenant to stand seâ—sed upon consideration of Marriage and Money for there without Marriage no use would rise although the Money was paid 2ly That the Election should go to him who was to take the use 3ly That the limitation was not void for the incertainty 4ly That in this Case although the Cestuy que use did not make the Election during his life yet he in the Remainder might after his death 5ly The Court doubted whether the Remainder did take effect because the Marriage did not take effect and they conceived it was not the intent of the Parties that should be advanced with so much Land if the Marriage did not take effect The matter was afterwards ended by Arbitrament Lane and Coopers Case 238. The Case was The Mannor of H. to make a Joynture was conveyed by a Deed in Latine to himself and his VVife for the Term of their lives the Reversion Seniori puero de corpore ipsius W. H. Haered de corpore suo legitimo procreato the Remainder to the general tayl to the Husband the Remainder to I. S. in fee thereof Afterwards by an Indenture between him and I. S. in English he covenanted that he and his wife should levy a Fine to B. and C. to
the use of himself and his wife for their lives the Remainder to the use of the eldest Child of the said W. H. and the Heirs of the body of such eldest Child the Remainder over A Fine was levyed accordingly and after his wife died without issue and W. H. married another woman and by her had issue a Daughter his eldest Childe and a Sonne his younger It was a Question which of them should have the Remainder It was the opinion of the Justices That the Daughter should have the Remainder and not the Sonne for that was the intent of the Ancestour as they conceived though puero in Latine is intendable rather to an Issue Male than Female and yet they said That many Authors have taken the word indifferently to extend to both Sexes Mich. 17 18 Eliz. Andrews Case 239. Q. Imp. The Case was A Tenant in Tayle the Remainder to the Lord Mountjoy in fee of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant bargained and sold the same by Indenture not enrolled to I. S. and his Heirs rendring 42 l. rent with Clause of Distress and Nomine pene and covenanted for further assurance to levy a Fine to the Bargainee Proviso that the Bargainee grant the next Avoydance to A. for life and if it happen not void then one life to his Executors A and I. S. afterwards levyed a Fine with the render of a Rent of 42 l. to A. in tayle the remainder to I. S. in fee B. in his life did not grant the Advowson to A. and dyed the Church became void A. entred for the Condition broken It was in this Case resolved 1. That the Proviso made a Condition 2ly That the Fine levyed had not extinguished the Condition 3ly That no time being limited for the regrant the Bargainee was bound to regrant it without request at his peril during the life of the Bargainor if he were requested in the life of the Bargainor and because the Bargainor dyed the Condition was broken Fox and Colliers Case 240. Ejectione firme the Case was E. G. Bishop of York 6. Nov. 18. had made a Lease from the date of the Indenture of Lands for 21. years to the Plaintiff which Lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter at which time there was unexpired 4. years of an antient Lease made for 40. years Afterwards E. G. was removed to Canterbury and S. elected Bishop of York the 4. years expired the Plaintiff entred The Defendant upon a Lease made to him by S. after the 4. years ended put him out It was resolved by all the Justices and Barons in the Exchequer Chamber That the Lease made to the Plaintiff was good yet they agreed it should be void if it was not for the Confirmation 2ly They held that the Lease now in Question being to commence presently in Estoppel but not in Interest was not void by the Statute of 1 Eliz. neither within the letter nor the intent of the Statute not within the letter because it is not prejudicial to the Successor and the Statute is satisfied in the intent it not being a Lease longer than 21. years and having the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter it is now good although it was not good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. Knowles and Lines Case 241. Ejectione firme The Case was Sir Francis Englesfield was seised in the right of K his wife of the Mannor of S. whereof a Messuage and Lands in question were Copyhold demiseable for 3. lives 1 Eliz. Sir Francis Englefield went beyond Sea with license for 3. years after his Licence expired the Queen sent a Privy Seal to him commanding him upon his Allegiance to return he spretis Mandatis of the Queen continued there and adhered to the Queens Enemies This being retorned a Commission issued to seize his Lands upon which the said Mannor of S. was seized The Queen at the Suit of K. his Wife for her Releif granted the Mannor to St. John and Fetiplace the Friends of K. for her Releife quamdiu in manibus nostris fore contigerit who entred and were thereof possessed accordingly and then the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives was made After which the Defendant procured a Warrant from the Lord Treasurer to C. and F. joynt Stewards for the Queen to hold Court within all the Lands of Sir Francis Englefield and to grant Copyes according to the Custom of the Mannor C. alone executed the Grant and granted the Messuage and Lands to the Defendant's being Copyhold In the Case was two points 1. If the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives had taken away the Estate of St. John Fetiplace and reduced the Mannor again to the Queen 2ly If the Court holden by C. only being a joynt Grant of Stewardship was good Resolved 1. That the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives was made in affirmance of the Common law and did not give the Queen any new thing but added only some Circumstances to it and therefore the Grant made to St. John and Fetiplace stood good so as the Queen could not oust the Patentees and so by consequence the Grant of the Copyhold to Lines the Defendant was not good 2ly They held that the Court holden by C. only was good For it was said a Disseasor c. might hold Courts and make admittance and take surrenders and the like because he is but an Instrument of Conveyance but he could not grant Copyhold estates 242. Note by the Justices If a man be to make sufficient proof it may be made by Witnesses produced as by Jury 243. A man seised of Lands parcell Copyhold and of Lands at the Comon Law and by Licence of the Lord makes a Lease of them for 21. years Provided if the Lessor or his Wife or his Heirs or Assignes or any of them give warning to the Lessee that the Husband or Wife or their Heirs will dwell there that then the Lessee should avoid Except that the Lessor or his Heirs shall pay to the Lessee then 20 l. The Lessor and his Wife dyes and the Reversion of one part discendeth to the eldest Son and the Reversion of the other to the youngest and the youngest purchaseth the Reversion of the eldest and then the youngest gives warning to the Lessee It was the opinion of the Justices that the warning given by him was good and that the Law which hath severed the Reversion hath severed also the Condition although at the begining they were entire and so for one part as Heir and for the other part as Assignee he shall take advantage of the Cndition 244. A man makes a Lease of Land and of an House for years reserving one Rent for all and afterwards the Lessor grants the Reversion of all the Lands saving the Reversion of the House to himself Resolved that by agreement betwixt the Lessor and grantee in the Reversion in pays the Rent may be apportioned if it be according to the quantity and quality of the Land
and if they had imployed nothing that way then nothing was given to the Crown In the principal Case it was adjudged against the Queen and Informer Bossevile and the Corporation of Bridgwaters Case 263. King H. 8. Anno 33. of his Raign made a Lease to the Earl of Bath of the Rectory of Bridgewater and of the Tythes of 2. Hamlets in W. parcell of the said Rectory at the Rent of 10 l. which lease continued till 2. Eliz. in which year Bossevile purchases from the Queen the Rectory of W. of the value of 10 l. yearly and had general Words of the Tythes within the 2. Hamlets but the Lease to the Earl of Bath that was then in esse was not recited and afterwards 3. Eliz. the Queen granted the Rectory of Bridgwater and the Tythes of the 2. Hamlets and all which was in the Earl of Baths Lease to the Corporation of Bridgwater Bossevile by vertue of the Statute of 18. Eliz. of Non Recitals and Misrecitals which had retrospect to the beginning of the Raâ—gn of the said Queen claymed the Tythes within the said 2. Hamlets against the Corporation After a long Argument upon a Reference out of the Court of Wards to the Chief Justices Wray and Anderson it was Resolved by them That the Patent was good without recital to Bossevile against the Queen by relation of the Statute of 18. Eliz. which makes Patents good from 2. November in the first year of the Queen and should binde the Queen her Heirs and Successors but should not be good against the Corporation of Bridgwater and therefore the Case in the Court of Wards was decreed against Bossevile Diggs Case 264. An Annuity was granted in fee at the first day of payment the Annuity was paid to the Grantee and the Grantee made an Acquittance thereof to the Grantor and in the end of the Acquittance he released to the Grantor all Actions and after at the next payment the same was behind and the Grantee brought a VVrit of Annuity against which the Grantor pleaded the Release in Barre It was strongly objected that by the Release the Annuity was determined being a personal thing and a thing in Action But it was resolved by the Court That for an Annuity before the day of payment an Action did not lye and that before it was not therefore resolved by the Release of all Actions before the day of payment and although an Annuity be a Personal thing for which the Grantee hath not any remedy but by way of Action yet it is not a thing in Action It was adjudged for the Plaintiff that the Action was well brought notwithstanding the Release Stantons Case 265. S. at the age of 16. years bound himself an Apprentice in London to I. S. by Indenture containing the ordinary words of every Indenture for Apprentices and afterwards by the command of his Master who was Baily of an Hospital in London and with those Moneys and other Moneys of his Masters he went away and had not discharged his Master against the Hospital for which he brought Covenant upon the Indenture The Defendant pleaded that he was within age in Barre of the Action and also said that upon this Custome the Defendant was impleadâ—â—â—e only in London and not in this Court The Court seemed to be of opinion That the Custome was a good Custome and the Defendant was lyable to the Action within the Custom and that he was impleadable within any place of England as well as in London and therefore that the Action was well brought 266. A Custome in London was set forth to be That if many are bounden in an Obligation as Sureties that if the Principal fail of payment so as that it one of the Sureties be sued upon the Obligation that he might have a VVrit De Contributione facienda against the Sureties and said that such VVrit was brought in London which was removed in C. B. It was remanded into London because the Common Pleas could not doe right upon the Custome Shelleyes Case 267. Upon a Special Verdict in Ejectione firme the Case was Ed. Shelley and Joan his VVife Tenants in special Tayle the Remainder in fee to Ed. had Issue then Hen and Richard Joan dyed Hen. dyed in the life of Ed. having Issue Mary It was found that Ed. by Indenture 1 2 Phil. Mar. covenanted with I. S. and others to suffer a common Recovery to the use of himself for life and after to I. B. for 24. years and after the years expired to the use of the Heirs Males of the Body of the said Ed. and the Heirs Males of the Body of such Heirs Males and for want of such Issue to the use of the Heirs Males of the Body of John Shelly of M. c. and 9. Oct. the first day of the Term Ed. dyed between the hours of 5. and 6. in the morning and afterwards the same day the Recovery passed and that by a VVarrant of Attorney made in the life of Ed. Execution was the 19. day of October by Habere facias seisinam and it was found that 5. December following the wife of Hen. Shelly was delivered of Hen. the now Defendant The Land was also found to be in Lease for years at the time of the Recovery and that Richard Shelley the younger Son of Edward entred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff In this Case there were these points 1. If the Recovery suffered by Ed. the day he dyed was good 2ly If being suffered by him Tenant in tayle it might be executed after his decease upon the Issue 3ly If any use did rise upon the Recovery before Execution 4ly If Richard the youngest Son before the birth of Hen. the Infant took the Land by purchase or by Discent This Case was many times argued at the Barre and afterwards for Difficulty was by the Command of the Queen adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber where it was argued by all the Judges of England and at last it was resolved against the Plaintiff and the reasons of their Judgements were these 1. Because they all agreed that Richard Shelley was in by Discent and not by Purchase after the death of Ed. and before the birth of Hen. the Defendant 2ly That the Recovery was good although that Ed. dyed the same day before the sitting of the Court 3ly That Execution might be sued against the Issue in tayle but that no Seisin was in the Recoverors nor any use raysed till Execution sued 268. A Lease for years was made upon Condition to re-enter for not payment of the Rent A man of ill fame out-lawed in 40. Action at the last instant of the day demanded the rent The Lessee asked him what authority he had to receive it he said he was senr thither by the Lessor but did not shew any warrant from him or that he was his Servant This was the opinion of the Justices that if any one would swear that was true against the Party who demanded
was attainted of Treason The first Question was If the Uses limited to I. S. and others were good or not Resolved they were void because they wanted a good consideration but if he had made them Executors and chargeable to the payment of his debts then the same had been good Second point If the use limited to William Pagett should begin presently after the death of the Lord Pagett or should expect untill the 24. years were incurred after the death of the Lord Pagett or not at all Resolved That the use should be in William Pagett presently before the 24. years were expired Wiseman and Barnards Case 328. The case was Tenant in tail for the advancement of his Blood Name and Issue covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself in tail the remainder to the Plaintiff in tail the remainder to the Queen in see and died his issue entred and suffered a common Recovery and died without issue he in the remainder entred Resolved That the consideration that the Land should continue in his Name and Blood was no consideration to raise the use to the Queen 2. Resolved that he in the Remainder was barred by the common Recoverie and the Remainder not preserved by the Statute of 34. H. 8. because it was not of the Provision of the Queen but of a common person Chenyes Case 329. A seized of Lands made a Lease for years thereof to B. and C. upon confidence for the preferment of the wife of A. and afterwards he made a Feoffment to B. and others to certaine uses of the same Lands the point was If the Lease for years were extinguished by the Feoffment Resolved That the Terme was not extinct but was saved by the Proviso in the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses which preserved all Interest which the Feoffees had in the Lands to their own uses and here B. had the Term to his own use and therefore not extinguished Pimbs Case 330. A committed Treason 18. Eliz. and was attainted 26. Eliz. In the interim he was Conusee of a Fine levied by I. S. which fine was to the use of the said I. S. and his wife Afterwards I. S. and his wife bargained and sold the Land for money to Pimb It was conceived that the Land was in the Queen upon the discovery of the Treason and Attainder which intitles the Queen to all the Lands which Traitors had at the time of the Treason or after so as the estate of I. S. and his wife was thereby destroyed by the Relation of the Attainder Wherefore Pimb sued to the Queen and she granted him the Land by her Letters Patent Beckwiths Case 331. Husband and Wife seized of Lands in the right of the Wife levied a Fine The husband detained the uses solie one way and the Wife detained the uses upon the Fine another way It was resolved that both the Declaration of the uses were void and so by consequence the uses upon the Fine should be to the use of the Wâ—te and her Heirs The Lord Mountjoys Case 332. The Case was this A Mannor which did consist of Free Rents of 7. l. copyhold Rents of 3. l. and of domaines which had used to be devised for several Rents and Farmes to which Mannor an Acre of waste parcel of the Mannor of the yearly value of 12. d. Heriotts Court Baron Leet and perquisits of Court which never were devised for Life years or otherwise did appertain and were incident was by a private Act of Parliament given to A. and B. in tail with diverse remainders over and the Donees were restrained Quod non facerent aliquid ad Nocumentum or disinheritance of the Tenant in tail or them in remainder and that they should have power to make a Lease for Life Years or at Will rendring the true and ancient Rent of the said Tenements to be demised and that all other acts should be void Tenant in tail accepted of a fine from a stranger of the Mannor by which they granted and rendred the Mannor for 300. years rendring rent yearly amounting to the free Rents Copy rents and Farme Rents and 18. d. more and 12. d. for the waste to be paid at two Feasts whereas the ancient Rent was paid at four Feasts Tenant in tail died and if the Lease for 300. years was to be avoided by the clause of Restraint was the Question It was Resolved 1. That although by the purview of the Act That all Estates restrained by the Act should be void yet the same should not avoid the Lease as to the Tenant in tail himself but it should be avoided by the Issues in tail 2. Resolved That in respect the Acre of waste was never devised before that the Rent which is entire reserved out of the whole cannot be said the true and antient Rent 3. Resolved That the reservation of the Rent at two Feasts where the antient Rent was payable at four Feasts made the Grant and Render void for that was to the hurt of the Issues in tail for it was more beneficial to have the Rent at four Feasts then at two Feasts and all beneficial Qualities of the Rent ought to be observed and for these causes and others the Lease for years was to be avoided by the Issue in tail Knights Case 333. The Case was a Prior seised of divers houses with the consent of his Covent made a lease of them for years rendring rent of 5. l. 10. s. 11. d. at four usual Feasts upon condition that if the Rent was behind in part or in all at any of the said Feasts he and his Successors to reenter The Priory came to the King by surrender the King by his Letters Pattents under the Great Seal granted one of the houses to the Lessee and another in Fee and afterwards it was found by Commission under the Exchequer Seal that parcel of the said Rent was behind at one of the said Feasts the King before the Commission returned granted the residue of the houses to I. S. in Fee It was resolved in this case amongst other things That although without Office found the Lease was not void and although the Office was not returned before the date of the Letters Pattents made to I. S. yet forasmuch as the Office was found before the Grant and afterwards it was returned of Record that the grant was good and that in this case of Reentry without seisure the Lease was void Owens Case 334. Upon a Fine levyed the Lands were rendred to A. and to his wife and to the Heirs of the body of A. A. suffered a Recovery with Voucher in the life of his wife and afterwards died the wife died It was resolved in this case that the Recovery suffered by the Husband only did not bind him who was in the Remainder for betwixt husband and wife there are no moyeties and the joynt estate was not severed by the Recovery against the Husband only and the husband was not the only Tenant to the
Covenant he devised to each of the Daughters 10. l. to be paid at their several ages of 21. years One of the daughters sued his Executors in the Spiritual Court for her Legacy and upon suggestion by the party that he is bound to pay her 10. l. at her age of 21. years a Prohibition was granted and the intent of the Devise was that he should not be twice charged 369. One sued an Administrator for debt upon pleinement administr The Jury found Assetts for part to the value and Judgment for that part for the Plaintiff and that for the residue the Defendant eat siae die and now he brought a Scire fac surmising Assetts to the value of the Residue It was the opinion of the Court that it did not lie 370. Debt upon Obligation with condition if the Obligor pay to the Obligee 10. l. or four Kine such a day at the then Election of the Obligee the Obligation to be void It was the opinion of the Court that the Obligor is to tender both at the day appointed by reason of the words at the then Election which word then shall have relation to the day appointed 371. A Lease was made to three Habendum to them for 99. years viz. to the first for 99. years if he should so long live and if he died to the Second pro residuo termino anaorum tunc ventur if he should so long live and if he died within the Term then to the third pro residuo termino annorum ad tunc ventur It was the opinion of the Justices that it could not enure by way of Remainder because there was not any Estate in esse during the particular Estate Yet they conceived the Estate of the second was good because it did enure as a new Grant Qu. 372. In a false Imprisonment against a Mayor he justified because he being a Magistrate the Plantiff said he was a Fool It was the opinion of the Justices that if he called him Fool in the place and exercise of his Offic◠that the Imprisonment was lawfull otherwise not Vdeson and the Mayor of Nottinghams Case 373. Vdeson was in the custody of the Mayor upon the Statute of 23. H. 8. and he would not let him at liberty upon Sureties wherefore he sued by Bill here and and Declared against the Mayor in Custodia Marischalli and recovered by Verdict It was the opinion of the Justices that by the Statute of 18. Eliz. none should sue for any penalty upon a penal Law but by original Writ or Information and so it was said it was adjudged in the Bayliffs of Bosworths Case Griffiths Case 374. It was was Resolved by the Justices That Error lyeth in the Kings Bench upon a Judgment given in an Ejectione firmae in Wales given before the Justices there 375. A Draper having a Servant to sell Clothes in his shop the Servant took the clothes and converted them to his own use It was adjudged that Trespasse vi armis lyeth only against the Servant because he had the possession as Servant and it was Resolved That in all cases where the Servant hath not a speciall nor general property Trespasses lyeth 376. One made a Lease for years the Lessee devised the Term to his wife for so many years as she should live and after to his Son the Wife purchased the Inheritance and sold the same again and covenanted that it was discharged of all Incumbrances and died The Son claimed the Term it was adjudged the possibility to the Son was a forfeiture of the Covenant and Bond of the Wife Sir Thomas Gorges Case 377. The Queen seised of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant and granted the Mannor una cum advocatione Ecclesiae the Church being then void Adjudged the Avoidance did not pass but the Queen should present pro hac vice 378. A man who was bound in a Recognizance for the good Behavior was indicted that he called one Pealer Lier Druakard and said I will make thee a poor Kirton and also Quare clausam fregit averia cepit injustè detinet It was Resolved by the Justices in B. R. That these were not words which threaten a battery of his Body without which the Recognizance is not forfeited 379. Debt brought in the City of Oxon The Defendant pleaded that he was one of the Barons of the Cinque Ports within the County of Kent and pleaded to the Jurisdiction of the Court upon which the Plaintiff demurred Qu. If a good Plea It was not Resolved Hayward and Bettesworths Case 380. Replevin the Defendant avowed for Rent the Case was The Father was seised in Fee and let the Land to the Plaintiff for years rendring Rent and afterwards he infeoffed a Stranger and executed livery upon parcel of the Land in a Close called D. the Lessee nor any of his Cattel being there but being in the house It was adjudged that nothing passed by the Livery but that the reversion of the whole descended and therefore it was adjudged for the Avowant Pigott Palmers and Grangers Case 381. The Case was A. was seised of Land which he intended to sell to the Father for 160. l. of which 140. l. was paid by G. in consideration of the Marriage of Pigott with the daughter of Granger and that the Land shall be conveyed for the Joynture of the daughter and the Heirs Males of their Bodies they intermaried and had Issue the Plaintiff Pigot died the wife took Husband Palmer the Defendant and they accepted a Fine of a Stranger with a render to the Stranger for 100. years rendering the ancient rent the wife died It was resolved that the taking of the Conveyance with the render for 100. years made the Estate of the wife void by the Statute of 11. H. 7. Zouth and Bamfields Case 382. In a Formedon in the Discender brought of the Moiety of a Mannor The Defendant pleaded in Bar that the Grandfather of the Demandant levied a Fine sur Conusance de droit c. with Proclamation of the moiety of the said Mannor by which Fine it was granted and rendered to the Grandfather and his Heirs whose estate the Tenant in the Formedon had The Defendant replyed that at the time of the Fine levyed and after the Demandant was seised of the Land in his Demesne as of Fee It was Resolved That the Defendant being Heir in tail against such Fine levyed by his Ancestor whose Heir he is was estopped to aver his seisin and continuance thereof as a stranger at the time of the Fine levyed Nor to add Quod partes finis nihil habuerunt Against which it was objected 1. That by the Statute of Donis It is provided Quod finis ipso jure sit nullus 2. That the Statute of 27. E. 1. of Fines doth not extend to Heirs in tail but to Heirs in Fee and that the Issues in tail are not bound by Fines which enure by way of Estoppel 3. That the Statute of Fines
he was not a person Qualified to take two benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities It was agreed that a Countesse a Widdow had power to retain two Chaplains who might purchase Dispensation for plurality But when she had once retained two she could not retain a third Chaplin who might purchase Dispensation within the Statute and therefore in the principal Case the Retainer of Priory being the third Chaplain was not good nor his dispensation good and so the Queen for want of Presentation of the Patron and Ordinary had good title to present Oldbery and Grogonds Case 729. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of certain money at a day certain The Defendant pleaded that the same was agreed to be paid for the Resignation of a Parson of his Benefices to the intent another might be presented unto it and so upon a Symoniacal agreement The Court held it no plea for that an averment shall not be that it was to be paid for other cause then the Obligation expresseth Agor and Candishes Case 730. An information was brought in the Exchequer by an Informer tam pro Domina Regina quam prose ipso upon the Statute of 8 E. 4. cap. 2. of Retainers and Judgment was there given the Informer to have one Moyety of the forfeiture and the Queen the other Moyety Error was brought upon the Judgment and assigned for Error that the Statute limits the party to sue in the Kings Kings Bench and divers other Courts but speaks not of the Exchequer It was the opinnion of the Justices that for that cause the Judgment was erroneous as to the Informer only Then it was moved that the Judgment might be and stand good for the whole forfeiture to the Queen for it was said that a Judgment might be reversed in part and stand for the other part and divers Presidents vouched to that purpose But the Court was of opinion because the first Judgment gave but a Moyery to the Queen this Court had not power to give more nor encrease it but only had power to affirme the Judgement Boddy and Hargraves Case 731. Debt upon a Lease for years was brought against the Administrator in the Debet detinet It was adjudged well brought because the Rent was encreased in the time of the Administrator himself But it was said That in all Cases where the Executor or Administrator brings an Action for a duty Testamentary it ought to be only in the Detinâ—t because the duty demanded ought to be Assets Layton and Garnonces Case 732. A man recovered Debt in Co. B. and had Judgment and he took forth Processe and the party was taken upon a Capias utlagatum within the year after the Judgment upon Processe continued without any discontinuance against him It was adjudged in this Case that he should be in Execution at the suit of the party without prayer because the processe was continued Parker and Sir Ed. cleeves Case 733. The Case was A. seised of three acres of equall value conveyed by act executed two of them for the Joynture of his Wife and the third he conveyed by act executed to the use of such persons and of such estates as he should declare by his last Will afterwards he devised the Land to one under whom the Plaintiff claimed In this Case it was amongst other poynts Resolved that he could not devise the Land because he had Conveyed two parts before by act executed in his life time Sydnam and Courtneys Case 734. Sir George Sydnam possessed of divers Leases for years gave them to his Daughter who was the Wife of C and to the Heirs of her body and if she dyed withot Issue that they should remain to such person of Combe Sydnam which Combe Sydnam he devised to his Cosen and his Heirs males in default of the Issue of the body of his daughter There was a Clause in the Will that his daughter should not alter the Leases but that they should remain according to the Will and made his Daughter his Executrix and dyed C. caused the Daughter to enter upon the Leases as Executrix and so waive the Legacy and afterwards the Daughter dyed without Issue Then C. caused an Administration to be taken of the goods of Sir George Sydenham which was at the Costs of C. and then to convey over the Leases to C. The Heir of Sir Geoâ—ge complained in Chancery and the Leases decreed unto him for the two fraudes which were used by C. in the Obliging of the Leases because the Daughter had them upon special trust and although it was said in this Case that the entail of the Leases was not good yet because there was a trust in the Daughter and expressed in the Will It was said the parties were compellable to execute the Trust and the Lord Chancellour resembled it to the Case where an Assignment was made of a Lease upon an expresse Trust to one and the Heirs of his body and afterwards to another and the Heirs of his body and the Assignes were Compelled to execute the Trust and to suffer the Issues in Tail to take the profits of the Lands The Countesse of Waâ—wicks Case 735. The Case was A. seised in Fee enfeoffed I. S. who dyed without Issue having Issue M. his Sister and Heir of the whole blood and T. of the half blood their Father being long before attainted of Felony dyed seised M. entred and enfeoffed the Countesse The point was if the Corruption of the blood of the Father had disabled the Course of discent and Inheritance between the Brother and Sister Quaere not Resolved Sprakes Case 736. A Copyholder makes a Lease for years Resolved that the Lessee may maintain Ejectione firme though the Lease be not warranted by the Custom Fisher and Smiths Case 737. Note It was Resolved in this Case That if a man plead a Bargain and Sale in which no consideration of mony is expressed there it must be averred that it was for mony and the words for divers considerations will not imply mony but if the deed be for a Competent sum of mony though the certainty of the sum be not expressed it is good enough Worsloy and Charnocks Case 738. A Statute Merchant was by Mâ—ttimus removed out of the Chancery in C. B. an execution awarded there super tenorem Recordi Resolved 1. That Error lyes in B. R. although the Original be in the Chancery and the Execution in C. B. 2. Resolved that in that Case the Conusor cannot alledge for Error that the Statute wants one of the Seales that ought to be to it because he hath admitted the same in C. B. 739. Debt in B. R. upon Mutuatas for 50 l. the Defendant pleaded an Attachment in London and had found pledges and because the pledges were not put in at the day of the last default but at another day it was holden No plea and Judgment was for the Plaintiff Washington and Burgons Case 740. It was holden by the
Debt against Executors upon Obligation of 200 l. they pleaded a Recovery by a stranger of 200 l. upon another Obligation and averred it was a just and true Debt ultra which they had not in their hands the Plaintiff said the Recovery was by Covin It was adjudged in B. R for the Plaintiff Error brought and the Judgment reversed for it could not be by Covin if it was a just Debt and the Replication should have been absque hoc it was a just and true Debt Morses and Rosses Case 935. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff would surcease his Suit which he had in Chancery against the Defendant the Defendant promised to save him harmlesse from all actions which should be brought against him for or Concerning a Lease which the Defendant had assigned to him and alledged he surceased his Suit and that a Stranger had brought an action against him in B. R. by reason of the said Lease and the Defendant did not save him harmlesse Judgment being for the Plaintiff in B. R. It was reversed because he did not shew the certainty of the Action brought against him nor that it was for any matter in esse at the time of the promise Wood and Bukleys Case 936. Action upon the Case whereas Wood exhibited his Bill against Buckley in Star Chamber containing he had nusselled Pirats Murtherers and other Malefactors he being a Justice of Peace and Vice-Admiral Wood afterwards in another place having speech with divers concerning as well of the ill carriage of the said Buckley as of the matter in his Bill against Buckley in the Star Chamber said I will Justify every matter therein to be true The Defendant Justified the speaking of the words being examined upon the truth of his Bill before I. S. and I. D. by Command of the Councell and traversed that he spake them at any other place or time upon demur being adjudged for the Plaintiff upon Error brought the Judgment was reversed because no action lying for the exhibiting of the Bill no action lay for saying the words of his Bill were true Sir Henry Berkley and Earle of Pembrooks Case 937. Action upon the Case by the Earl of Pembroke against Sir Henry Berkley and shewed he was seised of the Mannor of S. to which the Office of the Keeper of the Forrest of F. did appertain in Fee and to have omnia bona forfeited within the Forrest fugam facere bis per annum quicquid de hujusmodi fugatione accidere possit and to have Hony Wax mortuum boscum c. appertaining to his Office and the Defendant disturbed him to exercise the said Office The Defendant pleaded a Deed in Tail in Bar made by the Plaintiff In the Deed there was a Proviso viz. Provided alwayes and the said Sir Henry Berkley doth Covenant for him and the Heirs males of his body to and with the said Earl and his Heirs to preserve the game as far as commonly hath been used and that he nor his Heirs males shall cut or sell any woods there except for browse and necessary reparations and the Plaintiff said the Defendant had cut down four Oakes and converted them to his own use and averred they were not for browse nor reparations and that he entred for the forfeiture It was adjudged upon a demur in B. R. for the Plaintiff Error was brought upon the Exchequer Chamber upon the matter in Law that the Proviso was not a Condition but a Covenant but as to that point it was Resolved by all the Justices that the Proviso was a Condition 2. Error was that the damages were assessed entirely for divers things some of them being uncertainly and insufficiently alledged for he prescribed to have omnia bona forisfacta which could not be without Charter also to have de furgatione quicquid acciderit which was also uncertain and also the damages for them ought to have been severally assessed and not entirely The Court held that for that Cause the Judgment was erroneous and for that Cause only the Judgment was reversed Reymer and Grimstones Case 938. Assumpsit In Consideration he at the Defendants request had promised to wash the Defendants linnen and the linnen of his Servants and to provide meat and drink for the Defendant and his Servants the Defendant promised to pay so much money to the Plaintiff when he should require it so as it should not exceed the proportion used in O. for the like time and further declared that in Consideration the Defendant upon accompt between them made was in arrerage to the Plaintiff 18 l. the Defendant promised to pay him the said 18 l. and the Plaintiff shewed for how long time he had washed the Cloathes c. and that he required 8 l. which did not exceed the proportion in O. upon Non Assumpsit found for the Plaintiff and damages severally assessed for the Costs entirely Error was thereupon brought it was the opinion that the first Assumpsit was good and the second void and the Judgment given for the damages and Costs upon the first Assumpsit was good and the Judgment for them affirmed but for the damages assessed upon the second Assumpsit and for the damages de incremento entirely give for both the Judgment was reversed Goodall and Wyatts Case 939. In Ejectione firme The Case was A. made a Feoffment of Lands to B. in Fee upon Condition if A. paid within a year after the death of the Feoffee to his Heirs Executors or Administrators 100 l. that the Feoffment should be void B. made a Feoffment over to C. and dyed and afterwards within the year it was agreed betwixt A. and the Administrator of the Feoffee that the said A. should pay to the Administrator the 100 l. and that the Administrator should repay back all to A. the Feoffee but only 32 l. which was done accordingly and then A. entred into the Lands pretending the Condition was performed it was adjudged in B. R. that his entry was not Lawfull and that this fraudulent and Covenous payment was no performance of the Condition and upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber all the Justices a greed that the Judgment given in B. R. should be affirmed Vitsey and Fermours Case 940. The King granted Manerium de H. in Parochia de R. omnia terras decimas haereditamenta sua in R A. in the tenur of I. S nec non omnia alia terras tenementa haereditamenta in R praedict ' It was adjudged in B. R. that the Tythes in H. which was a Town within the Parish of R. did passe But upon Errour brought the Judgment was reversed because R. praedict shall be intended R. the Town and not R. the Parish Adams and Dixons Case 941. Assumpsit the Plaintiff was Bail for I. S. in B. R. the Defendant in Consideration that he should pay him the Condemnation promised to deliver to him the Bond made for the principal Debt and a letter of
and after to the use of C. in tail and after to D. in tail and after to the right Heirs of A. and of the Mannor of B. immediately after he the said A. should die without Issue of his Body to the use of E. daughter of I. for her Life and afterwards to D in tail and afterwards to C. in tail and to the right Heirs of A. And of the moiety of the Mannor of W. and other the Premises of which no use was before declared to the use of the said A. and such Heirs of his Body and after to the use of the said E for Life the remainder to D. in tail the remainder to C. in tail the Remainder to his right Heirs Provided That if at any time after he should be minded to revoke the said Indenture or any use or estates therein contained or to raise and create any other use or Estate and should declare the same to any person c. in the presence of two Witnesses then the Remainders and all other Estates in the said Indenture to be void and the Conusees of the Fine to stand seised to the use of the said A. and his Heirs Afterwards A. reciting the former Indenture and the Proviso in consideration of a Marâ—iage between I. D. and the said E. did declare to I. N. in the presence of two Witnesses that he did revoke and make void the former Deed and every Article therein concerning the Mannor of B. but as touching the Mannor of M that the same should stand in force and by the last Indenture did covenant with I. D. and E. his Wife that the Conusees of the Fine c. should stand seised of the Mannor of B. and the moiety of the Mannor of V. to the use of the said I. D. and E. his Wife for their Lives and after to the Issue of the Body of the said I. D. and E. as should be then eldest living at the death of the Survivors of them for the Life of such Issue and after to the use of the said A. and of such the Heirs of his Body as he should after beget on the body of I. his Wife or on the Body of any other woman which he should marry and after to â— in tail and after to C. in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. It was found that E. was the Daughter of I. but born before her marriage with A. A and I. his Wife died and found he married no other woman and that F. was Son and Heir of A. and was of full age The Questions in this long case were these 1. Whether all the use and agreements in the first Indenture as to the Mannors of B. and V. were revoked by the second Indenture 2. Whether the new uses limited by the second Indenture and such Revocation of the former uses were effectual to convey any Estate to I. D. and E his Wiâ—e with the Remainder over to take away the immediate discent from the Heir at Law The case was argued in B. R. and the Justices were divided in their opinions and afterwards it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber but whether there Resolved or not Quaere Sir Arthur Goâ—ges Case 967. The case was the Lord Viscount Brindon was seised of Lands holden of the Queen in capite he had Issue Douglasse his Daughter and Heir who was married to Sir Arthur Gorge and she by him had Issue Ambrosia Gorge Sir Arthur married his Daughter Ambrosia when she was above the age of eight years and before she was of the age of nine years to Francis Gorge Son and Heir of Sir Thomas Gorge who died before Ambrosia accomplished her age of eleven years The Question upon the whole matter was if the Wardship of the body of Ambâ—osia did belong to the Queen or not It was Resolved in this case amongst other points that the Queen should have the Wardship in regard the Marriage was not a compleat Marriage because the Husband died before the years of consent of Ambrosia Bartons Case 968. A seised of the Mannâ—rs of O. and R. and of Lands called F. in the counry of Lanc. holden in capite 16 Octob. 19 Eliz made a Writing purporting that he did give the said Mannors and Lands to B. C. D. and E. and their Heirs to the several uses and under the agreements contained in a Schedule to the said Deed annexed and by the Schedule he declared the uses to be to himself for Life without Impeachment of wast and afterwards of part of the Lands to M. his Wife for her life and then to the â—ight Heirs of A. with a Proviso that if at any time after his Life during the Life of the said M. the Heirs of â—he said A. or any claiming under his Heirs trouble or disturb the said M. that then the said B. and other the parties should stand seised of the Lands in which she should be disturbed to the use of the said M. and her Heirs for ever Afterwards the said A. made a Lease of the said Mannors and Lands to I. S. for 100 years to begin after the death of M. A. died M entred The Heir of A after his death entred and disturbed M. contrary to the Pâ—oviso it was Resolved by the Justices in this case that the future use was checked by the Lease although it was but interesse termini and that the use to M. and her Heirs could not rise upon her dusturbance but that it was destroyed for ever Vernons Case 969. Margaret Winter Widow the late wife of Henry Vernon seised of Lands in Fee holden in capite enfeoffed thereof I. S. and others to the use of herself for Life and after to B. her younger Son and the Heirs of his body with divers Remainders over with a Proviso if she should be minded to alter the uses and signâ—fie the same under her hand and Seal to her Feoffâ—es and tender to them 10 l. that then all the uses in the Indenture should be voâ—d and hâ—r Feâ—ffees should stand seâ—sed to sâ—ch new uses as should be limited by the said M. M. according â—o the Proviso signified her intent and tendred 10 l. to her Feoffees and then declared that her said Feoffees should stand seised thereof to the use of G. W. for Life the Remainder to the said M. for Life the Remainder to H. Vernon her Son and the Heirs of his Body Henry Vernon died having Issue a Daughter within age and after M. W. died It was holden clearly in the Court of Wards that because there is no mention of any entry by the eldest Son and Heir that the Estate which Henry Vernon had in Tail was not avoided and so by consequence the Daughter of Heary Vernon should be in Ward Sir Robert Remington and Savages Case 970. A levyed a Fine of Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his Executors for 20. years the Remainder to his Son in tail with diverse Remainders over Afterwards he
it was Resolved that upon such Writ the Sheriff or his Officer might without any Offence by a Warrant arrest the person of the Countesse for he is not to dispute the authority of the Coâ—rt in awarding the proces but he is to execute the Writ to him directed But because the Defendants did arrest the Countesse upon a feined action of their own heads without Warrant They were fined and sentenced by the Court. Dag and Penkevells Case 1007. A bill was exhibited in the Star Chamber against the Defendant and divers others for several Offences The Defendant for that he inserted the name of a special Bailiff in a Warrant which was made by the Sheriff with blanks without privity or direction of the Sheriff Note in this Case it was holden that where there are several Defendants and one only is sentenced the other shall have Costs because not charged with the offence for which the sentence was but with other Offences of which they were acquitted 2. It was holden in this Case that a Defendant shall not have benefit of a general pardon at hearing of the Cause unlesse he prayes the same upon his answer put into Court Clerks Case 1008. Note in this Case being the Case of a Purveyor who was sentenced in the Star Chamber for several Offences in executing his Office of Purveyor It was said there were 7. properties incident to every Purveyor 1. He ought to be sufficient to answer the King and the party 2. He is to do his service in person and not by Deputy because it is an Office of Tâ—â—st 3. He is to be sworn in Chancery before he execute his Office for he ought to have authority under the great Seal with blank Labells to insert what he takes 5. His Authority is to continue but six moneths without renewing 6. He ought to take where is plenty and in Convenient time and no more then is sufficient 7. He is to take the things in kind and not money for them Lovice and Goddards Case 1009. The Case was A. the Grandfather had Issue two Sons T. and W. and by his Will devised to T. all his Mannors Lands c. within the Counties of D. and C. viz. to T. and the Heirs males of his body after his decease for 500. years Provided if T. or any Issue male of his body give grant c. the premises or any parcel thereof oâ—herwise then to Lease and demise the same for any term or number of years as may or shall be determinable upon the deaths of aâ—y 2. persons c. to be made in the Leases c. then all the premises for default of such Issues males of the said T to be begotten c. immediatly upon such alâ—â—nation gift grant c. shall remain and come to W. and to the Heirs males of his body c. The devisor dyed T. entred and made a Lease for 1000. years to I. S. who never entred T. dyed without Issue male I. being his Daughter and Heir W. dyed having Issue the Plaintiff who entred upon whom I. entred In this Case it was Resolved in C. B. that the devise to T. and the Heirs males was an estate Tail and the limitation for years void 2. Resolved that there ought to be a concurrence of death without Issue male and also of alienation before the rising of the Remainder 3. That the Remainder should never rise because the particular estate was destroyed by the alienation before the Remainder could commence 4. That the Lease for 1000. years made to I. S. was not an alientation within the Proviso upon which the estate might rise to W. when T. was dead without Issue male because that T. who made the Lease was but Tenant in Tail and then the Lease was determined upon his death It was the opinion of all the Justices in C. B. that the Judgment should be for the Defendant upon which Judgment the Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error in B R. and there by all the Justices upon the matter in Law the Judgment was reversed Mich 3. Jan. Cargenter and Collins Case 1010. In Debt for Rent the Case was A. had a Son and a Daughter and devised that his Son should have his Land at his age of 24. years and gave 40 l. to his Daughter to be paid at her age of 22. years and appointed that C. should be his Excecutor and should have the oversight and dealing of his Lands and goods till his Children should come to the ages aforesaid and dyed C. the Plaintiff made a Lease to the Defendant at Will rendering Rent at Mich. and our Lady-day the Daughter entred upon the Tenant at Will the Tenant attorned to her the Son dyed within the age of 24 years the Defendant did not pay the Rent for which C. brought Debt against him It was adjudged against the Plaintiff Resolved 1. The word Oversight and dealâ—ng with his Lands and goods did not give any Interest to C. the Excecutor but an authority only and that the estate discended to the Son 2. That by the death of the Son the Interest of the Executor was determined for it was noâ— the intent of the devisor to bar the Heir of the Son untill the Son should come to the age of 24 years if he lived 3. That the Tenury at Will was determined by the entry of the Daughter because she entred by Title i. e. as Heir to her Brother Lord Aburgavenny and Edwards Case 1011. An Excommengement was pleaded in Bar and the Certificate of the Bishop of Lâ—ndaph shewed of it but doth not mention by what Bishop the party was Excommenge wherefore it was adjudged void Rastoll and Drapers Case 1012. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of so much Flemish mony the Plaintiff declared for so much English money and it was holden good by the Court. Doyly and Drakes Case 1013. A man had two Closes adjoyning time out of mind and sold one of them who should make the Inclosure the Purchasor or the vendor the Court was divided in opinion Vide 21 Eliz. Diâ—r 372. Williams and Vaughans Case 1014 Scire facias by the Plaintiff against the Defendant who was bail in Debt for I. S. who did not render his body nor pay the Debt the Defendant demurred 1. Because no Capias was sued against the principal and also because the Principal was dead before the Scire facias brought but both points overruled because the Condition of the bail was broken before Whitâ—ock and Harâ—wells Case 1015. A. and B. Sisters Joynt Tenant A. Covenanted with a stranger that he should enjoy the moyety which she held with her Sister in Joynture for 60. years from the death of her Sister if she the said A. should so long live and demised to him the other moyety from her own death for 60. years if her Sister so long lived Adjudged the Lease was void for both moyeties â—he one because of her moyety after the death of her Companion and the other is
confessed the conveying to Friends in trust to his own use The points 1. Whether R. C. by the Will of his Father-in-law or equiiy be entituled to the possibility of the Term that shall remain after the death of J. M. 2. Whether he may sue during the Life of J. M. for this possibility It was decreed in Chancery 1. P. C. is Cestuy que trust and although the possibility be not grantable nor diviseable by Law yet cestuy que trust may declare his VVill and so the VVill of P. C. doth amount to a Declaration of the Trust and ought to bind J. M. the Executor 2. That the acts of the Executor tending to destroy the possibility were breaches of the Trust 3. That Suit for prevention of Fraud or breach of Trust might be before the Trust doth fall to the intent to preserve the possibility The Bishop of Sarums Case 1032. King Edward the Fourth created the Office of Chancellor of the Garâ—er but did not annex any Fee to it and constituted B. Bishop of Sarum to be the first Chancellor during his Life and further granted that the Successors of the Bishop of Sarum for and after should be Chancellors of the Garter B. was received and did execute the Office and died Bishop of Sarum 22 E. 4. It did not appear that any Successor of the Bishop was admitted to the said office but the Kings of England have placed Chancellors If the Bishop of Sarum by Succession had title to the Office was the question It was Resolved he had no title to it 1. because the Pattent was originally void to make the Successor of a Bishop Officer for B. took the Estate for his Life in his natural Capacity and not in his politick Capacity and he could not take both in his natural and his politick Capacity together 2. Because there had not bin any use or exercise of the Office by any Successors 3. In this Case it was agreed that the constitution of a new Office and Officer was good though no Fee was annexed or given to it Tatton and Sir Richard Mollineux Case 1033. A Lessee for 99. years of the Rectory of B. by the Bishop of C. assigned the same to the Defendant and others to the use of the said A for Life the Remainder to B. the Plaintiff and to the Heirs Males of the said B. the Remainder to A. and to those he should assign the same by his Will and for want of such Limitation to the Executors and Administrators of A. A. assigned his Use Interest and Trust to I. S. B. by Decree at Chester recovered the Rectory against the Assignee paying 500 l. B. required the Defendant to assign all the Term to him and to such as he should appoint It was in the Chancery Decreed that the Defendant should make the Assignment to B. or to such as he should name because the Limitation to B. of the Trust and the Heirs Males of his body resembled a Grant or Devise of the Term itself to one and the Heirs Males of his body which cannot be an entail because against the Rules of Law that a Term should be entailed and therefore the Term for such Grant or Devise rests wholly in the Donee or Devisee and he hath the whole disposition of it and such a Term shall not go to the Issue but to the Executors of the Donee or Devise Boldney and Curties Case 1034. A man covenanted to make farâ—her assurance upon request be it by Fine c. The Plaintiff delivered to him a note of a Fine and required the Defendant to acknowledge the same before the Justices of Assize and he did not acknowledge it because no VVrit of Covenant was first brought or depending Resolved the Covenant was broken because the acknowledgment of the Note for a Fine is an Act preparatory for the Fine itself upon which a Writ of Covenant may be after sued â—orth Trot and Spâ—rlings Case 1035. In Audita Querâ—la the case was B. acknowledged a Statute to S. There was a defeazance of it That if his Lands in the county of D. should be extended the Statute should be void Afterwards B. sold his Lands in the county of D. to F. the Plaintiff which being extended he brought Audita Querela It was Resolved in this case by the Justices that the Audita Querela did well lie and F. should be relieved upon it for they held the defeazance to be good and not repugnant They agreed that if the Condition of an Obligation be that the party shall not sue the Obligation that the condition is repugnant but a Defezance by another Deed to that effect is good It was adjudged for the Plaintiff Swaine and Becketts Case 1033. The Queen seised of the Mannor of D. made a Lease thereof for years to I. S. excepting the Trees King James granted the reversion to the Plaintiff the custome of the Mannor was that a Copyholder of the Mannor might top and lop Trees The Defendant being a Copyholder cut Trees for firewood for which Trespass was brought Resolved that the Action did not lie because the Copyholder was in by the custom which was paramount the exception of the Trees in the Lease and the exception should not hinder the custom although the Copyholder came to his Estate after the Exception The Countess of Cumberlands Case 1037. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That great â—eeches of 200 years growth which were for use for Timber in the country where they did grow could not be felled or taken by Tenant for Life because they did belong to the Inheritance and so they said it was of Wind-falls which had Timber in them they did belong to the Inheritance otherwise if they were Dotards and had no Timber in them Lambs Case in the Star-Chamber 1038. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case 1. That the Procurer and also the VVriter of a Lâ—bel were both contrivers of it 2. That if a man read a Libel or heard it read the same is no publication of it but if after it is read he repeat it to another it is a publication of it 3. That he who writes a Libel by the commandment of his Master or Father is not a publisher of it Stone and Walters Case 1039. W. being robbed accused Stone being a Poulterer to be the party who robbed him but afterwards withdrew his accusation Stone not satisfied therewith brought his Action upon the case against W. W. then accused him again of the Felony for which he was bound over to the Sessions where W. swore directly that S. was the party that robbed him yet the Jury found an Ignoramus so as S. was never Indicted nor lawfully acquitted Yet for this conspiracy to accuse him W. and his conrederates were all fined and punished in the Star-chamber And in this case it was holden by the Justices that such Conspirators were punishable by Indictment although an Action upon the case did not lie for the party
which they have otherwise not 245. Tenant in Tail disseiseth the Discontinuee and Levyeth a Fine and the proclamation passes but the Discontinuee during the proclamation makes claime and after the Tenant in Tail dyes and the Discontinuee enters It was the opinion of the Justices that the Issue in Tail was barred by the Fine and in this Case it was said That if the Lord entreth upon his Tenant and enfeoffs a stranger and the Tenant Reenters he avoids the Disseisin and estate but the seignoury is not revived but extinct Pasch 20. Eliz. Jackson and Darceys Case 246. Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levyeth a Fine with Proclamation It was holden it shall binde the Issue notwithstanding the saving in the Statute of 32. H. 8. for that here is not any Reversion in the King but a Remainder of which the Statute speaks nothing but yet this Fine doth not devest the Remainder out of the Kâ—ng but the Conusee shall have a Fee determinable upon the Tail 247. The Master takes an Obligation of his Apprentice that he shall not use his Trade within 4. years in the Town of N. where his Master dwells and he is an Apprentice It was holden the Obligation was not good not should binde the Apprentice 248. A man hath a Warren which extends into 3. Townes and by deed makes a Lease of it for years Rendering rent and after grants the Reversion in one of the Townes to another and the Lessee Attornes It was the opinion of the Justices That the grantee should have no part of the Rent nor the Granter because no Covenant can be apportioned Duland and Cleypooles Case 248. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. of Tillage That the Defendant had Converted 300. Acres of arable Lands to Pastures and that the Conversion hath continued from 15. Eliz. to 20. Eliz. The Defendant as to the Conversion pleaded Not guilty and as to the Continuance the general pardon of 23. Eliz. upon which it was demurred It was argued that the Condition did not extend to the Continuance of the said conversion It was said That if A be seised of arable Lands and converts the same to pasture and so converted Leaseth it to B. who continues it in pasture as he found it he shall be charged by the Statute And Note the words of the Statute are Conversion permitted and Conversion continued is Conversion permitted and the Statute doth not punish only the Conversion but the continuance of it One the other side It was said That the Conversion and the continuance thereof are 2. several things by it self and so the Conversion being only excepted the Continuare thereof is within the Pardon Quaere the Case was adjorned Term. Pasc 24. Eliz. Leeke and Grevells Case 249. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. for converting and using of 2000. Acres of arable into pasture The Defendant said and justified as to 800. Acres That the Queen by Deed under her Great Seal Licensed him to enclose the Mannor of Weston and Welford in the County of Gloucester and to make a Park so as it was not within any Forrest and to Convert and use the Land inclosed of tillage into pasture pro sustentatione ferarum Damarum averiorum suorum by which he enclosed them and converted the Tillage into pasture for the Sustentation of his beasts Upon which it was demurred It was argued that the License was not good because the Statute of 5. Eliz. was to continue but till the beginning of the next Session of Parliament at which time the Statute ended and was not revived till Anno 13. Eliz. so as in Anno 9. when the License was there was not any Statute to prohibit the Conversion of tillage into Pasture and therefore the License in 9. Eliz. could not dispense with the Statute of 13. Eliz. and the Statute of 13 Eliz. did not make such reviver of the Statute of 5. Eliz. as made mean Acts good by any Relation Quaere the Case was not adjudged but adjorned Dolman and the Bishop of Salisburies Case 250. Quare Imp. brought the Defendent pleaded the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 13. of Pluralities that the last Incumbent had a Benifice with Cure of the value of 8 l. and took another Benefice and was Inducted 1 Eliz. upon which the Queen did present the Defendant by Lapse The Plaintiff shewed the Proviso in the Statute of 25. H. 8. that Chaplains qualified might purchase Dispensations and take 2. Benefices and that 1 Eliz. before the Parliament he purchased a Dispensation from the Pope and after he took the second benefice and dyed The question was whether the Pope before the Statute of 25 H. 8. might grant dispensations It was Resolved he could not for that the Kings of England had been Soveraigns within their Realms of the Spiritualties and the Justices held that the dispensation in question was made 1 Eliz and so out of the Statute of 25 H. 8. and that this dispensation to retain a second benefice was against the Statute of 21 H. 8. Lacyes Case 251. In a scire facias upon a Recognizance for not appearing before the Justices of Assise at York the Defendant pleaded that after the Recognizance taken a Commission issued to the Admiral and others to hear and determine Treasons Felonies c. done within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty and that the Commissioners sent to Arrest him before the day of his Appearance because he had mortally wounded a Man upon Scarborow sands if within the flux and reflux of the Sea of which wound he dyed at Scarborow and that thereupon he was Arrested and detained in prison till after the day of Appearance and afterwards was Indicted and arraigned of the said Felony before the Commissioners The Court inclined to be of opinion that the Arrest was a sufficient excuse of his appearance because the Recognizance is a duty to the Queen and the Commission is the Act of the Queen and all that the Commissioners do is by authority from the Queen and in her person and shall be accounted her Act and then when she her self is a cause that the Defendant could not appear that she should not have benefit of the Recognizance 252. The Condition of an Obligation was That if the Obligor pay at or before the 25th day of March he tenders the money the 24th day It was the opinion of Anderson that if he tender the money the last instant of the 24th day he saveth his Bond But the other Justices held the contrary because the word before is not to have any Construction but the Obligor shall be admitted to pay it before by agreement only of the Obligee Quaere 253. A man seised of 3. Mannors in Fee of the value of 300 l. Covenanted in Consideration of the Mariage of his daughter that he would suffer 20 l. yearly to discend come and remain to his daughter and her Husband and the Heirs of their bodies It was the opinion
Lawfull before he had a discharge of this Office or perfect notice of a new Sherff Johnson and Smiths Case 318. Action upon the Case for slandring of his Title and declared That he was seised of Lands by discent from hâ—s Father and was agreed with I. S. for a sale of the same Lands and I. S. went to the Defendant being an Attorney and prayed his advice for the making the Assurance and that the Defendant said to I. S. that he had heard that the Father of the Plaintiff had granted a Rent Charge out of the Lands in Fee by reason of which words I. S. refused to buy the Lands and all other persons for fear of the said Incumbrance to his damage c. The Defendant said he was an Attorney at Law and I. S. came to him for Counsell in secret he said the words spoken in the Declaration It was strongly urged that although he was an Attorney that would not excuse him because an Attorney is allowed to give Counsell and the utterance of the words in private did not excuse being spoken to the buyer himself But it was Resolved the Action did not lye and adjudged against the Plantiff Dawbney and Goores Case 319. In Disceit D. G. and G. were Joynt Merchants they made F. and S. their Factors in Barbary G. and G. conspired with S. to demand allowance of 1000 l. which was allowed them upon accompt by which D. was damnified for that the money was not due and the truth was S. only made the Account The poynt was if one Factor might make an Account for both and if the two Merchants might take an Account for them all three It was said that they all ought to joyn in Account but one solely might Assigne Auditours to take the Account on the other side it was said there was no Joynture in Merchandize and that one Merchant shall have an Account against his Companion Quaere the Case was not Resolved Hill and Morses Case 320. It was Resolved in this Case That a Copyhold without a special Custome could not be entailed 321. An Enfant acknowledge a Fine before the Cheif Justice but the Conusee would not have the Fine ingrâ—ssed till his full age The Enfant came now with the Note of the Conusance and prayed a Wriâ— of Error and examination of his age which the Justice agreed unto and that an Entry be made thereof and by that save to him his advantage 322. A man sold his Land and Covenanted to save the Vendee harmlesse upon request It was said if the Land be extended by force of a Statute before the request the Covenant is not broken for that now the Covenant is become impossible by the negligence of the Covenantee himself but if he had made request before the extent there the Covenant should be broken for default of saving harmelesse Foreman and Bobâ—ams Case 323. Repâ—evin The Defendant avowed for a Rent charge of 3 s. 4 d. â—issâ—ing out of the place where c. which was one parcell of the Mannor of W. of whâ—ch Mannor I. S. was seised in Fee and 33 H. 6. made a Feoffment of the said Close rendering Rent with distresse and dyed seâ—sed and it discended to his Son who bargained and sold the Mannor with all Lands Rents Reversions services and herediraments which are parcell or had been deemed reputed or taken as part parcell or member of the Mannor and the Defendant as Bayliff of the Heir of the Bargainee made Conusans for the Rent and whether the Rent did passe as parcell of the Mannor was the Question by the bargain and sale It was said it did nâ—t passe by the word parcell but it passed by the words reputed parcell if it were so reputed parcell at the time of the grant Quaere the Case is not Resolved in this Book but vide Pasch 26 Eliz. in B. R. Leon. 1. part 13. there the Judgment was given against the Avowant Justice Windhâ—ms Case 324. A Lease was made reciting that whereas he had made a Lease of one Close to the Lessee for â—0 years rendring 8 s. Rent and another Lease of another Close to the same Lessee for 40 years now he demised to the same Lessee both the said Closes for 40. year from and after the determination of the several demises It was a question if the last Lease was good because there is not any certain time of the begining of it Resolved the Lease was good and the Law shall make an Interpretation of the demise reddendâ— singula singulis how the Terme shall begin Vide Cook 5. part the same Case Dolman and Vavasors Case 325. A. seised in Fee of Lands 15 Eliz. suffered a Common Recovery to B. which Recovery was executed by Habere facias seisinam After the Recovery had it was declared by Indenture between the parties that the Recovery should be to the use of the said A for life without impeachment of Waste the remainder to the first begotten Child of his body and the Heirs male of such first begotten Child and so to his 9. Issues and for want of such Issue to V. the Tenant or Defendant and the Heirs male of his body and if these Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the Recovery was the Question It was Resolved that these Subsequent Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the said Recovery for so was the Intent of the parties as appeareth by the Indentures and it was adjudged that the declaration by the subsequent Indentures should stand good because there was not any other declaration of any other use Scroggs and Lady Greshams Case 326. Debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant Executrix of Sir Thomas Gresham The Defendant pleaded several Obligations made by the Testator to the Queen amounting to 8000 l. solvendum eidem Doâ—inae Reginae quando requisitus â—uisset ultra quam non habet upon which the Plaintiff demurred because the Obligation not being upon Record but taken in paâ—s was not good for that the Queen could not take but by matter of Record and also the solvendum is not to the Queen and Successors and the Queen is not to have the preferment of payment of her debts unlesse they be debts upon Record But yet in such Case if the Queen first sue she shall be preferred although she hath Judgement after another who sueth The Lord Pagetts Case 327. The Case was the Lord Pageâ—t seised of divers Mannors by deed Indented Covenanted with I. S. and others that in consideration of discharge of his Funerals payments of his Debts and Legacies and advancement of his Son and others of his blood to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of the said I. S. and others for the Life of the Lord Pagett and after to the use of C. P. and other for 24. years and after the expiration of the said Term of 24. years to the use of William Pagett his Son in tail Afterwards the Lord Pagett
extends to Fines ritè Levatis and that a Fine is not ritè Levatus when partes finis nihil habuerunt To all which it was Answered and Resolved That the Issue in tail is not excepted in those Statutes and therefore is bound by the very Letter of the Acts 2. Although the Issue in tail was not bound by any Fine by his Ancestors untill 4. H. 7. yet in such Case he was ousted to add Quod partes finis nihil habuerunt being privy as Heir to him who levyed the Fine first 3. That a Fine may be said ritè Levatus although partes finis nihil habuerunt and it may be ritè Levatus although it be a Fine meerly by Conclusion Elmer and Goales Case 383. In Ejectione firmae the Case was The Abbot of West was seised and let the Lands for 60. years to a Stranger the Abby was dissolved and King Henry 8. united it to the Bishoprick of London The Bishop 12. Eliz made a Lease for three Lives the Lease for 60. being in being for 16. years which Lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter the Lease for 60. years expired the Lessees for three Lives entred and were seised untill the Bishop entred upon them and made the Lease upon which the Action was brought The point was if the Lease for three Lives were good It was Resolved it was good and stood good because the Statute of â— Eliz. which made Bishops Leases was not pleaded and the Statute being a private Act of Parliament the Judges were not to take nâ—tice of it if it were not pleaded Butler and Babers Case 384. The Case was A. seised of the Mannor of Toby in Fee and A. and his wife seised of the Mannor of Hinton to them and the Heirs of their bodies the Reversion to A. in Fee Toby amounting to the value of two parts and Hinton to the third part both holden in capite A. by his Will devised the Mannor of Toby to his Wife for life upon consideration that she should not take her former Joynture in Hinton with divers remainders over the Wife in pais disclaimed and waved her Estate in Hinton and agreed to the Mannor of Toby and entred upon it and if the Devise was good for the whole Mannor of Toby or for two parts only was the Question It was Resolved in this Case by the greater part of the Justices upon argument in the Exchequer Chamber that the waving of the Joynture by the Wife made an immediate discent by Relation to the Heir and that the Devisor was not such a person having Lands as could dispose of it according to the Statute and in this Case it was agreed by the Justices That if one deviseth Land in which he hath nothing and afterwards he purchaseth the lands that the same is not a good Devise within the Statute of Wills because he is not a person having c. Priscot and Chamberlains Case 385. In a Replevin the Case was Tenant for Life the Remainder in Tail jâ—yned in a Lease for years afterwards he in the Remainder in the life of Tenant for life suffered a Common Recovery the Recoverers sued execution upon the Lessee for years and afterwards enfeoffed Lincoln Colledge in Oxon to whom the Son and Heir of the Tenant in Tail in the life of his Father released with Warranty the Lessee for years reentred the Tenant for Life and he in the Remainder in Tail both died the Son of the Tenant in Tail had issue who by his Bayliff distreined the Chattel of the Lessse for years as damage Feasants upon the Land and he brought a Replevin The point was if by the common Recovery oâ— the Release of the Issue in tail with Warranty the tail was barred It was agreed by all the Justices that the Issue in tail was not barâ—d by the Recovery nor by the Warranty but whether he should avoid this Recovery in this Action being a possessarie Action or put to a rent Suit was the doubt whâ—ch was not resolved The Case was adjourned Hennage and Curtes Case 386. Trespass for breaking his Close in Hainton The Defendant justified that there was a Foot way leading through the said Close from Haâ—mon to the Foot-way of Horn-Castle for all persons travelling from Hainton to Horn-Castle they were at Issue upon the Prescription and because the Venire was de Hainton only whereas it ought to have bin from Hainton and Horn-Castle It was said that the Tryal was erroneous and the Judgment was reversed Bonnet Halsey and others 387. The Plaintiff was taken in Execution at the Defendants Suit by the Sheriff of B. and by an Habeas Corpus he was brought to Smithfield by the Goaler of B. and there at Eight of the Clock of night the Prisoner went into Southwark and there continued all night and the next morning he returned to Smithfield to his Keeper and there continued with him till the return of the Writ at which day he brought him to the Lord Chief Justices Chamber at Serjeants-Inn and he returned his Writ and the Chief Justice committed him to the Marshalsey It was judged it was no Escape in the Sheriff and adjudged upon an Audita Querela brought by the Plaintiff for the Defendants Wray Street and Coopers Case 388. The Prior of M. was seised of three Messuages in the Borough of Southwark and held them of the Bishop of Canterbury as of his Borough of Southwark The Priory came to King Henry 8. by surrender Afterwards the Bishop gave the Burgage to the King which Gift was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter The King anno 36. gave the said three Messuages and others to C. and D. Tenendum libero Burgagio by Fealty only and not in Capite and C. and D. gave the Messuages to W. and his Wife W. died his Wife survived King Edward 6. gave Totam Burgagiam de Southwark to the Mayor and Burgesses of London In the time of Queen Mary the Wife W. dyed by which the Messuages escheated Queen Mary gave them to one who gave them to A. who gave them to the Defendants The Mayor and Burgesses of London entred The Question was if the Tenure should be in Capite or in Burgage and if they passed to the Mayor and Burgesses by the Grant of Edw. 6. of Totam Burgagiam de Southwark It was adjudged against the Mayor and Burgesses of London because there could not be several Tenure foâ— these parcels Tenendum ut de Burgo and another Tenure for the Residue of the Lands in other places which could not be holden de Burgo and also because the Patent having two intents the besâ— shall be taken for the King Pasch 30. Eliz. The Queen and Bishop of Lincolns Case 389. Quare Imp. The Case was The Bish of Lincoln Patron and Ordinary collated to a Benefice in 8. Eliz. The Incumbent took another Benefice without Qualification by which the first was void The Successor Bishop 18. Eliz. presented one E. but non constat if
absque hoc that he promised in London the Plaintiff said he promised in London absque hoc that there is any such Accord although this was a Traverse upon a Traverse yet it was adjudged good Montague and Jeoffries Case A seised in Fee of the Mannor of M. and of Lands called G. expectant upon a Lease for years by his Will he devised the Mannor and G. to the Defendant and afterwards he covenanted with I. S. to make a Feoffment to the use of himself and E. the daughter of I. S. whom he did intend to marry which was by Letter of Attorney executed in the Mannor not in G. nor any Atonement of the Tenant of it He married E. and afterwards in the Will with his own hand where he had made M. his Daughter his Executor he added these words viz. E. my Wife and then died It was the opinion of the Justices in this case that the Feoffment did countermand the whole Will but they doubted whether the writing of the new words in the Will was a new publication of it The Lady Greshams Case 577. Scire facias to execute a Recognizance acknowledged in Chancery accordingly B. the Defendant pleaded in abatement of it that B. was seised of three Acres at the time of the Recognizance whereof I. S. was now seised not named in the Writ they were at Issue upon the Seisin and it was found that B. and another were jointly seised and enfeoffed I. S. It was said that although the moyetie of the Land was extendable yet the Writ as brought should abate Corbet and Downings Case 578. An Obligation was taken by the Sheriff for an appearance at Westminster and the Term was adjourned to St. Albans and the party appeared there adjudged he had not forfeited his Obligation Qu. If the word Westminster in the condition did not make the Bond void because by the Statute of 22. H. 6. there is not any such name in the Writ Blodwell and Edwards Case 579. The case was B. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of such Issue of the Body of M. from eldest to eldest as were reputed to be begotten by the said B. whether it be lawfull or unlawful It was adjudged in this Case That it was a good Remainder limitted to a Bastard for a Son in reputation is sufficient to make him a Purchaser 580. It was Resolved by the Justices that Fenny ground dreined should pay Tythes and was not barren Land within the Statute to be discharged of Tythes for seven years Mounson and Wests Case 581. In Assise The parties were at Issue upon the Seisin and Diseisin the Jury found West Tenant and that he disseised the Demandant Nisi such words in a Will give the Tenant a Title It was said the Verdict was imperfect because of the words nisi c but the Court held the Verdict good enough for the finding of the Disseisin implies a Seisin also Walford and Mashams Case 582. Resolved that an Alien borne under the Obedience of an Enemy of the King may have Debt upon an Obligation for personal things Palmer and Porters Case 583. Action upon the case against the Bailiff of N. for that upon a fieri fac directed to the Sheriff of N. return Octob. Mich. he sent his Warrant to the Defendant being Bailiff of N. to execute it who returned Nulla bona c. before Mich. and at Mich. they were removed from their Office and new Chosen Resolved it was a void Return for the Sheriff ought not before Octob. Mich. have accepted return of Nulla bona for he might have some afterwards and before the return of the Writ and the return by them after Mich. being out of their Office was void but if they had executed the Writ before Mich. then the Sheriff might have accepted of their return before Mich. but not after Hobs and Tadcastles Case 584. Audita querela the case was A. sued a Bill of Debt against B. who found bail the Plaintiff and another Afterwards B. was was condemned and dyed without paying the consideration or rendring his body A. scire fac was sued against the Plaintiff his Bail and upon 2. Nihils returned Execution was awarded against him Whereupon he brought the Audita querela It was prayed he might be discaarged out of Execution for that it is now become impossible by the act of God the principal should render his body and there was never any Capias awarded against him in his life time The Court held it very unreasonable to sue Execution against the bail till a fault was returned in the principal and the Recognisance of the bail is that the principal shall render himself which is to be intended upon Capias awarded against him Judgment was given for the Plaintiff in the Audita querela and he was discharged out of Execution Slade and Morleys Case 585. A man sowed his Land with Corne and sold the Corne to the Defendant for 16 l. to be paid at Midsomer next and the Defendant in consideration of such sale promised to pay the money at Midsomer but did not upon which Assumpsit was brought It was the greater opinion of the Justices in the Exchequer Chamber that the Action did not lye because properly Debt did lye in which the Defendant might wage his Law Robins Gerrard and Princes Case 586. The Case very long in effect was this A man is Admitted Instituted and Inducted into a Benefice with Cure of the value of 8 l. and afterwards the King presents him to the Church of D. which is a Benefice with Cure and he is admitted and Instituted The Archbishop grants to him Letters of Dispensation for plurality which Letter the King confirmes and afterwards he is Inducted to the Church of D. It was adjudged in this case that the Dispensation came too late because it came after the Institution for by the Institution the Church is full against all persons but against the King and as to the Spiritualties he is full Parson by the Institution 2. Resolved that admit the Church was not void by the Institution untill Induction Yet the Dispensation came too late for that the words of the Satute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities are may purchase Licence to receive and keep two Benefices with Cure of Souls and the words of Dispensation in this case were recipere retinere and because by the Institution the Church was full he could not purchase Licence to receive that which he had before and he cannot retaine that which he cannot receive The Queen and Cattons Case 587. Scire fac to repeal a Patent made 29 Jan. 35 Eliz. which Recited Whereas A. and B. conjunctim divisim were bound by Obligation to the Queen in a 1000 l. dated 21 April 33 Eliz. with Condition that A. should stand to the award of I. S. for controversies betwixt him and C. which Obligation is become forfeited and Recites that the Queen by
The Wife entred and elected one yard Land and a half A. entred upon her Resolved that the use for the Life of the Father did cease in it without entry into the Land of the Wife and that she should haue the Election The Lady Burghs Case 791. A seised of Land bargained and sold the same to B. and C. with power of Revocation by tender of 20. s. to them or one of them in the Hall of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster in Westminster A. tendred the 20. s. in the Hall none of the Bargainees being present nor having any notice of it Afterwards A. covenanted to stand seised to the use of I. S. her Nephew It was Resolved in this Case that the tender of the 20 s. was no performance of the Condition to avoid the Estate 2. That the conveyance by Covenant to stand Seisor for consanguinity should make void the former Conveyance containing the power of Revocation wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Paramour and Veralls Case 792. The Town of Sandwich did prescribe that if any Goods of any Freeman of that Town came to the hands of a Freeman and citizen of London the Mayor of Sandwich c. had used to write to the Mayor c of London to take good order for restitution and it they refused and did not return the Answer to the Mayor of Sandwich c. and did not make Restitution within 15. days then they of S. used to detain the Body of any Londoner which they should find there till restitution was made It was Resolved by all the Justices that such a Prescription was not good Diggs Case 793. The case is very long but this in effect A man seised of Lands in Fee for diverse considerations covenanted to stand seised thereof to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his Son in tail Provided that at any time during his Life with consent of divers by Deed indented to be enrolled in any Court of the King to revoke the said uses and estates and to limit new uses and afterwards by Deed indented enrolled in the Chancery he revokes the uses in part of the Land and limits the same to him and his Heirs and afterwards by another Deed he declares that from the time of the enrollment of the Deed in the Chancery that all the first uses in the first Indenture shall be void and that the Land shall be to the use of himself in Fee and after he levyes a Fine of all the Land and after the Deed is enrolled in the Chancery In this case these points were Resolved 1. That he might revoke part at one time and part at another time but he could revoke one part but once 2. That where the Revocation is to be by Deed Indented to be enrolled it is as much as to say by Deed Indented Enrolled for it is no Revocation till enrollment 3. That there was not a compleat and perfect Revocation till the Deed was enrolled in the Chancery 4. That the Fine before the Enrollment had extinguished the power of Revocation 5. If the Fine had not been levyed then by the Revocation the ancient Uses had bin destroyed without entry or claim because he himself was Tenant for Life and he could not enter and Acts of Revocation are as strong as a claime 6. That by the same conveyance the ancient Uses might be recovered their Uses might be limitted Costard and Wingates Case 794. A Lay-man presented to a Benefice before the Statute of 13. Eliz. made a Lease for 60. years which was confirmed by the Patron and Ordinary After the Statute his Successor became bound in an Obligation that the Lessee should enjoy the Term and after he was absent from his Living 80. days It was adjudged the Obligation was not void by the Statute of 14. Eliz. because the Lease for years was good and the Bond for enjoyning it which the Successor cannot avoid 795. Resolved by the Justices of the Kings Bench that if the Sheriff hath a capias against one to find Sureties for the good behaviour he may break the House and enter and arrest the party as well as he may do upon a capias utlagatum Talbots Case 796. He was indicted for Recusancy That being of the age of 16. years and more non accessit ad Ecclesiam c. by the space of 6. months It was said the Indictment was not good for Existens aetatis 16. annorum shall be referred to the time of absence from the Church and not to the time of the Indictment but the Court held the Indictment to be good Lovegraves Case 797. A man sued in the Spiritual Court for calling him Goose Woodcock he being a Clerk A Prohibition was awarded and in this case it was said the High Commissioners could not hold Plea for slanderous words spoken of a Clerk but for laying of violent hands on him they might Binghams Case 798. The case was this Grand-father Father and Son the Grand-father held the Mannor of D. of B. as of his Mannor of S. by Knight-Service and levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself for Life the remainder to the use of the Father in tail and after to the use of the Right Heirs of the Grand-father the Father died his Son within age B. the Lord suffered a Recovery of his Mannor of S. unto the use of himself and his Wife in tail the Remainder to the use of C. and his wife in tail the Remainder to the Right Heirs of B. B. and his Wife died without Issue C. entred into that Mannor the Grand-father died his Wife died the Son entred and made a Lease for years It was Resolved in this case that as long as the Grand-father lived no Wardship of the body or Land was due because the Reversion remained in himself and the mean man could not be in ward during the Life of the particular Tenant for Life and in case of a Subject as long as the Reversion remained in the Donor or his Heir the Issue in tail should not be in ward to the Lord Paramount when the Son in remainder in tail died his Heir within age â— 2. Resolved that a man shall never have the Wardship of the Heir when the Land was never in his Fee or Seignory of him or any of his Ancestors at the time of the death of the Tenant Bullock and Thornes Case 799. The case upon the matter was shortly this A man conveyed Land to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of divers of his blood with a future power of Revocation as after such a Feast and afterwards and before the power of Revocation began he for valuable consideration sold the Land to one and his Heirs It was Resolved that this bargaine and sale is within the Remedy of the Statute of 27. Eliz. of Fraudulent Conveyances for the Act will not that such voluntary conveyance originally subject to a power of Revocation should stand
Plaintiff that the Action did not lye Vide this Case more at large in Cook 3. part of his Reports Cornwalls Case 869. Quo Warranto for claiming goods of Felonum de se The Defendant said that the Mannors of S. and L in the County of Gloucester were within the Principality of Wales before the Statute of 27 H. 8. and the Kings Writ did not run there and that his Grandfather seised of those Mannors as Lord Marcher used amongst others to have that Liberty of goods of Felons de se and that the Statute of 27 H. 8. which united Wales to England had a Proviso that the Lord Marchers should retain their Franchises to hold Courts to have Waifes and Estrays infangtheef outfangtheef and Felons goods and deduced the Mannors to himself and eo Warranto he claimed to have the good of Felons de se within his Mannors upon which it was demurred the Case is only argued bet not Resolved Ideo Quaere Darcy and Allens Case 870. The Queen by her Letters Patents granted to Darcy the Importation and sole making of playing Cards within the Realm of England for a certain Terme of years A Citizen and Freeman of the Company of Haberdashers in London Cards beings Merchantable Commodities brought Cards into England and sold them for which Darcy brought his Action of the Case and declared it was to his damage of 2000 l. upon which there was a demur in Law It was in this Case after long and Learned Arguments at length Resolved That the Letters Patents for the sole making of playing Cards within the Realm was void because it being a Mechanical Trade it was contrary to the Liberty and to the prejudice of the Subject 2. That the dispensation or sole License to have the Importation of Cards was a Monopoly and so void by the Law See Coo. 11. pt the Case of Monopolies Garrard and the Dean and Chapter of Rochesters Case 871. The Dean and Chapter by deed under their Common Seal granted to the King the Mannor of S. in exchange for other Lands the deed was made without a Letter of Attorney but they acknowledged it to be their deed in their Chapter house before I. S. Attorney of the Court of Augmentations who brought it into Court and it was there enrolled with a Memorandū that the enrolment was such a day which was a moneth before the date of the deed In this Case it was Resolved 1. That the acknowledgment of the deed in the Chapter house was sufficient without doing it by Attorney 2. That the Attorney of the Augmentation might take the acknowledgment of a Deed out of Court he being a Judge of the Court. 3. That the enrolment of the deed before the date of it was not void as to make the deed void because it was only the Misprision of the Clark which shall not make the deed void Prine and Allingtons Case 872. A Capias ad satisfaciend ' was 2. July delivered in Holborne to the Sheriff of C. he the same day made his Warrant to his Bailiffs but afterwards the same day there came a Supersedeas to the Sheriff the Bailiffs not having notice of it took the party in Execution who escaped and they retook him upon which false Imprisonment was brought It was adjudged the Action did lye for the retaking of him was not Lawfull because the Authority of the Sheriff was determined by the Supersedas Yet the Court held the Bailiffs were excused in this Case and no action of Debt upon the escape did lye because they had no notice of the Supersedas Webster and Allens Case 873. A Copyholder where the custome was to demise for three Lives demised to one for life the Remainder to such a one as he should marry and the first Son of his body Resolved that both the Remainders were void but the estate for his own life good Penny and Cores Case 874. Debt upon Obligation for payment of 8 l. the Defendant pleaded payment of 5 l. before the day and acceptance of it in satisfaction of the 8 l. It was adjudged a good plea. The Queen and Bishop of Peterboroughs Case 875. A Baronesse which was a Widdow retained two Chaplains they purchased Dispensation the Baronesse was married before they accepted double Benefices It was adjudged they might after take two Benefices because the marriage was no discharge of their Service but if the Baronesse dye before they accept the Benefices they cannot afterwards take two Benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. Ward and Lakins Case 876. In a Replevin the Plaintiff declared of the taking of two Heifors apud W. tali die and did not say in quodam loco vocato c. and for that cause the Declaration was held to be insufficient Scarles Case 177. Debt against an Excecutor by Original he pleaded a Recovery in the Court of I. and that ultra he had not goods the Recovery was after the Teste of the Original but the Defendant avered that he had not notice of the Original It was holden by the Court a good plea but if a man be sued upon an Obligation and he will pay another debt after without suit if he have notice of the first suit Devastavit in an Execuror Gregory and Harrisons Case 878. Resolved Ejectione firme doth not lye of a Copyhold if the Plaintiff doth not declare the Custome Lease and Ejectment 879. A Woman recovered Dower in the Common pleas and had a Writ to the Sheriff to put her in possession of the same The Sheriff returned the Writ that he delivered her 84. Acres and that she had entred into 24. Acres parcel thereof and accepted of the same Resolved it was a good bar to her although it was a lesse quantity then the 3. part of the Land mentioned in the Record Aoliffe and Archdales Case 780. Resolved in this Case If a man be bounden to pay money for the Meat Drink and Apparel of an Infant and pay it and take a Bond of the Infant to repay the money such a Bond is void and the Infant shall avoid it for Nonage Broke and Smiths Case 881. It was adjudged in this Case that where a man by a Deed was to discharge Lands from all Incumbrances and before the sealing and delivery of the Deed there is Memorandum endorsed that it should not extend to such an Incumbrance It was Resolved the Endorsement is an explanation of the Deed and made parcell of it and a suit upon an Obligation to discharge Incumbrances shall not extend to the Incumbrances mentioned upon the endorsement of the Deed. Yate and Goths Case 882. A. was indebted to B. who dyed Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and brought debt and had Judgment and after dyed Intestate It was adjudged that an Administrator de bonis none of the first Intestate could not sue forth Execution upon the Judgment but is put to a new action of debt Swelman and Cuts Case 883. A Lease was made for years upon
Attorney to sue the principal in his name It was adjudged for the Plaintiff in B. R. and upon Error brought the Judgment was reversed because it was an insufficient Consideration Dickenson and Sheres Case 942. Upon the awarding of the Venire facias upon the Roll the day of the return of it was omitted this being assigned after verdict for Error was holden by the Court not to be Error 943. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that an action lyeth for the Rector of a Parsonage against the Parishoners for not seting forth of their Tythes although the Statute of a Edward 6. drâ—h not appoynt who shall have the action English and Bowers Case 944. Covenant upon an Indenture of demyse of the Rectory of S. in the County of O. The Indenture was made at London and the Venire Issued to the Sheriff of O. It was assigned to be Error but the Court held it good because it shall be of the County where the Land lyeth Heley and Rigs Case 945. A Bill was exhibited in the name of Rigs per Johannem Keeling attornaâ— ' suum and the Warrant of Attorny was posuit lcco suo Gulielmum Keeling the same was assigned for Error but the Justices caused it to be amended and affirmed the Judgement Maylard and Kesters Case 946. Assumpsit In Consideration the Plaintiff would sell and deliver to the Defendant pannos laneos pro funer alibus of a Clark he promised to pay him for them cum inde requisitus esset and alledged he sold and delivered divers Cloths to him viz. 31. yards of black Cloth for 19 l. and recited divers other particulars amounting to 160 l. upon Non Assumpsit found for the Plaintiff Error brought in Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment was reversed because Debt properly lay and not Assumpsit Wolley and Mosleys Case 947. Action of Assault and Battery in B. R. upon a demur the Plaintiff had Judgment to recover It was a Warded upon the Roll à Fierifac to enquire of damages returnable die Martis post tres Trinitatis and the Writ was in facto returned die Mercurii post tres Trinitatis which was the very date of the return upon the Roll and the Plaintiff had damages and Costs 40 l. Error was brought and assigned whereas by the Record of the Continuance the Plaintiff appeared by I. P. his Attorney that before that time he was dead The Court held that to be no Error because the Record is to be credited before the allegation of the party 2. Because there was variance between the Roll and the Writ the Court held that was amendable 3. That the Writ is executed the same day of the Return that was holden to be no Error and so it was said it was adjudged Mich. 37. and 38. Eliz. in Gawen and Ludlows Case In the Court of Wards The Queen and Savages Case 948. A. seised of Lands holden in Capity by Knight service by License 27 H. 8. conveyed the same to his Son and Heir apparent and F. and their Heirs in consideration of Marriage betwixt them who intermarried and 2 E. 6. by Fine regranted the Land to the Father who rendred it to the Son and his Wife and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten the Father dyed the Son haveing Issue three Daughters dyed 5 Mar the eldest Daughter had Issue Fran. Mooâ—e and dyed 25 Eliz. F. took second Husband W. Savage and they 28 Eliz. Leased the Rectory of K. to I. S. for 60. years and after granted the Reversion of the Rectory and Leased the Mannor to A. Savage for the life of F. Afterwards a Common Recovery was had in which S. and his Wife were vouched The Queen prayed to have the Wardship of Fran. Moore and to have the primer seisin and profits of the Land after the death of the Wife W. Savage averred the Recovery was to the use of himself pretending thereby that the Issues in Tail of the Son of Agnes and F. were barred In this Case it was Resolved for the Queen for one moyety and that the first Feoffment by A. to his Son F. before Marriage was not within the Statute of 11 H. 7. but when they Reconveyed back the Land that was a Conveyance of each of them their parts and then the render of the whole to them in special Tail as to the moyety of the Son the gift of the Father to the Son and his Wife within the Statute of 11 H. 7. but as to the gift of the Wife by the Fine was not within the Statute but the Recovery as that should bind the Issue Fishers Case 949. It was found by Office that A. seised in Fee of divers parcells of Lands holden by Knight service in Capite 21. Eliz. by License conveyed them to I. S. and E. his Wife Daughter of the said A. and that afterwards by Indenture he Covenanted for Fatherly love and affection that after the sealing of the said Indenture he would stand seised of the premises to the use of the said I. S. and E. his Wife in Tail Remainder in Fee to a stranger It was not found when the said Indenture was sealed and delivered nor that I. S. and E. his Wife were seised in Tail nor was it found in the Office Sic inde Seisitus did Covenant Notwithstanding these Exceptions it was Resolved that the Office was sufficient wherefore a Travers was to the Office Gervoyes Case 950. A. seised of the Mannor of N. in the County of W. and of Lands called F. in the County of of S. in Consideration of Marrage and for a Jointure for his Wife Covenants that he and his Heirs shall stand seised of the Mannors Lands c. to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives after their deceases to the use of the Heirs of the body of A. The Lands in F. are recovered by verdict from A. only during the Coverture between them A. dyeth his Heir within age It was Resolved in this Case that the Wife should have recompence for the Lands which were Enrolled during the Coverture although she accepted of the Residue of her Joynture after the death of her Hâ—sband Forsters Case 951. The Husband seised of Land in the Right of his Wife which was holden in Knight service the Heir being in Wards committed wast in the Lands Resolved the Husband should be charged to the value of the Lands and lose the possession of the Lands so long as his Wife should live Georges and Stanfields Case 652. Lands by Act of Parliament were assigned to the Countesse of Bindon during her life the Reversion to her Daughter who was in Ward to the Queen the Viscountesse took Husband and she and her Husband committed wast in the Land For the punishing of which a Bill was exhibited in the Court of Wards Resolved that the Court of Wards could not adjudge treble damages for the wast in this Case and therefore the Case was dismissed to Law Bridges Case 953. A. bargained and
or the Remainder and therefore no traverse could be to it but they conceived if it was a Reversion a Traverse did presently lie if a Remainder that it did not lie till after the death of the Tenant for Life which was B. Countess of B. Worleys Case 959 A seised in Fee of the Mannor of D holden in capite with 500 l. to be sold having a long intent to sell the same that he might more freely dispose of his other Lands and satisfie a just debt of 60 l. which he owed to I. S. by Deed indented and enrolled in consideration of the said Debt and other considerations viz Vpon trust and confidence that he should pay to W. his Executors or Assigns within one year so much mony above the said 60 l. He bargained and sold the said Mannor of D to I. S. and his Heirs W. within one year died no mony paid his Heir within age It was Resolved his Heir should not be â—n Ward because neither the Land nor Surplusage of the same ought to come to his Heir by the Trust nor be paid to the children or wife oâ— W. Drowâ—s Case 960. A. seised of divers Messuages in the Parish of S. in London made a Lease thereof for 31. years to B. and M. his Wife paying yearly during the Term 60. l. at four Feasts viz. The Nativity c. or within 28 days after each of the said Feasts afterwards he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his eldest Son and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bedâ—es and then for mony he bargained and sold the Land by Deed enrolled to I. S. to hold to him and his Heirs during the Life of the Lessor I. S. dyed seised of that Land and of other Lands holden in capite his Heir within age It was found by Office that A. died after the Feast of the Nativity and within the 28 days next following Resolved the Rent was due to him in the Remainder and that the Wardship of the Land being but a Freehold discendable did not belong to the Queen Digbies Case 961. A Tenant in Tail in the Mannor of C in the County of W. the reversion in the Crown and in Fee of Lands in the County of D. and in C. aforesaid and of Lands in the County of B. by his Will devised that his Lands in D. which he appointed to be a third part of the whole should discend to his Heir the Manner of C. and all his Lands in B. he devised to his Wife in recompence of her Dower for Life so long as she should be Soâ—e and then to his Son and Heir and he charged his Lands in B. with Annuities to his younger Sons and portions to his Daughters Afterwards by a Codicill annexed to his Will he devised to I. S. and I. D. and their Heirs all and singular his Lands in C. whereof himself was then seised to him and his Heirâ— in Fee simple to the use of his Son and Heir so long as he and all claiming under him should suffer his wife and children to enjoy the Lands and Annuities devised to them and he should interrupt or deny it then he devised all his Fee-simple Land to his Wife and his younger Sons A. died his Son and Heir within age It was in this case Resolved that the Qâ—een by reason of the Wardship of the Heir should not have more of the Fee-simple Lands in D then so much as would make the entailed Land to be the third part of the whole Creswâ—lls Case 962. Certain Lands called S. were holden of the Mannor of P. by rent and Suit of Court P. was holden of the Mannor of G by Rent and Suit of Court the Mannor of G. came to the Crown by the Statute of Disâ—olutions The King H. 8. granted the Mannor of G. to I. S. and his Hâ—irs to hold by Knight Service in capite I. D. purchased the Mannor of G and afterwards he purchased the moiety of the Mannor of P. and the Lands called S. I. D. died the Lands purchased by him discended to his Son who purchased the other moiety of P. and afterwards enfeoffed C. of the Lands in S. It was Resolved in this case that I. D. held the Lands called S. by Knight Service in capâ—te by a whole Knights Fee Lâ—mâ—oâ—s Case 963. It was Resolved in this case in the Court of Wards that if the Jâ—ry do not find an Office according to the direction of the Court they shall be committed to the Fleâ—t vide diverse Presidents there accordingly Sir William Knoâ—ts Case 964. The case was A. died seised of Lands purchased by him and discendable to the Heis Males of his Body holden by Knight Service in capite of the value of 140 l. per annum and also of capite Land discendable to his Heirs general of the value of 13 l. per annum and an executed Estate for the advancement of his Sons of Soccage Land in capite to the value oâ— 48 l. B. was his Son and Heir Male and the two Daughters of his eldest Son deceased were his Heirs general It was Resolved that no Livery nor Primer Seisin should be of the Lands executed for advancement because the Queen was satisfied by the discent to the Heirs Males of the Livery and Primer Seisin of more then of a third part of the Lands Strangways and Sir Henry Newtons Case 965. The case is very long put but in effect was this The Father limited divers Mannors and Lands by Indenture to the use of himself and his Heirs untill the marriage of his Son with the Daughter of I. S. and after marriage to the use of the Father for Life only and after to his Sons Wife for Life for her Joynture The Father died before Marriage and afterwards the Marriage took effect The Question was if the use should rise to the first Wife Note That the Father before his death made his Will and thereby devised portions to his Daughters to be raised out of the said Land by his Executors and then died his Heir within age The two chief Justices doubted much this case but they enclined to be of opinion that if there was a devise of the Land that the same had interrupted the raising of the Future use for the Joynture c but they doubted of the Devise because he devised portions out of the Lands but did not devise the Lands themselves Framptons Case 966. A seised in Fee of the Mannors of M. and B. and of the moiety of the Mannor of V. covenanted to levy a Fine to I. S. and others of the said Mannors viz. of all the said Mannors to the use of himself for Life and afterwards of the Mannor of M. to the use of I. his wife for her Life and after to such Heirs of the Body of A. as be should afterwards beget of the Body of her or of any other woman which he should after marry
a Libell or false Rumor although he produceth his Author yet he is fineable Damuâ—'s Case 1038. The Case was I. S. was indebted to M. 1800 l. upon a Statute who dyed Intestare A. his Wife took Administration of his goods and married B. and during her Coverture made her Will by which she appoinâ—ed to her Kindred 400 l. in Charitable uses Proviso if any crosse in Law or losse of the said Debt of 1000. should arise it should fall upon the last 900 l. mentioned befor the Proviso of which 900 l. the 408 l. the Charitable use was the last A. dyed Administration de bonis non c. of M. was committed to D. which had of the Debts 2000. besides the 1800 l. upon a Commission upon the Statute of 43 Eliz. of Charitable uses against D. it was Decreed for the Charitable uses to which Exceptions was taken 1. That A. had not power to make a Will of this Debt 2. That the 2000 l. were desperate debts 3. That there was a crosse in this Debt there being a Suit by the next of Kin to revoke the Administration committed to D. Vpon the exceptions it was Decreed in Chancery with the Assistance of the Judges 1. That though the Will of A. was void in Law yet it would serve by the Statute if there was assers of that estate or of the estate of A. her self to support the Charitable use For the goods in the hands of Administrators are all to Charitable uses and it is the Office of the Administrator so to imploy them and the Children or Kinred have no property in them but under the Title of Charity 2. Because it appeared that at the time of the making of the Decree that the estate would bear both the Legacies and the Charitable use also with an Overplus and if any of the debts of the 2000 l. became desperate it was by the negligence of the Administrators and should not retard the Charitable use The King and Howards Case 1049. In this Case these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. A man makes a Feoffment of Lands in 5. Counties with a Condition of Re-assurance a Re-assurance is made of Lands in 5. Counties It is a breach of the Condition but only for the Lands in one County and a good performance for the other 2. Tenant in Tail Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee he who hath the Remainder in Fee grants it to the first Tenant in Tail this acceptance of the Deed is an Attornement which shall bind those in the Remainder â— If an Act of Parliament be certified into the Chancery no averment shall be against it that it was not an act of Parliament because the Commons did not assent to it but with a Proviso which is lost but if it appeaâ—eth in the body of the Act that the Commons did not assent the Act is void The Case of the Commissioners of Sewers 1050. Upon complaints against diveâ—s ill disposed persons of Suits and vexations by them against the Commissiâ—ners of Sewers and their Officers for the counties of Northamoâ—â—â— Huntingdoâ— Cambridge and Lincoln It was holden by the Lords of the Council the Commissioners of Sewers may make new works as well to stop the fury of the waters as to repaire the old when necessity requires it 2. That for the safety of the Country they may lay a Tax or Rate upon any Hundreds Towns or Inhabitaâ—ts thereof in general who are interessed in the Benefit or Loss without attending a particular Survey or Admeasurement of Acres when the Service is to have a speedy and suddain execution 3. That they have sufficient power to imprison Refractory and Disobâ—dient persons to their Orders Warrants and Decrees and that Actions of Trespass False Imprisonment c. brought against the Commissioners or their Officers for extremity of their Order or Warranty are not maintainable nor will lie Goodson and Dâ—ffâ—â—dâ— Case 1051. Error of a Judgment in a Court of Pipowders in Rochestâ—r The case was A. dwelling in the Town was bound to pay B. 150 l. the first day of May at the House of B. in Rochâ—ster the Bond was sued there 24. September in the Court of Pipowders the Defendant pleaded payment at the House Issue upon it It was found for the Plaintiff Error brought and assigned that the Prescription was alledged to hold a Court of Pipowders before the Mayâ—r and two Citizens and by the Plea it appeareth it was holden before the Deputy of the Mayor and two Citizens The Court held the same to be Error 2. Error The Issue was misjoyned for the payment is alledged at the House of the Plaintiff in Rochester and it ought to have been pleaded apud Rochester in domo mansionali of the Plaintiff This the Court conceived to be Error and the Judgment was reversed Billingsby and Hercys Case 1052. A Demise was made of Lands in D. for years by the word Demise and to Farm let the Mannor and also all Timber Trees growing upon the same with an exception of six Oaks during the Term the Term was assigned to a Feme Sole who took Husband the Plaintiff and they assigned all their Interest to the Defendant reserving the Wood and Trees the Husband died his Executors cut down the Trees the Wife brought Trespass It was adjudged the Action did not lie because no propriety in the Trees passed by the words Demise Grant and to Farm Let though there was Liberty to Fell and Sell. Price and Almeries Case 1053. A possessed of a Term for Forty years devised the same to his Wife if she should live so long the remainder to I. his Son and the Heirs of his Body and made his Wife his Executor who entred and claimed the Term as a Legacy the Son died in the Life of the Wife the Wife died the Executor of the Son entred Adjudged his Entry was not lawful because the Son had not any Interest but a possibility Edwards and Dentons Case 1054. A man seised in Fee of the Mannor of D. and of an house called W. in D. and also of a Lease for years in D. by Deed did grant bargaine and sell the Mannor of D. and all his Lands and Tenements in â— to I. S. and his Heirs It was adjudged that the Term for years did not pass for the intent appears that nothing shall pass but that which the Heir might take for that the Habendum was to him and his Heirs Sir William Waller and Hangers Case 1055. The case was King Ed. 3. reciting that he had of every 10. Tun of Wine imported a tun and of every 20. Tun two Tuns one before the Mast and another behind the Mast granted to the citizens ef London that Nulla prisagia sint soluta de vinibus civium liberorum hominum London The Husband of the Defendant a Freeman and citizen of London having Wines in the Port and others upon the Sea died and made his wife his Executrix An Information was against her
for Life the Remainder to his Son T. and L. his wife if they have Issue male and if it shall please God to send them Issue Male then it to be reserved and put out for the benefit of such Sons or one of them and died The wife entred as Legatee and died and after T. and L. had Issue Male. It was Resolved that the Issue Male should have the Term and was not restrained to any Term to be born in the Life of the wife and it is a good Devise to the Issue Male though the Term be not expresly devised to the Issue Male. Curtyes Case 1081. Assault and Battery by husband and wife against the Defendant a Constable and two others The Defendant justified that the wife was presented in the Leet to be a common Scold and he Steward made a Warrant to the Constable to punish her according to Law and the Defendants went to the Plaintiffs house to execute the Warrant and the wife assaulted the Constable wherefore he commanded the other Defendants to lay hands upon her which they molliter did It was holden by the Justices to be a good justification although they neither shew the day when the Leet was holden nor that the Plaintiffs house was within the Jurisdiction of the Leet nor shewed the Warrant of the Stewards for that these were all but Inducements to the Justification Herbert and Binghams Case 1082. Error to reverse a Fine because the Writ of Covenant bare teste after the Dedimus potestatem the Defendant pleaded the Land descended to him within age and prayed his age Iâ— was Resolved by the whole Court he should have his age because he was Terre-tenant otherwise he should not have his age in Error Harvyes Case 1083. In Dower Judgment was given by default Error assigned that the Tenant was within age Adjudged no Error for age is not grantable in savorem dotis 1084. A Justice of Peace recorded a Force but did not Fine or commit the Offenders It was adjudged that in such case the Record of the Force was void and the Offenders upan that Record cannot be afterwards Fined nor Imprisoned Moody and Garnons Case 1085. A man made a Lease for years of Land part Fee-simple and part in Lease for years rendring Rent and if it was behind 40. days it should be lawful to restrain and if there should not be sufficient then to reenter Resolved it was not any condition because restraint is not limited to any thing which should be restrained as in Land or chattel and it shall not be taken to distrain and also because no person is expressed who should reenter Caries and Franklyns Case 1086. A seised in Fee made a Feoffment to I. S. Habendum to him and the Heirs of his body to the use of him his Heirs and Assigns It was adjudged he was Tenant in tail because the use to him his Heirs and Assignes shall be intended such Heirs which he had limited before which are Heirs of his Body Buckham and Dendriges Case 1087. Debt upon Obligation The Defendant pleaded to the Jurisdiction that he was a Tinner and pleaded the Grant of King Edward the First that the Tinners of Cornwall should be sued for contracts rising within the Liberty of the Stanneries and not elsewhere and the contract upon which the Debt was brought did arise within the Liberties c. It was Resolved a good Plea but then he must show the Patent or Charter Barrey and Perins Case 1088. Debt upon Obligation The condition was if the Obligor stands to the Arbitrament of four men so as the same be made by four or three of them c. then the Obligation to be void the Arbitrament was made by three It was Resolved the Arbitrament was good for upon consideration of all parts of the Submission the intent appears that four or three might make the Arbitrament and Arbitraments shall be taken by Equity so as all parts may stand Mary Powel and Hermans Case 1089. A sentence was in the Ecclesiastical Court that upon a Contract the Defendant should Marry the Plantiff he did not do it for which cause he was Excommunicated The Defendant Appealed to the Delegaties which was remised to the first Court who sentenced him againe and there also he was excommunicated for not performance of the Sentence He Appealed to the Audience and then had absolution He was taken by a Capias Excom upon the first excommunication upon an Habeas Corpus It was Resolved that the absolution for the Latter had not purged the first Excommunication quia Ecclesia decepta fuit 2. That the Appeal did not suspend the Excommunication although it might suspend the Sentence Don Diego Serviente de Acune and Giffords Case 1090. The Plantiff Embassador for his Master the King of Spaine recovered in an Action upon the Case the Defendant brought Error and removed the Record and then upon the second Scire fac the Bail brought in the body of the Defendant Resolved 1. That the removing of the Record did not so stop the Court that they could not accept of the body of the Defendant in Execution 2. Resolved that the body might be accepted only upon the first Scire fac and not upon the second Roe and Ledshams Case 1091. In False imprisonment in the Stannary Court The Defendant said the imprisonment was at Totnes out of the Jurisdiction Issue being upon it the Viâ—ne was from Totnes and not de Corpore Comitatus and adjudged good upon Error brought Moyslyn and Pierces Case 1092. The Plantiff recovered 200l dammage against the Defendant in B. R. in Assault and Battery and had the body of the Defendant in Execution The Defendant brough Audita Querela in Chancery that the principal had paid the money and thereupon had upon Sureties found a supersedeas to the Sheriff commanding him to discharge the Plantiff out of Execution but the Sheriff did not obey it He brought Habeas Corpus in B. R. and had another Audita Querela and prayed he might be bayled but ' the court would not grant it without Affidavit of payment of the money Coke Chief Justice said upon a Judgement in another Court Audita Querela did not lie in Chancery Eliz. Wilmots Case 1093. She brought Trespasse by the name of a Widdow the Defendant said she was a Feme Covert viz. the Wife of I. Wilmot who was living at Lisborn in Pertugall The Plea was disallowed by the Court for impossibility of Tryall Simonds Case 1094. Trespase for Batterie and entring his Close in B. The defendant justified the entry because it was a Copyhold within the Mannor of W. in W. and to the Battery pleaded Not guilty upon which the Issue was joyned The visne was de B. de Manerie de W. in W. It was Objected it ought to have been of B. only where the Batterie was also de Manerio de W. in W. is double and uncertain But the Court held the visne good because the Custom might
Sons the Remainder to C. and his Heirs B. never had any Son afterwards but dyed having Issue a Daughter his sole Daughter and Heir Afterwards C. dyed having Issue It was Resolved in this case that it shall be intended in the Limitation of the use that after the death of B. without Issue Male that C. should have the Land as well where no attempt is to alien as where there is an attempt because the words are and immediately after his decease then to the first Son c. by which they conceived that the use which should rise upon the attempt to alien is only restrained to the use of B. for Life 2. Resolved that by the words If it fortune the Fourth Son to die without Issue then to C. and in truth B. never had a Son that the use should rise to C. 3. Reâ—olved when the render was made to B. for 80. years if he should so long live and after his Decease to his first Son c. with the Remainder to C. that all the Remainders were void because the Estate of the Freehold during the Life of B. did not pass by the Render out of the Conusees but the Inheritance compleat did remain in the Conusees 4. Resolved That the Conusance of the Fine is of necessity to be intended to the use of the Conusees because they otherwise could not render by the Fine but if the Render had bin void in all as it is in part then they conceived the use should go according to the Render but not in this case because the Render for 80. years was good and so the use remains in the Conusees The Lord Buckhursts Case 656. The case it self is very long being upon several Conveyances Settlements of very many great Mannors Lands in several Counties within the Realm of England and by her last Will to several persons or to their uses or to her Executors for the performance of her last Will upon which diverse matters of Law did arise which were very largely and Learnedly argued by Council but not Resolved some points in Law were agreed upon and Resolved which vide in Coo. 1. Reports in rhe Lord Buckhursts Case and were these in Substance viz. 1. If a man grant Land for him and his Heirs to another and his Heirs that is a general Warranty because it is not restrained to any person certain 2. If a man seised in Fee-simple hath diverse Evidences some containing Warranty and some not and convey the Land to another without Warranty upon which he may be vouched the Purchaser shall have all the Charters and Evidences as well those which contain the Warranty as the other for in as much as the Feoffor hath conveyed his Estate absolutely and is not bound to Warranty it is reason that the Feoffee for his better assurance have all his Charters as incidents to the Land although they are not granted to him by express words 3. If the Feoffee in the case aforesaid make a Feoffment with Warranty so as he is bound to render in value in such case without express Grant the Feoffee shall not have any Charters which comprehend Warranty upon which the Feoffor may have his Waranty paramount for the Feoffee hath not taken upon him to defend the Title but the Feoffee shall have the Evidences which do concern the possession 4. If A. enfeoff B. with Warranty to him his Heirs and Assignes and B. enfeoff C. with Warranty although that C. may vouch A. as Assignee yet he shall not have the first Deed for B. hath made a Warranty to him and may be vouched and therefore he shall have the first Deed. 5. If A. be seised of a Seignory Rent Advowson or any thing which lies in Grant and grants the same over to B. with Warranty and B. grants the same over to C. with VVarranty C. shall have the Charter although that B. is bound to VVarranty for that it is for his necessity to make his Title and without it he cannot make any defence against A. or any claiming by him 6. If a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee with VVarranty and dieth the Heir of the Feoffee shall have all the Charters which the Feoffor himself may have although the Heir hath nothing by discent for the possibility of discent after Barker and Bornes Case 657. Debt against the Heir upon an Obligation of his Father and Judgment is given against him upon nihil dicit the Judgments shall be general and not only of the Lands special which discend but extend to his own Lands Thompson and Butlers Case 658. An Annuity is granted to a woman for Life she takes Husband the Husband during the Coverture by express words releases the Annuity Resolved that the Release of the Husband doth not extinct the Annuity but that if the VVife survive she shall have it 659. It was Resolved by all the Justices That if the Clerk of the Market do take a Fee of a peny for view only of Vessels which are not defective and doth not Seal them or if he Seal them he take 2 d. upon every Vessel the same iâ— extortion 660. Resolved upon the Statute of 33. H. 8. 28. 23. Eliz. That if Tenant in tail become Recusant is convict but not by Judgment upon Tryal or Confession and dieth and his Lands seized that the Issue shall avoid it because it is not a debt by Judgment as the Statute of 33. H. 8. requires The Lady Willoughbyes Case 661. Sir Francis Willoughby died his VVife with Child P. W. who had married the Daughter of Sir Francis and had a great part of the Possessions setled upon him for want of Issue Male of Sir Francis attempted to suffer a Common Recovery to the intent to bar the Issue Male of Sir Francis and disinherit this Issue in ventre of his VVife to stop the Recovery she pretended she was with Child P. W. prayed a VVrit de Ventre inspiciendo which was granted and the Sheriff of London came to the Ladies House and brought a Jury of women whereof two were Midwives and they searched the Lady and the Sheriff returned that she was with Child Clark and Hardwicks Case 662. Scire fac upon Recognizance in Chancery acknowledged by H. to M. of 200 l. The VVrit was brought by the Plaintiffs Executors of M. the Sheriff returned Mortuus whereupon a new scire fac issued against the Heir and Terrae-Tenants The Sheriff returned K. Terre-Tenant of certain Lands and C. Terre-Tenant of the Mannor of D. K. made default C. appeared and pleaded a Joynt-tenancy with two other who were alive not named in the Writ nor Returned It was adjudged that upon this Return and Plea of Joynt-Tenancy that the Scire facias should abate and a new Scire facias was awarded Davy Matthew and Binfields Case 663. 3 â— Eliz. Ejectione firme The Case was Husband and wife seised for the Life of the wife made a Lease of a Mill to B. the Defendant for 17. years who 34.