where the Plaintiff shews a speciall Title under the Possession of the Defendant As for example In trespasse for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleads that J. G. was seised of it in his Demesne as of fee and enfeoffed J. K. by virtue of which he was seised accordingly and so being seised enfeoffed the Defendant of it by which he was seised untill the Plaintiff claiming by calour of a Deed of Feoffment made by the sayd J. G. long before that he enfeoffed J. K. where nothing passed by the sayd Feoffment entred upon which the Defendant did re-enter here the Plaintiff may well traverse the Feoffment supposed to be made by the sayd J. G. to the sayd I. K. without making Title because that this Feoffment only destroies the Estate at will made by the sayd I. G. to the Plaintiff which being destroyed he cannot enter upon the Defendant albeit the Defendant cometh to the Land by Disseisin and not by the Feoffment of the sayd I. K. for the first Possession of the Defendant is a good Title in Trespasse against the Plaintiff if he cannot shew or maintain a Title Paramounâ— But the Feoffment of the sayd I. G. being traversed and found for him he hath by the acknowledgment of the Defendant himself a good Title against him by reason of the first Estate at will acknowledged by the Defendant to be to the Plaintiff and now not defeated But in the same case he cannot traverse the Feoffment supposed to be made to the sayd I. K. to the Defendant without an especiall Title made to himself for albeit that I. K. did not enfeoff the Defendant but that the Defendant disseised him or that he cometh to the Land by another means yet he hath a good Title against the Plaintiff by his first Possession not destroyed by any Title Paramount by any matter which appeareth by the Record upon which the Court is to adjudge and with this accord the opinion of 31 4. 1. That the materiall matter of the Bar ought alwaies to be traversed or other wise that which upon the pleading is become to be materiall and that which the Plaintiff traversed here to wit the Lease made by Wright to the Defendant is the materiall point of the Bar which destroyeth the Title Paramount acknowledged to the Plaintiff by the colour given in the Bar which is good without another Title made So note well the diversity where in pleading in Trespasse the first Possession is acknowledged in the Plaintiff by the Bar and where it appeareth by the pleading to be in the Defendant and where and by what matter the first Possession acknowledged in the Plaintiff by the Bar is avoided by the same Bar And upon this Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff as appeareth in 34. and 35. Eliz. Rol. Earl of Bedford versus Eliz. Anne Russell Mich. 34. and 35. Eliz. 2. IN tho Court of Wards the Case was thus between the now Earl of Bedford In the Court of Wards and Elizabeth and Anne the Daughters and Heirs of John late Lord Russell which was put ten times to all the Iustices to be resolved Francis late Earl of Bedford was seised of the Mannor of Baruake Chaldon c. in Commitatu Dorset in his Demesne as of see and so seised the fourth year of Queen Eliz. of it enfeoffed the Lord S. John of Bletsoe and others in see to the use of himself for forty years from the date of the sayd Deed and after to the use of the sayd John then his second Son and the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue then to the use of the right Heirs of the sayd Earl the Feoffor for ever Afterwards Edward Lord Russell Son and Heir apparant to the sayd Earl dyed without Issue and after the sayd John Lord Russell dyed without Issue Male having Issue the sayd two Daughters afterwards to wit 27 Eliz. the sayd Francis Earl of Bedford by Indenture made between him and the Earl of Cumberland and others in consideration of the advancement of the Heirs Males of the body of the sayd Earl which by course of descent should or might succeed the sayd Earl in the name and dignity of the Earldome of Bedford and for the better establishment of his Lordships Mannors and Hereditaments in the name and blood of the sayd Earl covenanted and grantes with the sayd Covenantees that he and his Heirs hereafter shall stand seised of the sayd Mannors amongst others to the use of himself for life without impeachment of Waste and after his decease to the use of Francis the Lord Russell and the Heirs Males of his body for default of such Issue to the use of Sir William Russell Knight his youngest Son and the Heirs Males of his body with diverse Remainders over after which the sayd Francis Lord Russell tyed having Issue Edward the now Earl of Bedford and after this the sayd Francâ—s late Earl of Bedford dyed also and after the Daughters of the sayd John Lord Russell or the now Earl of Bedford shall have these Mannors of Barunke c. was the question and upon this it was argued by Cook Sollinton and others for the Daughters that an use at Common-law was but a confidence put in some to the benefit and behoof of others and that Conscience was to give remedy but for those for whose availe the confidence was and that was in this Case for the sayd Daughters which were the right Heirs to the sayd Francis late Earl of Bedford upon the first conveyance made 41 Eliz. for the confidence that he put in the Feoffees as to the profits that he himself was to have was but for the forty years and how can any other say that he shall have any other Estate when he himself saith that he will have it but for forty years and therefore in this case his right Heir shall take as a Purchasor by the intent of the Feoffor which hath power to make a disposition of the use at his pleasure and his pleasure as appeareth was to have it so and it is not as if the use had been limitted to be to himself for life with such a Remainder over in which Case the use of the Fee by the operation of Law ought to execuse in himself for the Free-hold which was in him before As where Land is given to one for life the Remainder to his right Heirs he hath a Fee-simple executed but here he shall have but an Estate for forty years precedent and that the Fee-simple cannot be executed by such a limitation made to the right Heirs but in case of an Estate for years only precedent such a limitation to his right Heirs afterwards is not good but in case of an use it is otherwise for it may remain to be executed to be an use in Esse where the right Heir shall be and therefore not to be resembled to an Estate made in Possession And an Vse is alwaies to be
that it shall be then holden as if no Adjournment had been the Essâ—ines had been the first day of Tres Trin. and the full Term had not been untill the fourth day which was the last day of the Term quod nota and so it was of the Adjournment which hapned first at Westminster and afterwards at Hertford from Michaelmas Term now last past Michaelmas Term 35 and 36 Eliz. Gravenor versus Brook and others 1. IN an Ejectione firmae by Edward Gravenor Plaintiff against Richard Brook and others Defendants the case appeared to be this Henry Hall was seised in his Demesne as of Fee according to the custom of the Mannor of A. in the County of D. of certain customary Tenements holden of the said Mannor called Fairchildes and Preachers c. In the third year of Henry the 8th before which time the customary Tenements of the said Mannor had alwaies been used to be granted by Copy of Court Roll of the said Mannor in Fee-simple or for life or years but never in Fee-tail but then the said Henry Hall surrendred his said Copy-hold Land to the use of Joane his eldest Daughter for her life the remainder to John Gravenor the eldest Son of the said Joane and to the Heirs of his body the Remainder to Henry Gravenor her other Son and the Heirs of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of the said Henry Hall for ever wherupon in 3 H. 8. at the Court then there holden a grant was made by Copy of Court Roll accordingly and Seisin given to the said Joane by the Lord accordingly Henry Hall died having Issue the said Joane and one Elizabeth and at the Court holden within the said Mannor 4 H. 8. the death of the said Henry Hall was presented by the Homage and that the said Daughters were his Heirs and that the Surrender made as before was void because it was not used within the said Mannor to make Surrenders of Estates tails and therupon the said Homage made division of the said Land and limited Fairchilds for the purparty of the said Joane and Preachers for the purparty of the said Elizabeth and Seisin was granted to them accordingly Elizabeth died seised of her said part after which 33 H. 8. Margaret her Daughter was found Heir to her and admitted Tenant to this part after which Joane dyed seised of the said Tenements as the Law will And after the said Margaret takes to Husband one John Adye who with his said wife surrendred his said part to the use of the said John Adye and of his said wife and of their Heirs and afterwards the said Margaret died without Issue and the said John Adye held the part of his said wife and surrendred it to the use of the said Richard Brook and of one John North and their Heirs who were admitted accordingly after which the said John Gravenor died without Issue and now the said Henry Gravenor was sole Heirs to him and also to the said Henry Hall who had Issue Edward Gravenor and dyed the said Edward entred into the said Lands called Preachers and did let it to the Plaintiff upon whom the said Richard Brook and the other Defendants did re-enter and eject him And all this appeareth upon a speciall Verdict And by Clench and Gawdy an Estate tail cannot be of Copyhold Land unlesse it be in case where it hath been used for the Statute of Donis conditionalibus shall not enure to such customary Lands but to Lands which are at common Law and therfore an Estate tail cannot be of these customary Lands but in case where it hath been used time out of mind and they said that so it hath been lately taken in the Common Bench But they said that the first remainder limited to the said John Gravenor here upon the death of the said John was a good Fee-simple conditional which is well warrantes by the custom to demise in Fee for that which by custom may be demised of an Estate in Fee absolute may also be demised of a Fee-simple conditionall or upon any other limitation as if I. S. hath so long Issue of his body and the like but in such a case no Remainder can be limited over for one Fee cannot remain over upon another and therfore the Remainder to the said Henry was void But they said that for all the life of the said John Gravenor nothing was in the said Elizabeth which could descend from her to the said Margaret her Daughter or that might be surrendred by the said Margaret and her Husband and therfore the said Margaret dying without Issue in the life time of the said John Gravenor who had the Fee-simple conditionall nothing was done which might hinder the said Edward Son to the said Henry Gravenor of his Entry and therfore the said Plaintiff ought to have his Iudgment to recover for they took no regard to that which the Homage did 4th year of Hen. 8. But Fennor and Popham held that an Estate tail is wrought out of Copy-hold Land by the equity of the Statute of Donis conditionalibus for otherwise it cannot be that there can be any Estate tail of Copyhold Land for by usage it cannot be maintained because that no Estate tail was known in Law before this Statute but all were Fee-simple and after this Statute it cannot be by usage because this is within the time of limitation after which an usage cannot make a prescription as appeareth 22 23 Eliz. in Dyer And by 8 Eliz. a Custom cannot be made after Westm 2. And what Estates are of Copyhold land appeareth expresly by Littleton in his Chapter of Tenant by Copyhold c. And in Brook Title Tenant by Copyhold c. 15 H. 8. In both which it appeareth that a Plaint lyeth in Copyhold Land in the nature of a Formedon in the Descender at common Law and this could not be before the Statute of Donis conditionalibus for such Land because that before that Statute there was not any Formedon in the Descender at common Law and therfore the Statute helps them for their remedy for intailed Land which is customary by equity Add if the Action shall be given by equity for this Land why shall not the Statute by the same equity work to make an Estate intail also of this nature of the Land We see no reason to the contrary and if a man will well mark the words of the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 1. he shall well perceive that the Formedon in Descender was not before this Statute which wills that in a new case a new remedy may be given and therupon sets the form of a Formedon in Descender But as to the Formedon in the Reverter it is then said that it is used enough in Chancery and by Fitzherbert in his Natura brevium the Formedon in the Descender is founded upon this Statute and was not at Common Law before And the reason is because these Copyholds are now become by usage to be
Richard he made assurance by Fine of his Lands being 174 l. a year viz. Of part therof of the value of 123 l. a year of which part was holden of the Queen by Knights Service in Capite to the use of himself for his life and after his decease to the use of the said William and Margaret and the Heirs of the body of the said William begotten on the body of the said Margaret and for default of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said William And of the residue therof being also holden in Capite of the Queen to the use of himself for his life and after his decease to the use of the first Issue Male of the said Richard and to the Heirs Males of his body and then to other Issues of his body and for default of such Issue to the said William and Margaret and the Heirs of the body of the said William on the body of the said Margaret lawfully begotten and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said William with this Prouiso That it shall be lawfull for the said Richard to make a Joynture to his wife of the Lands limited to his Issue Males and for making of Leases for 21. years or three lives for any part of the said Land rendring the ancient Rent except of certain parcels and that William died without Issue and that Gilbert Littleton was his Brother and Heir and that the said Margaret married the said George Littleton youngest brother to the said William which are yet living And that the said Richard married Dorothy and made her a Joynture according to the Proviso And that the said Richard had Issue Iohn Smith and died the said Iohn being his Son and Heir and within age After which a Melius inquirendum issued by which it was found that the said Margaret was the Daughter of the said Richard and that the said Land was of the value of 12000 l. at the time of the assurance And how much of the Land shall be in ward and what Land and what the Melius inquirendum makes in the case was the question put to the two chief Iustices Popham and Anderson who agreed that the Queen now shall have the third part as well of that which was assured to William and Margaret immediatly after the death of the said Richard as of that which was limited to Dorothy for the life of the said Margaret for although money were paid yet this was not the only consideration why the Lands were assured but the advancement of the Daughter and now by the surviving of the said Margaret shee shall be said to be in the whole which was assured to her by her Father and for her advancement and the Land as it appears was of greater value then the money given and may as well be thought to be given for the Remainder of the Fee And agreeable to this was the case of Coffin of Devonshire about the beginning of the Raign of the now Queen which was that the said Coffin for moneys paid by one Coffin his Cosin having but Dâ—ughters himself conveyed his Land to the use of himself and his wife and to the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue to the use of his said Cosin and his Heirs for which his said Cosin was to give a certain sum of money to the Daughters for their marriage Coffin dies his said Daughters being his Heirs and within age and were in ward to the Queen the Lands being holden by Knights Service in Capite And the third part of the Land was taken from the wife of Coffin for the life of the said wife if the Heirs continue so long in Ward And it was also agreed by them and the Councell of the Court that the Melius inquirendum was well awarded to certifie that the said Margaret was the Daughter of the said Richard of which the Court could not otherwise well take Conusance for they thought that it was not matter to come in by the averment of the Attorney-generall as Dyer hath reported it But now by the Statute it ought to be found by Inquisition and being a thing which stands with the former Inquisition it ought to be supplied by the Melius inquirendum for the same Statute which gives the Wardship in case where Land is conveyed for the advancement of the Wife or Infants or for the satisfaction of Debts and Legacies of the party by the implication of the same Statute this may be found by Inquisitton and if it be omitted in the Inquisition it ought to be found by a Melius inquirendum but not to come in by a bare surmise And therfore if in the Inquisition it be found that the Ancestor had conveyed his Land by the Melius inquirendum it may be found that it was for the payment of his Debts or Legacies or that the party to whom or to whose use it was made was the Son or Wife of the party that made it and that by the very purport of the Statutes 32. 34 H. 8. as by Fitzherbert if it be surmised that the Land is of greater value then it is found a Melius inquirendum shall issue and so shall it be if it be found that one is Heir of the part of the Mother but they know not who is Heir of the part of the Father so if it be not found what Estate the Tenant had or of whom the Land was holden so upon surmise made that he is seised of some other Estate or that he held it by other Services by Fitzherbert a Melius inquirendum shall Issue and upon this order given it was decreed accordingly this Term. Morgan versus Tedcastle 4. IN the same Term upon matter of Arbitrement between Morgan and Tedcastle touching certain Lands at Welburn in the County of Lâ—ncoln put to Popham Walmesley and Ewens Baron of the Exchequer Wheras Morgan had granted to Tedcastle a 100. acres of Land in such a field and 60 in such a field and 20. acres of Meadow in such a Meadow in Welburn and Hanstead in which the acres are known by estimations or limits there be shall take the acres as they are known in the same places be they more or lesse then the Statute for they passe as they are there known and not according to the measure by the Statute But if I have a great Close containing 20. acres of Land by estimation which is not 18. And I grant 10. acres of the same Close to another there he shall have them according to the measure by the Statute because the acres of such a Close are not known by parcels or by meets and bounds and so it differeth from the first case And upon the case then put to Anderson Brian and Fennor they were of the same opinion Quod nota Humble versus Oliver 5. IN Debt by Richard Humble against William Oliver for a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the case was
not properly said an Use untill that it be said in Esse to take the Profits themselves But I am to turn this Argument against him who made it for if it be so the Use can never be in suspence and iâ— so it follows that no Possession by means of any such Use can be in suspence but staies where it was before to be executed when the Use happens to be in beeing But as to that that a Reversion or Remainder may be of that which we call an Use so also may such a Use be in suspence in the same manner as the Possession it self but not otherwise And as to Cramners Case formerly put the Law is so because nothing appeareth in the case to be done to the disturbance of this contingent Vse in the interim before it happen But upon the Case put of the Lady Bray upon which it hath been so strongly relied it was thus The Lord Bray made an assurance of certain Lands to the use of certain of his Councell untill the Son of the said Lord Bray should come to the age of 21. years for the livelyhood of the said Son and of such a Wife as he shall marry with the assent of the said Councell and then to the use of the said Son and of the said Wife and of the Heirs of the body of the said Son The Father dies the Son was become in Ward to the King after which one of the said Councellors dies the King grants over the Wardship of the said Son after which the said Lord Bray by the assent of his Guardian and of the surviving Councellors marries the Daughter of the then Earl of Shrewsbury after which the Husband aliens the same Land to one Butler and dies and upon Action brought by the said Lady against the said Butler for the same land she was barred by Judgment and upon what reason because she was not a person known when the Statute was made which must be in every case of a Freehold in Demesne as well in case of an Use as in case of a Possession And therfore a Lease for years the Remainder to the Heirs of I. S. then living is not good and the same Law of an Vse And so it was agreed by all the Iustices very lately in the case of the Earl of Bedford but in these Cases it remaineth to the Feoffor and because it doth not appear at the time of the assurance who shall be the Wife of the said Son so that there was not any to take the present Free-hold by name of the Wife of the Son she takes nothing by the assurance but this reason makes for our side to wit That if there were none to take the Free-hold in Demesne from the Use when it falleth he shall never take it The other reason in this Case was because she was not married by the consent of all the Counsellors for that one was dead nor according to the power given by the agreement but by the authority of the Guardian that the power which the Father had upon his Son was ceased And Nota That by a Disseisin the contingent Use may be disturbed of his Execution but there by the regresse of the Feoffee oâ— his Heirs when the Contingent happen it may be revived to be executed But by the release of the Feoffee or his Heirs the Contingent in such a case by Popham iâ—â—â—â—red oâ— all possibility at any time to be executed And to that which hath been said that the generall and universall Assurances of men throughout all the Realm at this â—ay arâ— by means of Vses and that it shall be a great deal of danger and inconvenience to draw them now in question or doubt and that it now trembleth upon all the Possessions of the Realm and therfore it shall be too dangerous to pull up such Trees by the roots the Branches wherof are such and so long spread that they overshadow the whole Realm Popham said That they were not utterly against Uses but only against those and this part of them which will not stand with the publike Weal of of the Realm and which being executed shall make such an Estate which cannot stand with Common Law of the Realm or the true purport of the Statute and therfore he said that it was but to prune and cut off the rotten and corrupt branches of this Tree to wit that those which had not their substance from the true Sap nor from the ancient Law of the Realm nor from the meaning of the Statute and so to reduce the Tree to its beauty and perfection The same reason he said might have been made in the time of Edw. 4. against those Arguments which were made to maintain the common Recoveries to bar Estates-tail But if such a reason had been then made it would have been taken for a bare conceit and meer trifle and yet Vses were never more common then Estates-tail were between the Statute of Donis conditionalibus and the said time of Edw 4. But the grave Iudges then saw what great trouble hapned amongst the people by means of Intails and what insecurity happened by means therof to true Purchasors for whose security nothing was before found as we may see by our Books but collaterall Warranty or infinite delay by Voucher and thus did the Iudges of this time look most deeply into it wherupon upon the very rules of Law it was found that by common Recovery with Vouchers these Estates-tail might be barred which hath been great cause of much quiet in the Land untill this day that now it begins to be so much troubled with the cases of Vses for which it is also necessary to provide a lawfull remedy But he said plainly That if the Exposition made on the other side shall take place it will bring in with it so many mischiefs and inconveniencies to the universall disquiet of the Realm that it will cast the whole Common-wealth into a Sea of troubles and endanger it with utter confusion and drowning And to that which was said That a Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. or to the Heirs of the body of I S. or to the first Son as here are so in the custody of the Law that they cannot be drawn out that therfore no forfeiture can be made by the Feoffment made by him who hath the particular Estate To that he said That a Disseisin made to the particular Estate for life draws out such Remainders to the right Heirs as is proved expresly by 3 H. 6 where it is holden that a collaterall Warranty bars such a Remainder in obeyance after a disseisin And by Gascoigne 7 H. 4. If such a Tenant for life makes a Feoffment in Fee it is a Forfeiture but he conceived that in the life time of I. S. none can enter for it but this is not Law and when by the Feoffment the particular Estate is quite gone in possession and in right also the remainder shall never take
Grantor at his Election provided then afterwards that he shall charge his person is not good Causa patet And all agreed that upon a Rent granted upon equality of partition or for allowance of Dower or for recompence of a Title an Annuity doth not lye because it is in satisfaction of a thing reall and therfore shall not fall to a matter personall but alwaies remains of the same nature as the thing for which it is given And afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given in the Common Bench that the Plaintiff shall recover which is entred c. And in the same case Clark vouched that it was reported by Benloes in his Book of Reports where a Rent was granted out of a Rectory by the Parson who after wards resigned the Parsonage that it was agreed in the Common Pleas in his time that yet a Writ of Annuity lies against the Grantor upon the same Grant to which all who agreed on this part agreed that it was Law Butler versus Baker and Delves 3. IN Trespasse brought by John Butler against Thomas Baker and Thomas See this case in Cookes 3. Report foâ— 25 Delves for breaking his Close parcell of the Mannor of Thoby in the County of Essex upon a speciall Verdict the Case was thus William Barners the Father was seised in his Demesne as of fee of the Mannor of Hinton in the County of Glocester holden of the King by Knights-service in Capite and being so seised after the Marriage had between William his Son and heir apparant and Elizabeth the Daughter of Thomas Eden Esquire in consideration of the same Marriage and for the Joynture of the said Elizabeth assured the said Mannor of Hinton to the use of the said William the Son and Elizabeth his Wife and the Heirs of their two bodies lawfully begotten and died by whose death the Reversion also of the said Mannors descended to the said William the Son whâ—rby he was seised therof accordingly and being so seised and also seised of the Mannor of Thoby in his Demesne as of Fee holden also of the Queen by Knights-servivice in chief and of certain Lands in Fobbing in the said County of Essex which Land in Fobbing with the Mannor of Hinton were the full third part of the value of all the Land of the said William the Son and he made his Will in writing wherby he devised to his said Wife Elizabeth his said Mannor of Thoby for her life in satisfaction of all her Joynture and Dower upon condition that if she take to any other Joynture that then the Devise to her shall be void and after her decease he devised that the said Mannor shall remain to Thomas his Son and the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue the remainder to Thomas brother of the said William for his life the remainder to hir first second and third Son and to the Heirs Males of their bodies and so to every other Issue Male of his body and for default of such Issue the remainder to Leonard Barners his brother and to the Heirs Males of his body the remainder to Richard Barners and the Heirs Males of his body the remainder to the right Heirs of the Devisor William the Son dies having Issue Thomas his Son and Grisell his Daughter Wife to the said Thomas Baker the said Elizabeth by Paroll in pais moved her Estate in the said Mannor of Hinton and after this entred into the said Mannor of Thoby after which the said Elizabeth died and Thomas the Son and Thomas the Uncle died also without Issue Male after which the said Leonard took one Mary to Wife and died having Issue Anthony Barners after which the said Mary took the said John Butler to Husband and after this the said Anthony assigned to the said Mary the said Mannors of Thoby in allowance for all her Dower wherby the said John Butler as in the right of his Wife entred into the said Mannor of Thoby wherby the said Thomas Delves by the commandment of the said Baker entred into the said Close of which the Action is brought as in right oâ— the said Grisell And whether this entry were lawful or not was the question which was argued in the Court in the time of the late Lord Wray and he and Gawdy held strongly that the entry of the said Delves was lawfull but Clench and Fennor held alwaies the contrary wherupon it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber But they all agreed that the Waiver made by the said Elizabeth by parole in pais was a sufficient Waiver of her Estate in Hinton and the rather because of the Statute of 27 H 8. cap. 10. the words of which are That if the Joynture be made after the Marriage that then the Wife surviving her Husband may after his death refuse to take such Joynture And now it was moved by Tanfield that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for by the Waiver of the Wife the Inheritance of Hinton is now to be said wholly in the Husband ab initio and therfore that with Fobbing being a whole third part of the whole Land which now is to be said to be left to discend to the Heir of the Devisor as to Thoby is good for the whole and if so then no part therof descends to Grisell and therfore the entry of the said Delves in her right is wrongfull Coke Attorney-general to the contrary for he said That it is to no purpose to consider what Estate the Devisor had in the Mannor of Hinton by reason of this Waiver made by his Wife Ex post facto after his death But we are to see what Estate the Devisor had in it in the view of the Law at the time of his death before the Waiver and according to it the Law shall adjudge that he had power to make his Devise by means of the Statute and at this time none can adjudge another Estate in him but joyntly with his wife of which Estate he had no power to make any disposition or to devise it or to leave it for the third part to his Heir for the Statute which is an explanatory Law in this point saies that he ought to be sole seised in such a case And further the Statute of 34 H. 8. at the end is that the Land which descends immediatly from the Devisor shall be taken for the third part and this Land did not descend immediatly for it survived to the Wife untill she waived it and therfore this Land is not to be taken for any third part which the Statute purposed to have been left to the Heir and therfore so much shall be taken from Thoby as with Fobbin shall be a third part to descend wherbâ— Grisell the Heir hath good right yet to part of Thoby and therfore the entry of the said Delves in her right by commandment of her husband not wronfull Periam chief Baron Clench Clark Walmsley and Fennor That now
and not otherwise to wit 100 l. therof in thâ—se words On that day twelvemonth next after the day of his death and the other 100 l. that day twelvemonth next after c. and made the said John Slaning his Executor and afterwards to wit the 8. day of April 25 Eliz died without Issue Male of his body the said Agnes took to Husband one Edmund Marley and upon the 8. day of April 26 Eliz. the said John Slaning paid the first 100 l. to Agnes then being living and upon the 8. and 9. daies of April 27 Eliz. Nicholas Slaning of Plumpton Son and Heir of the said John Slaning who died in the mean time an hour before the Sun set and untill the Sâ—n was set came to the House where the said Edmund and his Wife inhabited in London and tendred the last 100 l. and that neither the said Edmund nor Agnes his Wife were there to receive it but that the said Edmund voluntarily absented himself because he would not receivâ— the 100 l. and that therupon the Wife of the said Edmund died having Issuâ— two Daughters the Lands being holden by Knights-service in Capite and the said Daughters being yet within age and all this being found by Office by the opinions and resolutions of Popham and Anderson and the rest of thâ— Councel of the Court of Wards the said Heirs now in Ward shall have nothing but that which doth not passe by the conveyance to John Fits and his joynt Feoffees which was only that which was in the possessions of Peterfield and Atwill and that the Livery was good of the rest albeit the Attorny did nothing of that which was in Lease notwithstanding the words of the Warrant that they should enter into all and then shall make the Livery And they agreed that the Condition doth not â—ind neither the said John Slaning nor Nicholas his Son because they had not all the Land according to the purport of the Condition which was that he who had all therof should pay the 200 l. wheras here that which was in the possession of Peterfeild and Atwill did not passe to them for want of Attornment for a Condition ought to be taken strictly And further the payment was referred by the Indenture to be according to the Will or by the Will and the 200 l. was devised as a Legacy which ought to be paid but upon demand and not at the peril of the Executor and therfore the nature of the payment of it is altered by the intent of the Will and being not demanded there is no default in the said Nicholas Slaning of Plumpton to prejudice him of his Land if it had been a Condition for then it shall be but a Condition to be paid according to the nature of a Legacy upon demand and not at the peril of the party And whether the word twelve-month shall be taken for a year or twelve months according to 28. daies to the month as it shall be of eight or twelve months or the like And they agreed that in this case it shall be taken for the whole year according to the common and usuall speech amongst men in such a case and according to this opinion Wray who is dead Anderson and Gawdy made their Certificate to the late Chancellor Sir Christopher Hatton in the same case then being in the Chancery and a Decree was made accordingly And many were of opinion that by his absence by such fraud he shall not take advantage of the Condition being a thing done on purpose if it had been to be performed at his peril Kellies Case WIlliam Kelly and Thomasine his Wife were seised of certain Lands in S. Eth in the County of Cornwall called Karkian to them and to the Heirs of their two bodies between them lawfully begotten by the Gift of one William Dowmand Father of the said Thomasine 11 H. 8. a long time after which Gift to wit 25 H. 8. A Fine Sur conusance de droit come ceo que il ad per was levied by Peter Dowmand Son and Heir of the said William Dowmand to William Kelley of the Mannor of Dowmand and of a 100. acres of Land 300 acres of Meadow 300. acres of Pasture and a 1000. acres of Furzse and Heath in Dowmand S. Eth. Trevile and divers other Towns named in the Fine who rendred the same back again to the said Peter in tail with diverse Remainders over and this Fine was with proclamations according to the Statute after which the possession of Karkian continued with Kelly and his Heirs according to the first Intail and the Mannor of Dowmand and the Remainder of the Lands in these Towns which were to the said Peter Dowmand to him and his Heirs according to the render untill nine years past that by Nisi prius in the Country upon the opinion of Manwood late chief Baron the Land called Karkian was recovered against the Heir of the said William Kelly by virtue of the said Fine and Render because all the Land which the said Peter Dowmand and the said William Kelly also had in all these Towns named in the Fine were not sufficient to supply the Contents of acres comprised in the said Fine And what the Law was in this case was referred to the chief Iustices the Master of the Rolls Egerton and the now chief Baron â—ut of the Chancery who all agreed upon all this matter appearing that nothing shall be said to be rendred but that which indeed was given by the Fine and Karkian does not passe to the said William Kelly by the Fine for as to it the Fine is but as a release of Peter to him and therfore shall not be said to be rendred to the said Peter by the Fine where no matter appeareth wherby it may appear that it was the intent of the parties that this shall be rendred And therfore Popham said that by so many Fines which have been levied in such a manner and to such who have Land in the same Towns where the Conusance hath been considering that alwaies more Land is comprised in Fines by number of acres then men have or is intended to passe by them at some time or in some age it would have come in question if the Law had been taken as Manwood took it but in all such cases the Possession hath alwaies gone otherwise which shews how the Law hath been alwaies taken in such cases And therfore if a man be to passe his Mannor of D. to another by Fine Executory and he levy the Fine to him by the name of the Mannor of D. and of so many acres of Land in D. and S. being the Towns in which the Mannor lies after which the Conuzor purchaseth other Lands in these Towns the Fine before the Statute of Vses shall not be executed of these Lands purchased after the Conusance and the Fine shall work to these which he had power and intent to passe and no further And it seemed to them that an
first Attainder by way of Plea but acknowledged the Deed in which case the Accessary may well be Arraigned But if the principall had pleaded his former Attainder whether now he shall be put to answer for the benefit of the Queen having regard to this Accessary who otherwise shall go quit because there was not any principall but he who was formerly attainted And it seemed to Popham and some others that it shall be in the same manner as if the same person so formerly attainted should be tried now for Treason made before his Attainder as appeareth by 1 H. 6. 5. because it is for the advantage of the King in his Escheat of the Land and notwithstanding that it is moved by Stamford in his Pleas of the Crown it seemed to Popham that there was no diversity where the Treason was made before the Felony of which he is attainted and where after and before the Attainder And by the same reason that he shall be again tried for the benefit of the King in this case because of the Escheat by the same reason in this case here because of the forfeiture which accrueth to the Queen by the Attainder of the accessary and for the Iustice which is to be done to a third person who otherwise by this means shall escape unpunished But he agreed that the party Attaint shall not be again Arraigned for any other Felony done before the Attainder in case where no Accessary was touched before the Statute of 8 Eliz. cap. 4. he who is convict of Felony and hath his Clergy after his purgation made shall be Arraigned for another Felony done before the conviction if it be such for which he cannot have his Clergy and was not convicted or acquitted of the same Felony before the Attainder But upon this Statute it appeareth that he who shall have his Clergy in such manner shall not be drawn in question for any other Felony done before his Attainder for which he might have his Clergy And of this opinion as Clark and others of the Iustices said were all the Iustices in the time of Wray And as to the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap 7. It is not to be understood but that he who hath his Clergy and delivered according to this Statute shall be yet arraigned for any other Felony done before his former Conviction or Attainder if it be such for which he cannot have his Clergy for the words are That he shall be put now to answer c. in the same manner as if he had been delivered to the Ordinary and had made his Purgation any thing in this act to the contrary notwithstanding Pollard versus Luttrell 2. IN an Ejectione firmae between Pollard and Luttrell for Lands in Hubury and Listock upon the Title between the Lord Audeley and Richard Audeley it was agreed by the chief Iustices that if the Disseisor levy a Fine with Proclamations according to the Statute of 4 H. 7. and a stranger within five years after the Proclamations enter in the right of the Disseisee without the privity or consent of the Disseisee that this shall not avoid the Bar of the Fine unlesse that he assent to it within the five years for the words of the Statute are so that they pursue their Title Claim or Interest by way of Action or lawfull Entry within five years c. and that which is done by another without their assent is not a pursuing by them according to the intent of the Statute for otherwise by such means against the will of the Disseisee every stranger may avoid such a Fine which was not the intent of the Statute Mountague versus Jeoffreys and others 3. IN Trespasse by Edward Mountague Plaintiff against Richard Jeoffreys and others Defendants for a Trespasse done in certain Lands called Graveland in Hailsham in the County of Sussex the Case upon a special Verdict was thus Sir John Jeoffreys late chief Baron bing seised in his Demesn as of Fee amongst others of the said Land called Graveland having Issue but one only Daughter by his Will in writing devised all his Land of which he was seised in fee except the said Graveland to his said Daughter for 21. years c. and the said Land called Graveland which was then in Lease for divers years to one Nicholas Cobb which years at the time of the death of the said Sir John Geoffreys continued he devised to the said Richard Jeoffreys his Brother and his Heirs and by the same Will he disposed divers Legacies of his Chattels and the Remainder he gave to his said Daughter and made her Executrix of his said Will after which the first Wife of the said Sir John Jeoffreys being dead he covenanted with Mr. George Goring to take the Daughter of the said George to Wife and covenanted with the said George amongst other Lands to assure the said Land called Graveland to the said George Goring and Richard Jeoffreys and their Heirs to the use of the said Sir John Jeoffreys and Mary Goring Daughter of the said George and the Heirs of the said Sir John Jeoffreys by a certain day before which day the marriage being had the said Sir Io Ieoffreys made a Deed and sealed it and delivered it containing a Feoffment of the said Land called Graveland amongst others to the said George Goring and Richard Ieoffreys and their Heirs to the Uses aforesaid in performance of the said Covenants with a Warrant of Attorney to make Livery accordingly and the Attorney made Livery in other parts of the Land and not in Graveland and this was in the name of all the Lands compriâ—â—d in the Deed and the said Nicholas Cobb never attorned to this Deed After which Sir Iohn Ieoffreys interlined in the said Will that the said Mary then his Wife should be joynt Executrix with his Daughter And in the Legacy of the rest of his Goods c. he interlin'd the said Mary his Wife to be Joynt-tenant with his said Daughter without other publication therof and afterward the saâ—d Sir Iohn died the said Daughter being his Heir who took to Husband the said Edward Mountague 4. IN Trespasse the Plaintiff supposeth the Trespasse to be done in the breaking of his House and Close in such a Town the Defendant justifies in a House and Close in the same Town and shews which to put the Plaintiff to his new Assignment to which the Plaintiff replied that the House and Close of which he complains is such a House and gives it a speciall name upon which the Defendant demurs and adjudged that the Plaintiff take nothing by his Writ for albeit a House may have a Curtilage which passeth by the name of a Messuage with the Appurtenances yet this shall not be in this case for by the Bar the Plaintiff is bound to make a speciall demonstration in what Messuage and what Close he supposeth the Trespasse to be done as to say that the House hath a Curtilage the which he broke and
the Assise in manner and form as the Writ supposeth And further that the said West therof disseised the said Mounson namely of the Tenements in the will of one Mounson And did not find either the words of the Will nor the Will it self what it was c. And the Iustices of Assise upon this Verdict upon advice with the other Iustices gave Iudgment that the Plaintiff shall recover c. upon which a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench where it was moved that the Iudgment was erroneous First because the Iury have not found that the Defendant was Tenant of the Free-hold agreeing with the form of the Plea for the Writ of Assise doth not suppose him to be Tenant of the Free-hold and therfore the Verdict in this point not fully found The second Error is that the Seisin of the Plaintiff is not required of according to the charge given to them as well as the Disseisen for the charge was that they should enquire of the Seisen of the Plaintiff c. But to both these the Court answered that the Verdict is well enough notwithstanding these exceptions for every Assise brought supposeth that there is a Disseisor and a Tenant named in it then this Assise being brought against a sole person supposeth him to be a Disseisor and Tenant also and therfore the Verdict saying that he was Tenant as the Writ supposeth is now as strong in this case as if they had found that he was Tenant of the Free-hold for the Tenant of the Free-hold ought to be named in the Writ But if the Assise had been brought against two or more such a Verdict had not been good for it sufficeth if any of them be Tenant of the Freehold and then the Writ doth not suppose one to be Tenant more then another but supposeth one Tenant to be named in the Writ And therfore in such a case the finding ought to be speciall to wit that such a one is Tenant of the Free-hold or that there is a Tenant of the Free-hold named in the Writ But where one only is named in the Writ to be Disseisor and Tenant it is sufficient to find as here for by this it is certainly found that he is Tenant of the Free-hold And for the other point although it be a good direction for the Iudges to the Iury wherby they may the better perceive that there ought to be a Seisin in him or otherwise there cannot be a Disseisen by the other yet in Deed he cannot be a Disseised who was not then seised But the Assise having found the Disseisen the Seisen in Law is found included in the Disseisen But for the point moved that the Verdict was not perfect in as much as they found the Disseisen with a Nisi it seemed to Gawdy that the Iudgment upon this Verdict was erronious as where a Verdict in another Action is imperfect a Venire facias de novo shall be awarded to try the Issue again And if Iudgment be given upon such a Verdict it is error so here the Verdict in this point being incertain there ought to have been a Certificate of Assise to have this better opened But the three other Iustices held as the case is that the Verdict in this point is certain enough for that which cometh before the Nisi as it is placed is meerly nugator as in the case of the Lord Stafford against Sir Rowland Heyward the Iury found Non assumpsit but if such Witnesses say true as they believe they did Assumpsit c. it was but a meer nugation But it seemed to Popham that if the Verdict had been if the words of the Will do not passe the Land then that he disseised and if they passe then that he did not disseise there if the words of the Will be not found the Verdict had been all imperfect but here the Verdict is full and perfect before the Nisi c. and therfore the Iudgment was affirmed Holme versus Gee 8. A Formedon in Descender was brought by Ralph Holme Demandant against Henry Gee and Elizabeth his Wife Tenants and the Case wâ—s thus Ralph Langley and others gave two Messuages and a Garden with the Appurtenances in Manchester to Ralph Holme the great Grandfather of the Demandant and to the Heirs of his body begotten after which the same great Grand-father by Deed indented dated 20. September 14 H. 7. enfeoffed Iohn Gee of one of the said Messuages and of the said Garden rendring yearly to the said great Grand-father and his Heirs 13 s. 4 d. a year at the Feasts of S. Michael and the Annunciation by equal portions after which the said Iohn Gee died seised of the said Messuages and Garden and it descended to Henry Gee his Son and Heir after which the said great Grand-father by his Indenture bearing date 6. Martii 12 H. 8. enfeoffed the said Henry Gee of the other Messuages rendring also to him and his Heirs yearly 13 s. 4 d. at the said Feast aforesaid by equal portions after which Holme the great Grand-father died Stephen Holme being his Son and next Heir who was seised of the Rents aforesaid and afterwards also died seised Robert Holme being his Son and Heir after which the said Henry Gee died seised of the said two Messuages and Garden and they descended to Eliz. his Daughter and Heir who took to Husband one Richard Shalcroft and had Issue the said Elizabeth wife of the said Henry Gee Tenant in the Formedon after which the said Richard Shalcroft and his wife died after which and before the marriage had between the said Henry Gee and Elizabeth now Tenants in the Formedon the said Elizabeth enfeoffed one Richard Greensearch of the said Messuages and Garden after which to wit at the Feast of the Annunciation of our Lady 3 Eliz. the said Henry Gee husband to the said Elizabeth paid 13 s. 4 d. for the said Rent reserved as is aforesaid to the said Robert Holme after which to wit on Munday next after the Assumption of our Lady at Lancaster before the Justices there a Fine was levied with Proclamations according to the Statute between Thomas Aynsworth and Thomas Holden then being seised of the Tenements aforesaid Complainants and the said Henry Gee and Eliz. his wife Deforceants of the Tenements aforesaid wherby the Conusance was made to the said Thomas and Thomas who rendred them to the said Henry Gee and Eliz. his wife and to the Heirs of their bodies the Remainder to the right Heirs of the said Henry the five years past after the Proclamations in the life of the said Robert Holme after which the said Robert died and Ralph his Son and Heir brought the Formedon upon the Gift first mentioned and the Tenants plead the said Fine with Proclamations in Bar and the Demandant replyed shewing the severall discontinuances made by the great Grand-father as aforesaid and the acceptance of the said Rent by the said Robert by the hands of
own land as in another mans so the Warren hath existence notwithstanding the unity Dyer 326. Where the Queen was seised of Whaddon Chase and the Lord Gray was Lievtenant there in Fee and he and his Ancestors and their Keepers had by prescription used to hunt wandring Deer in the Demesns of the Mannor of S. adjoyning as in Purlieues the Mannor of S. comes into the Queens hands who grants this to Fortescue in Fee with free Warren within the Demesns c. it was holden that the unity doth not extinguish the Purlieu Dyer 295. Two Closes adjoyn the one by prescription is bound to a Fence the Owner of one purchase the other and suffer the Hedges to decay and dies leaving two Daughters his Heirs who make partition Quaere whether the prescription for the Inclosure be revived true it is that it is made a quaere but he saith see the like case 11 H. 7. 27. of a Gutter which proves our case as I will shew afterwards For the Minor proposition that the watering hath being notwithstanding the said unity I will prove it by 12 H. 7. 4. A Precipe quod reddat of Land Aqua Co-opert Mich. 6. Jac. Challenor and Moores case An Ejectione firmae was brought of a Watering-course and there resolved that it does not lye of it because it is not firma sed currit but of Terra aqua co-operta it doth lye Also I will take some exceptions to the Bar there is no Title in the Bar for the Defendant Pigot and so we being in possession albeit in truth we have no Title yet he who hath no Title cannot oust us neither can stop the said Water-course and it is only shewn in the Bar that Searles entred and enfeoffed Pigot but for any thing as yet appears the true Owner continued in possession 21 Jac. C. B. Cook against Cook in a Writ of Dower the Defendant pleads an Entry after the Darrein continuance and doth not plead that he ousted him and upon this the Plaintiff Demurs and there adjudged that it is no plea in Bar because he doth not say that the Defendant entred and ousted the Tenant 2. Exception the action is brought against four Scil. Pigot Cole Branch and Elyman and Pigot hath conveyed a Title from Searles the three other Defendants justifie but Pigot doth not say any thing but that Searles enfeoffed him 7 H. 6. an action of Wast is brought against many one answers and the other not this is a discontinuance And for the principall matter I will conclude with 11 H. 7. 25. Broo. Extinguishment 60. Two have Tenements adjoyning and the one hath a Gutter in the others Land and afterwards one purchase both and then he alien one to one and another to another the Gutter is revived notwithstanding the unity because it is very necessary and so he prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff Bear for the Defendant I in a manner agree all the cases which have been put on the other side and I conceive that the Water-course is not Stagnum but Servitium which is due from the one land to the other It is but a liberty and therfore I agree Challenors case which is but a liberty that an Ejectione firmae doth not lye of it but Ejectione firmae lies De stagno For the first exception I answer and confesse that to alledge an Entry after the Darrain continuance without alledging an Ouster of the Tenant cannot abate the Writ for the Defendant may enter to another intent as appeareth in the Commentaries and with the assent of the Tenant But here it was alledged that a Feoffment was made and a Livery which implies another For the matter in Law I conceive that the Water-course is extinguished and it may be compared to 21 E. 3. 2. The case of a way which is extinguished by unity of possession Hill 36. Eliz. Rot. 1332. Hemdon and Crouches case Two were seised of two severall acres of Land of which the one ought to inclose against the other one purchase them both and lets them to severall men and there the opinion was and adjudged accordingly that the Inclosure is not revived but remains extinguished 39 Eliz. Harringtons case the same thing resolved and albeit in Dyer 295. is a quaere yet the better opinion hath been taken according to these resolutions H. 4. Jac. Jordan and Ayliffes Case when one had a way from one acre to another and afterwards he purchased the acre upon which he had the way and afterwards sold it and in that Case the opinion of 3. Iustices was that the way was extinguished also 11 H. 4. 50. and 11 H. 7. 25. prove this case for the said case is compared to the custome of Gavelkind and Burrough English and there the quaere is made whether by the custome it be revived and if it be a custome which runs with the Land the unity of possession doth not extinguish it Co. lib. 4. Terringhams case and 24 E. 3. 2. common appendant is destroyed by unity of possession and yet it is a thing of common right but a Water-course being a thing against common right a fortiori it shall be extinguished Now I will take some exceptions to the Declaration 1. Because he hath laid a prescription for a Water-course as to say that it was belonging to a Rectory to which c. and this is a good exception as appears by 6 E 6 Dyer 70. Ishoms case where exception was taken that before his prescription he doth not say that it was Antiquum parcum which exception as it is there said was the principall cause that Iudgment was given against him and also as the case is here it ought to be a Rectory impropriate and this cannot be before the time of H. 8. which is within time of memory for before the said time no lay person could have a Rectory impropriate and therfore I pray Iudgment for the Defendant Barksedale said that the prescription is well laid and that he would prove by 39 H 6. 32. and 33 H. 6. 26. and per curiam the prescription is good enough and albeit it is not said that it is Antiquae Rectoria yet it is well enough Mich. 1 Car. at Reading Term in Broek and Harris case he doth not say that it was Antiquum Messuage and yet resolved good Doderidge the case of 6 E. 6. differs in this point from this case for a Rectory shall alwaies be intended ancient and so is not a Park for this may be newly created and he put this case suppose I have a Mill and I have a Water-course to this in my own land and I sell the Land I cannot stop the Water-course Crew chief Iustice seemed of opinion that the prescription is gone and that the better opinion in Dyer 13 Eliz. hath alwaies been that the Inclosure is gone by unity of possession but yet the Water-course is matter of necessity Doderidge and Whitlock the way is matter of election but the course of water is
put in Bracton lib 4. 221. These are called Servitutes as jus eundi fodendi hauriendi c. sunt servitutes quas praedia ex quibus exunt aliis praediis debent and are called Servitutes praediales and this began by private right to wit by grant or prescription A way or common shall be extinguished because they are part of the profits of the Land and the same Law is of Fishings also but in our case the water-course doth not begin by the consent of parties nor by prescription but Ex jure naturae and therfore shall not be extinguished by unity A Warren is not extinguished by unity because a man may have a Warren in his own Land and in the case of 11 H. 7. the Gutter was not extinguished only by the unity of possession but there also appeareth in the case that the Pipes were destroyed wherby it could not be revived and although the Book of 13 Eliz. Dyer 295. Two Closes adjoyn together the one being by prescription bound to a Fence the owner of the one purchase the other dies having issue two Daughters who make partition it is a quaere whether the inclosure be revived yet I conceive cleerly that by unity of the possession the Inclosure is destroyed for fencing is not naturall but comes by industry of men and therfore by the unity it shall be gone and so briefly with this diversity he concluded that where the thing hath its being by prescription unity will extinguish it but where the thing hath its being Ex jure naturae it shall not be extinguished and therfore the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment Jones Iustice agreed that the Declaration is good and that the Bar also is good in manner but for the matter in Law it is not good As to the first exception to the Declaration I conceive it is good albeit there wants a prescription and this is the ordinary of pleading as appears in Co. lib. 4 Luttrels case and in all the presidents before cited 2. For the exception Vi armis he conceived this difference where the act is a Trespasse and a Nusance there it may be laid to be Vi armis but if it be a Nusance only and not a Trespasse it is otherwise as if I have a way over another mans Land if a stranger dig in the Land so aâ— I cannot have the way now because it is a Trespasse to the Owner of the Soil in my action upon the case against a stranger I may have Vi armis but if the owner stop the way there Vi armis shall not be in my action upon the case For the third exception because he both not say Ad Rectoriam spectandum but I conceive that it shall be intended ad Rectoriam impropriat and so it appeareth 4. Where it is said Watering-course for his Tenants I conceive it is good enough being in an action upon the case where damages only are to be recovered That the Bar also is good in form for although the Tenant here be a Disseisor yet it is a good Bar for it matters not whether he hath a Title or no if the Water-course be extinct by the unity for the matter in Law he conceived that the unity of possession had not extinguished the Water-course A man hath things out of another mans Land either by grant as a Seigniory Rent Common c. and these are distinguished by unity c. and the reason is because one who hath interest as Owner of the Land cannot have a particular interest in the same Land also Or by prescription and those things are extinguished by unity of possession also and not only for the first reason because he is Owner of the Land and so cannot have a particular interest in the same Land also but also because that by the unity the prescription fail And for the case in Dyer 13 Eliz. I conceive that by the unity the inclosure is gone and so it was resolved in 37 Eliz. for every one is not bound to inclose For the case of the way I will suspend my opinion concerning it because Clark and Lambs case is now depending touching it in the same point But now for our case it differs from the other cases for the prescription here is in another manner then is made for Common for it shall be pleaded either as appendant or appurtenant but Currere solebat is only in this pleading for here no interest is claimed but in the other cases an interest is claimed In this case the Land remains as it was before and therfore the unity will not extinguish it and if such a unity by construction of Law should extinguish Water-courses it would be too dangerous for suppose that a man hath a Water-course from Thames to his house in Lambeth if he purchase a parcell of Land in Hendley now because that the Thames come by the same Land his Water-course shall be extinguished Also suppose that the Water-course after it hath been in the Curtilage of the Plaintiff goes into another Curtilage is it reason that by this unity the second man shall lose his Water-course without doubt it is unreasonable And the case of 11 H. 7. of the Gutter warrants this opinion and therfore the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment Doderidge Iustice I conceive no great difficulty in the case for the exceptions to the Declarations they are not materiall 1. That there wants Prescription or Custom I conceive that it is good enough for here are the words of Currere solebat consuevit and Consuevit is a good word for a Custom 2. That a Lay-man cannot have a Parsonage true it is that a Lay-man cannot be a Parson but he may have a Parsonage for he may be Lessee of it which appeareth many times in our Books 3. That it is not alledged to be Vi armis this is the most colourable exception and the case and rule cited out of Co. lib. 9. the Earl of Shrewsburies case is good Law but it is impossible to plead Vi armis in this case for the unity was in H. 8. and the wrong is supposed after the severance and it is supposed to be done by the Owner of the Land and a man cannot do a thing upon his own Land Vi armis 4. Because it is not alledged to be an ancient Rectory I conceive it need not because the Law presumes all Rectories to be ancient the Patronages wherof are gained Ratione fundi fundationis vel dotationis 5. Because he doth not say that Pertinet ad Rectoriam But he hath said a thing which amounts to as much for it is said that in the Rectory was a certain Curtilage in which there is a Watering-pond and the Curtilage is part of the house and therfore he need not say that it belongs to the house For the Bar I conceive that it is good for the Mannor A man makes a Feoffment of Land the Owner of the Land being present at the