Assumpsit MEgot brought an Action upon the Case against Broughton and Davy upon Assumpsit and it was found by Nisi Prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank Broughton dyed and after Iudgment given Davy the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the said Court scil in the Kings Bench where Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of Broughton depending the Writ vide 2 R. 3. 21. and this Case is not like to Trespass for Trespass done by many are several Trespasses but every Assumpsit is joynt If the Court may reverse their own Judgment and if the Court upon this matter might reverse their own Iudgment was the Question the Case was not resolved but adjourned CLII. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was found by Office that J. S. held by the Queen and dyed without Heir whereas in truth he had an Heir scil A. S. who leased the Lands for an hundred years and afterwards traversed the Office Office trove and had an Ouster le mayne le Roy. Now the matter was moved in the Common Pleas by Fenner in behalf of the Sheriffs of London before whom the matter depended to whom it was said by Anderson Chief Iustice Conveyance by the Heir upon Entrusion That where the King is entituled by an Office to a Chattel as to a wardship c. there if the Heir without any intrusion bargain and sell levy a Fine or lease for years during the possession of the King it is void against the King but shall bind the Heir but where the King is intituled to the Fee-simple as in this Case such a Conveyance is meerly void Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIII Samuel Starkeys Case HOmine replegiando by Samuel Starkey to the Sheriffs of London Who returned that the said Starkey was indicted to be de mala fama deceptione Domini Regis with divers other general words and namely that he had deceived J. S. a Clothier and that he was a common Cozener and thereof being found guilty Iudgment was given by the Mayor and Recorder That he should be disfranchized of his Freedom and should be fined and imprisoned for a year and further said that he had not paid his Fine nor the year expired Cook Such Return hath not been seen and it is directly against the Statute of Magna Charta Wray Chief Iustice gave a Rule that the Sheriffs should make their Return at their perils before such a day Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIV. Bushy and Milfeilds Case IN Error brought by Bushy and Milfeild It was assigned for Error that where in the first Action the Iury gave four pence Costs and the Court gave de incremento three and twenty shillings that in the Iudgment the four pence was omitted Error It was the Opinion of the Court That for that Cause the Iudgment should be reversed although it be for the advantage of the Party so where the Iudgment is quod sit in misericordia where it ought to be Capiatur Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLV Bingham and Squires Case BIngham brought Debt upon an Obligation against Squire Obligation 3 Leon. 151. The Condition was If Squire did procure a Grant of the next Avoidance of the Archdeaconry of Stafford to be made to the said Bingham so as the said Bingham at the said next Avoidance may present that then c. The Case was That afterwards by the means and endeavour of Squire the Grant of the next Avoidance was made to Bingham but before the next Avoidance the present Archdeacon was created a Bishop so as the presentment of that Avoidance belonged to the Queen It was adjudged in this Case that the Condition was not performed and that by reason of these words scil So that Bingham may present And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLVI Mansors Case A. Man bound himself in an Obligation to make an Assurance of Lands the first day of Jan. and the last day of December he to whom the Assurance was to be made scil the Obligee the said last day before Sun-setting came to the Obligor with a Deed ready to be sealed and prayed him to seal it who said to him that he was a man unlearned and said he would shew the same to his Counsel and then he would seal it And if the Obligation was forfeited or not because he did not seal it presently was the question And Fenner argued that it was not for when a thing is to be done upon request then he who makes the request ought to give sufficient and convenient time to perform the Condition I agree That where the Condition is absolute there if the Condition be not performed he shall not be excused by the default of another As if a man be bounden to marry A.S. and she will not marry him or to enfeoff J. S. and he refuseth as 3 H. 6. is the Obligation is forfeited Yet in these Cases if the Obligee himself be the cause that J. S. will not take the Feoffment or he will not marry A. S. the Obligation is not forfeited So in our Case for by his late request it is impossible for me to perform the condition for before my Counsel shall have perused it the time will be past If a man be bound to enfeoff one of Lands in Barwick request ought to be made so long time before that after that he may go to Barwick So if one be bounden to pay 1000 l. to J.S. he ought to make his Tender so long time before the last instant of the last day that the mony may conveniently be told This Case was in question A man made a Feoffment of the Manor of D. with the Appurtenances to which an Advowson was appendant and covenanted that the Manor upon request should be discharged of all manner of Incumbrances and before that the Feoffor had granted the next Avoidance to J. S. the Incumbent died the Clark of the Grantee was instituted and inducted the Feoffee requested the Feoffor to discharge the Incumbrance The opinion of many Sages of the Law was that he had not made his request within convenient time So if a man be bounden to infeoff the Obligee to have and to hold to him and his Heirs as long as J. S. shall have Issue of his Body If the Obligee demand Assurance after the death of J. S. without Issue yet the Obligation is not forfeited In 22 E. 4. if Lessee for the life of another continues possession for two or three weeks after the death of Cestuy que use where he could not have more speedy notice of his death he shall not be a Trespassor In 15 Eliz it was holden in Wottons Case That where he was bound to make a Feoffment to J. B. and J. B. came to him in Westminster Hall and tendred to him a Writing
time of the Recovery for he is estopped to say that his Father was not Tenant to the Praecipe and therefore it is a good Recovery against him by way of Estoppel CCCLXXXV Mich. 6 Jac. In the Kings Bench. IN a Writ of Error brought upon a Iudgment given in Communi Banco in an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease of a Running Water it was agreed by the Court That no Livery could be made of Running Water because it is fugitive but otherwise it is of Water in a standing Pool for that is certain and peramount and of that Livery ought to be with a dish of part of the Water CCCLXXXVI Duncombs Case In the Common Pleas. THe Grantee of a Rent-charge for life acknowledgeth a Statute and afterwards he released to the Terr-tenant It was the Opinion of Cook Chief Iustice in Communi Banco that the Rent after the Release should be put in Execution upon the Statute CCCLXXXVII The Opinion of Popham Chief Justice in the Kings Bench. IT was the Opinion of Popham Chief Iustice That if a man covenant to stand seized to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of his Executors that in that Case the Executors shall take to the use of their Testator But if a man covenant upon good consideration to stand seized to the use of the Executors of a stranger that the word Executors is a word of Purchase and they shall take to their own use CCCLXXXVIII Mich. 7 Jac. In the Common Pleas. COok Chief Iustice put this case If the custom of a Manor is that every Tenant at his death shall pay his best Beast for a Heriot if a Feme sole who is Tenant for life of this Manor taketh a Husband and afterwards dyeth if the Lord shall have a Heriot Dodderidge the Kings Serjeant said that he should not because that the Wife had not Goods Mich. 7 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXXXIX Wards Case AN Information was against Ward and his Wife for his Wives not coming to the Church upon the Statute of 28 35 Eliz. It was said by Cook Chief Iustice That the Husband is chargeable for the Recusancy of his Wife and he said there needed no Conviction but before an Information the Husband shall not be chargeable for his Wife but where he is named with the Wife and he said That the King had a Fee-simple in their Lands for he hath it to him and his Heirs and Successors until conformity with satisfaction of the Arrearages Vide Statut. 28 Eliz. Rastal Tit. Corone Mich. 3 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCXC Wheelers Case A Copyhold custom is That a Woman shall have a Free Bench quam diu se bene gesserit and live chaft and she is incontinent of which the Lord hath not notice and the Lord admits her Tenant It was holden it should bind the Lord although he had not notice of the Incontinency Mich. 5 Jac. In the Star-Chamber CCCXCI Edwards and Wattons Case NOte for Law in the Star-Chamber If a man write a scandalous Letter unto another and put his name to it if the party who writ it publisheth the same either before or after the delivery an Action upon the Case lyeth against him at the Common Law But if the party who writes it doth not publish it yet he may be sued for the same in the Star-Chamber And it was said in this Case That he who receives Books which are written against the Religion established in the Kingdom and shews them to others with Comments of them he runs into a Praemunire by the Statute of 4 Eliz. CCCXCII Rolls tit Waste THe Case was A. made a Lease of White Acre to B. upon condition he should do no Waste in which there was a Fish-pond stored with Carps Pikes and their Fry C. destroys all the Fish B. being upon the Land for which A. enters 1. If the destruction of all the Fish and their Fry be Waste within the Statute of Gloucester It was said that it was for they are parcel of the Inheritance as are Deer within a Park enclosed But it was adjudged 29 Eliz. in Communi Banco in Moyle and Ewers Case That where a Lease of a Manor was in which was a Warren of Conies and the Lessee destroyed the Conies that it was not waste for they were ferae naturae and the Land bettered by them and such was the Opinion of Walmsley Iustice although the Conies were in a Warren paled and enclosed with a Wall but the destroying of Doves in a Dove-house is Waste And it was adjudged in Sir Francis Palmers Case 9 Jac. in B.R. That although the cutting of Vnderwood was not Waste yet the eradicating of it was Waste The other matter was If the destruction of the Fish by a Stranger the Lessee being upon the Land were waste it was said it was waste for qui non vetat peccare cum possit jubet and it was said That if a man commit waste or suffer another to do it he did incur the penalty in the Statute But in this case it was said That a Condition to defeat an Estate should be taken strictly As if a Custom be that if a Copyholder for waste done shall forfeit his Estate if a stranger doth the waste it is no Forfeiture for three things in Law shall be taken strictly Conditions Customs Penal Laws As if the Custom be That an Infant at the age of 15 may make a Feoffment he cannot make it by Attorney And it was adjudged 1 Jac. in Communi Banco in Woodleys Case So the Statute of 5 E. 6. a Penal Law is That a man shall not buy any Victual to sell the same again Yet it was adjudged That where a man buys Meal and makes the same into Starch and sells it he may well justifie the sale thereof and it is out of the Statute because it is not the same thing Pasc 8 Jac. In the Kings Bench. CCCXCIII Wards Case IT was adjudged in this Court That if a Mill be set upon Posts that no waste lyeth for it and that a Copyhold might be of a Mill as it was adjudged in Green and Harris's Case Also it was said That there is a real and personal Forfeiture of Copyhold Lands Real is not necessary to be found by the Homages as was resolved in Brocks Case but otherwise it is of a Personal Forfeiture And Hil. 8 Jac. a Woman Copyholder built a new House upon the Land and it was agreed to be a Forfeiture Pasc 8 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCXCIV Brown and Tuckers Case IF a man have Estovers to such a House 4 Co. 84. and he enlargeth his House or buildeth more Houses or Chimneys the Estovers remain to all the Houses and Chimneys which were there before and not to those added or new builded as it was adjudged Pasc 8 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCXCV Batcliffe and Chaplins Case 1 Roll. 623. IN an Ejectione firmae between Ratcliffe and Chaplin upon not
and before the 13 Weeks past the Lessor dyed and the Plaintiff his Executor brought Debt for the Rent It was adjudged by Cook and the other Iustices That the Action did not lye forthe Rent For the Rent being to be paid at Mich. or within 13 Weeks after the Lessee hath Election to pay it at any of the days and before the last day it is not due and when the Lessor dyeth before that day his Executors have not any right to the Rent but after the death of the Lessor having but an Estate for life the Rent is gone But if the Lessor had had a Fee-simple in the Land and had dyed before the last day the Heir should have had the Rent as incident to the Reversion But if the Lessor had survived both days the Rent had been a thing vested in him and his Executors should have had it but if the Rent had been reserved at Mich. and if it be behind by 13 Weeks that then it should be lawful for the Lessor to enter if the Lessor survive Mich his Executors shall have Debt for the Rent for then the Rent is due and the 13 Weeks are but a Dispensation of the Entry of the Lessor until that time And in this case as well as where the Rent is reserved at two days in the disjunctive it is sufficient that the Rent be demanded at the latter day without demanding of it at the first day Mich. 10 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCCIV Sir Baptist Hix and Fleetwood and Gotts Case Roll. tit Condition THe Case was Fleetwood and Gotts bargained and sold Weston Park being 300 Acres of Land to Sir Baptist Hix for 11 l. for every Acre which did amount to 25 30 l. and in the premises of the Indenture of Bargain and Sale it was agreed by the parties That the said Park being Wood-Land should be measured by a Pole of 18 Foot and a half And further it was covenanted That Fleetwood and Gotts should appoint one Surveyor and Hix another who should measure the said Park and if it by the measure should exceed the Number of Acres mentioned in the Indenture that then Hix should add to them according to the proportion of 11 l. for every Acre and if it wanted of the Measure then the said Fleetwood and Gotts should repay to Hix the Surplusage of that Mony according to the proportion of 11 l. the Acre And upon the Indenture Hix brought Covenant and Assigned a Breach because upon Measure it wanted 70 Acres and the Defendants did demur upon the Declaration because the Plaintiff had not therein shewed by what measure it was measured for they said by Shirley That although it was agreed in the first part of the Indenture that the measure should be by a Pole of 18 Foot and a half yet when they come to the Covenants there they do not speak of any Measure for which cause it shall be taken for such a Measure as the Statute speaks of scil a Measure of 16 Foot and a half the Pole and by such Measure there wants not any part of the Acres Dodderidge contr And he put this ground That if certainty once appeareth in a Deed and afterwards in the same Deed it is spoken indifferently Reference shall be unto the certainty which appeareth And therefore if by an Indenture Lands be given to a man Haeredibus masculis and afterwards in the same Deed it appears it is Haeredibus de Corpore suo It shall be an Estate-tail because the first words were indefinite and the last certain by which it appeared that he passed but an Estate in Tail And 4 E. 4. 9. b. the words of a Declaration was Noverint universi per praesentes nos J. S. teneri c. W. B. in 20 l. solvendum eidem J.S. It was holden by the Court the same did not make the Obligation void because it appeared by the first part of the Obligation that he should be bound to the Plaintiff and therefore the intent being so the Plaintiff might declare of a Solvendum to himself And the words J. S. should be Surplusage And 22 E. 3. 4. the Abbot of Selby granted quandam annuam pencionem 〈◊〉 ad rogatum J.E. illam scilicet quam idem J. E. habuit ad terminum vitae suae Et solvendam quousque sibi de beneficio Competo provisum fuerit It was holden by the Court in a Writ of Annuity brought That the word sibi should have reference to B. the Grantee and not to J. E. And Cook said That the original Contract did leave the Measure in this Case and for that he vouched Redwellys Case in Plowd Comment A Lease rendring Rent at Mich. at D. and if it be behind for a month after demand that the Lessor shall re-enter it shall be demanded at the first place Trin. 12 Jac. In the Star-Chamber CCCCV. Sir Richard Egertons Case IN this Case the Wife of Sir John Townsend being sentenced in 1000 l. and in Execution in the Fleet for the Costs of the Plaintiff these Points were resolved by the Court 1. If a man be Sentenced in the Star-Chamber to pay a Fine and to Imprisonment and the Delinquent renders his Body to Prison that notwithstanding the Body continues in Prison the King shall be satisfied the Fine out of the Profits of the Delinquents Lands 2. If a Feme Covert be sentenced there and she renders her Body to Prison and there abides That the Lands of her Husband shall be sequestred and the Profits thereof for the Fine of his Wife And that now upon the Statute of Recusancy the Lands of the Husband for the Recusancy of his Wife if he do not render her to Prison and discharge the same 3. If a man be Sentenced in the Star Chamber to pay a Fine and to have Imprisonment and he yield himself to Prison That before his Fine be also paid he shall not proceed in any Action at the Common Law against the Party in the same Suit. Pasc 12 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCCVI Crane and Parkins Case IN Trespass The Defendant pleaded that the Land in which was parcel of the Manor of Broughton Astley demisable by Custom and shewed That the Custom of the Manor was that if any Tenant for life dyed that the Lord for three years Fine ought to grant the same to his Heir and pleaded a Grant of the Manor to the Lord Grey of Grooby And also pleaded another Custom of the said Manor That if any Tenant for life of the said Manor had a Wife and dyed that the Wife shall have in the Land her Widows Estate And that after the death of the Wife that the Son for a Fine of three years paid to the Lord should have it for his life and that the Defendant claimed as Son according to that Custom The Plaintiff made Title as Lessee for years to the Lord Gray of the Manor and traverseth that there was not any such Custom
Common Pleas. LII Frice and Fosters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made 14 Jan. 30 Eliz. to have from the Feast of Christmas then last before for three years and upon the Evidence the Plaintiff shewed a Lease bearing date the 13 day of January the same year and it was found by Witnesses that the Lease was sealed and delivered upon the Land the 13 day of January Variance Whereupon Puckering and Cowper Serjeants moved on the part of the Defendant that for that variance between the Declaration and the Evidence of the Plaintiff that the Iury might be discharged Evidence good to maintain Issue But Anderson Chief Iustice said that the Evidence was good enough to maintain the Declaration for if the Lease was sealed and delivered the 13 of January it was then a Lease 14 January Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt LIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield The Case was that A. seised of an Advowson in Fee Quare Impedit by Executors the Church voided the Bishop collated wrongfully A. dyed Collation it was holden that his Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon that disturbance and that by the equity of the Statute which gave an Action of Trespass to Executors of Goods carried away in the life of the Testator 4 E. 3. cap. 7. and that the Clerk should be removed at the suit of the Executors Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIV. Harvey and Thomas Case THe Case was that the Husband seised of Land in the right of his Wife made a Lease of it for years Fine by the Husband where avoids a Lease ê contra 1 Roll. tit Charge in Marg. 389. Plow Quaer 31. 261. ib. plus and afterwards he and his Wife conveyed the Land to a stranger by Fine the Husband died Wray Chief Iustice was of opinion that the Conusee should hold the Land discharged of the Lease Gawdy contrary In case of a Rent granted or a Recognizance acknowledged by the Husband the Conusee of the Fine shall avoid any of them But in this Case the Conusee meddles with the Land it self and an Estate in the Land is conveyed by the Husband which none but the Wife or her Heirs shall avoid and if the Wife after the death of her Husband accept the Rent upon such a Lease by that the Lease is confirmed Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LV. Blaby and Estwicks Case IN Assumpsit It was moved in stay of Iudgment Assumpsit that one of the Defendants was dead after verdict but notwithstanding that Allegation Iudgment was given Attornment for the Court cannot take Notice of it judicially nor any of the Parties hath day in Court to plead it and therefore the Court is not to have regard to such Informations Wray It is not honourable for us upon such surmises which cannot be tryed to delay Iudgment and also the Party is not without remedy for he may have a Writ of Error 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVI Hore and Briddleworths Case HOre brought Trespass against Briddlesworth Quare clausum Domum suam fregit the Defendant pleaded and put the Plaintiff to a new Assignment i. e. a House called a Stable a Barn and another House called a Carthouse and Garnier And that was assigned for Error for that Assignment is not warranted by the Declaration Gawdy said it was good enough for Domus in the Declaration contains all things contained in the new Assignment but if the Declaration had been of a Close and the new Assignment of a Barn it had not been good Wray Chief Iustice Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many Buildings as Barns Stables c. And such was the Opinion of the Court. Mich 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVII Mans Case Prohibition MAn was sued before the Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes for an Incestuous Marriage viz. for marrying his Wives Sisters Daughter and although it be not expresly within the Levitical degrees yet because more farther degrees are prohibited the Archbishop of Canterbury and other the Commissioners gave Sentence against him Consultation upon which he sued a Prohibition upon the Stat. of 32 H. 8. c. 38. The Prohibition was general where it ought to be special that it be not within the Levitical degrees and therefore a Consultation was granted Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVIII Doylies Case Appeals IN an Appeal de Roberie against Doyly It was agreed by the Iustices that the Party robbed shall have an Appeal of Robbery 20 years after the Robbery committed and shall not be bound to bring it within a year and a day as in the Case of an Appeal of Murder Vide contr 22 Ass 97. vide Stamford 62. Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIX Ruishbrook and Pusanies Case THe Plaintiff brought Trespass for pulling down his Hurdles in his Close The Defendant justified by reason that one Beddingfield was Lord of the Mannor of D. and that the said Beddingfield and all those whose Estate he had in the said Mannor had had a free course for their sheep in the place where c. And that the Tenant of the said Close could not there erect Hurdles without the leave of the Lord of the Mannor and that the said Beddingfield let to the Defendant the said Mannor and because the Plaintiff erected Hurdles without leave c. in the said Close he cast them down as it was lawful for him to do The Plaintiff replyed of his own wrong without cause c. It was holden by the Iustices to be an ill Plea Traverse for the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Prescription 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LX. Par Marquess of Northamptons Case PAr Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bourchier Heir of the Earl of Essex Leases by a Baron contrary to Act of Parliament void 3 Leon. 71. who levied a Fine of the Lands of the Lady sur Conusans de Droit c. with a Grant and Render to them for Life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the said Lady And afterwards by Act of Parliament â—5 H. 8. It was enacted That the said Lady should retain part of her Inheritance and dispose thereof as a Feme sole and that the said Marquess should have the residue and that he might lease the same by himself without the Wife for 21 years or lesser term yielding the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess leased the same for 21 years and afterwards durante termino praedict he let the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the former Lease It was moved that the last Lease was void for three Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but for Life and then it cannot be intended that the Statute would enable
reversion shall be to both of them but if it be by Deed indented the rent shall go to one only according to the literal reservation Vide Litt. 80. 346. But if the Lease had been made by several Limitations as Habendum one Manor for 20 s. and the other Manor for 10 s. then the Lease and the Reversion had been several but here the rent shall not rule the reversion but the reversion the rent and the rent shall be of the same nature as the reversion Tenant for life makes a Feoffment in Fee upon condition and re-enters for the condition broken now by that re-entry the Freehold is reduced to the Lessee for life and the Fee unto the Lessor but the Forfeiture remains Two Ioyntenants one of them makes a Feoffment in Fee of his Moiety upon condition and for the breach of the condition re-enters the Ioynt Estate is revived And he conceived that the Grantee of part of the Estate or part of the Land should not take advantage of the condition and he said that the Bargainor is an Assignee within the Statute If Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for years and afterwards bargains and sells the reversion the Vendee hath a Fee simple determinable and may enter for the condition broken If a reversion be granted to two and to the Heirs of one of them they are Assignees within the Statute and if he who hath but an estate for life surviveth he also is an Assignee for the entire reversion passeth out of the Grantor and that is my Rule Iudgment was given against the Re-entry LXXXIII Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Surrender LEssee for 21 years took a Lease of the same Lands for 40 years to begin immediately after the death of J. S. It was holden in this case that the same was not any present Surrender of the first term but if J. S. dye within the term then it is a Surrender for it may be that J. S. shall survive the first term Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXXIV Anderson and Heywoods Case Copyholder A Copyholder of an Inheritance of a Manor which is in the hands of the King is ousted of his Copyhold It was holden that he hath not gained any Estate so as he may make a lease for years upon which the Lessee may maintain Ejectione firmae but he hath but a possession against all Strangers And it was holden in this case that if a Copyholder dyeth 1 Leon. 100. Rumny and Eves his heir within age he is not bound to come to any Court during his Nonage to pray admittance or to tender his Fine also if the death of his Ancestor be not presented nor proclamations made he is not at any mischief although he be at full age Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXXV Cook and Songates Case IN Assumpsit Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared whereas Lis controversia had been moved between the Plaintiff Lord of the Manor c. and the Defendant claiming certain Lands parcel of the said Manor to hold the same by Copy c. And both the said parties submitted themselves to the Iudgment and Arbitrement of Mr. Godfrey a man learned in the Law. concerning the said Land and the title of the Defendant to the same The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that if the said Mr. Godfrey should adjudge the said Copy to be good and sufficient for the title of the Defendant that then he would suffer the said Defendant to enjoy the said Land accordingly without molestation the Defendant reciprocally promised to the Plaintiff that if the said Mr. Godfrey should adjudge the said Copy not to be sufficient to maintain the title of the Defendant that then he would deliver and surrender the possession of the Land to the Plaintiff without any Suit. And shewed further that the said Mr. Godfrey did award the said Copy utterly to be insufficient c. Yet the Defendant continued the possession of the said Land It was moved that the same was not a good and sufficient consideration to ground an Assumpsit But Gawdy Iustice said it was a good and sufficient consideration because it was to avoid Controversies and Suits And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LXXXVI Taylors Case IN Assumpsit the Case was Assumpsit That the Defendant promised to carry certain Apples for the Plaintiff by Boat from Greenwich in the County of Kent to London and the Apples being in the Boat the Boat in which they were by a great and violent Tempest was sunk in the River of Thames so as the said Apples perished c. It was holden to be no Plea in discharge of the Assumpsit by which the Plaintiff had subjected himself to all adventures LXXXVII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Devise A. Seized of Lands in Fee and having Issue two Sons Richard and Gilbert by his Will willed That if his Son Richard dye before Issue so that the Land descend to my Son Gilbert then I will that my Overseers shall have the Government of my Lands and of my Son Gilbert Richard took a wife and dyed she being young with Child with a Daughter the Devisor died the Daughter was born It was adjudged in this Case that by this Devise the Daughter was excluded from the Inheritance and that Gilbert should have the Land. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXXVIII Lukes Case LUke Esq of Tedcaster was Indicted upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap 8. for being a Broker in a Vsurious Contract for which he encurred a Praemunire Who pleaded Not Guilty upon which they were at Issue and at the day of the Return of the Distringas the Iurors appeared and the same day that the Iury was to be taken Popham Attorney General sent for the Distringas and for certain causes for the Queen would not proceed Note that the Attorney was informed that the Iury was partial It was moved by Cook that the Attorney could not stay the Proceedings the Writ being returned and the Iury appearing he could not stay the Tryal for no President is thereof Popham The Entry shall be in this case Vicecomes non misit breve Cook That is false and the Sheriff is sworn to make a true return but by consent of the Parties such a thing may be done for Consensus tollit Errorem Quaere 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer LXXXIX The Queen and Painters Case Accompt of the King against a Stranger SIr William Pelham was Surveyor of the Ordnance and delivered the money of the King to Painter Clerk of the Ordnance It was holden in this case That for the said money the Queen might have Accompt against Painter although he wanted a privity which cannot be so in case of a common person for if any Receiver make one his Deputy I shall not have an Accompt against him Popham Attorney General If one of
upon it and shall not be put to a Scire facias and of that Opinion was Philips Manwood Chief Baron I agree that if one hath sued a Writ of Execution and the same be continued two or three years by Vicecomes non misit breve yet the Plaintiff may proceed upon it Discontinuance of Suit. and shall not be put to a Scire facias But if such Writ be sued forth but not continued but discontinued for a year and a day he shall be put to a Scire facias for it is the negligence of the Plaintiff not to continue it which within the year and day he might do without Order of the Court but not after the year by any Order of the Court. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber CXX Russel and Prats Case RUssel as Executor of Russel brought an action upon the Case against Prat and his Wife of Trover and Conversion of Goods and 700 l. in money and declared that the Testator was possessed of these Goods 6 Feb. 1 Eliz. at which day they came to the hands of the Defendant dum ipsa sola fuit and converted them c. and Licer the Wife dum sola fuit was required and the said Prat and she after their marriage to deliver them yet they not only refused so to do but knowing the said Goods and Money de jure to belong to the Testator in his life and to his Executors after his death machinantes â—psum inde callâ—de decipere defraudare the said Wife dum ipsa sola fuit converted them to her use the said 6 day of February And Error was assigned in the Declaration because it is not alledged there whether the said conversion was in the Life of the Testator or after his death for that ought to be shewed certainly for if it was in the life of the Testator then it was not punishable by the Common Law or Statute Law and the conversion is the principal point of the action This action is personal moritur cum persona for it is grounded upon a personal wrong and ariseth upon a disceit and wrong and if there was no conversion then an Action of Detinue should lye 7 E. 3. Replevin by Executors of Goods taken in the time of the Testator Fitz. Exec. 106. And it was said that this Action here doth not lye upon the Statute of 4 E. 3. which gives to Executors an Action of Trespass De bonis asportatis in vita Testatoris for the said Statute gives remedy in Cases where there was no remedy before but here the Plaintiff might have Detinue And in our Case it appeareth not whether the Conversion was in the life of the Testator or after his death therefore for the incertainty it is not good Also here is a repugnance in the Declaration scil Sciences the said Goods de jure pertinere to the Testator in his life and after his death to his Executors machinantes ipsum inde decipere defraudare the said wife dum ipsa sola fuit converted them to her use which cannot be c. Popham Attorney General contrary And he agreed that the Executor should not have an accompt against one who was accomptable to the Testator because the privity was gone But it hath been granted on the other side that here upon the matter Detinue lieth and if c. then also this Action lieth for this is the nature of it If the Testator lends a Horse to a special purpose scil to ride to such a place and the party rideth further and the Testator dyeth the Executor may have Detinue or this Action be the Conversion in the life or after the death of the Testator and yet the damages recovered for the Goods converted shall be Assets Two Ioyntenants possessed of Goods lose them and they come to A. by Trover who converts them to his use be it in life or after the death of one of them is all one Anderson The Conversion may be well intended after the death and as to the Exception for the Repugnancy it was said by the Iustices that the words â—cienteâ— c. are but surplusage and not traversable Cook. If I deliver Goods to a Carrier being in a Chest and he breaks it and takes them out in that Case Trespass lieth vi armis notwithstanding the delivery Anderson praedicta tamen i. e. Non obstante that the Testator was dead did not redeliver them c. which proves that the Testator was dead Periam praedicta tamen refers to the Non deliâ—eravit not to the Conversion Cook I find your Goods and use them the same is a Conversion and in the Case of Knight against Vinchcomb it was holden that a Conversion is traversable therefore it ought to be certainly alledged and in our Case the Executor might have detinue or Trespass for the personal wrong where the thing it self certain is to be recovered there the Executor is sure to have an Action as Detinue Replevin c. but where damages only or things uncertain there the Executors shall not have Action and that difference was in a manner agreed by all Anderson Where it is said That upon the Assumpsit of the Testator the Executor shall have an Action upon the Case the reason is because the duty upon the Assumpsit is certain and the Statute of 4 E. 3. shall not be taken by Equity for by the said Statute the Executor of an Executor shall not have an Action before the Statute of 25 E. 3. Also there is not any wrong for then moritur cum Persona If one finds my Goods and denies the having of them the same is not Trespass Periam This Case is not within the Statute of 4 E. 3. for the Statute is to be intended where Goods are taken vi armis and if it be at all within the Statute it must be within the Equity of it Manwood Where one takes my Horse and dies I shall not charge his Executor and that is our Case At another day some held That the Action did not lye against Executors therefore not for Executors And Executors of Executors shall not be charged with a Devastavit made by the first Executors Manwood The Executor of the Gaoler shall not be charged in an Escape Anderson It is not within the Equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3. Cook. A Smith pricks my Horse my Executors shall not have an Action for it Anderson If one takes my Goods I shall have Detinue for it therefore this Action Cook If one take my Goods he is a Trespasser and I shall have Detinue for that affirms a property Manwood If my Goods be taken from me I cannot give them to a stranger but if my Goods come to another by Trover I may give them over to another CXXI Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Attaint IT was holden by all the Barons That where the Queen is sole Party against the Subject and the Iury find for the Queen no Attaint lyeth contrary
or his Servant had put the Horse to grass and afterward the Horse is stollen there an Action upon the Case doth lye Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVII Neals Case IN a false Imprisonment by Neal against the Mayor Sheriffs Citizens and Commonalty of the City of Norwich the Original Writ was directed to the Coroners of the said City And Exception was taken to the Writ because it was not directed to the Sheriffs of the said City but to the Coroners Sed non allocatur for the Sheriffs are parcel of the Corporation as it is to see by the name by which they of Norwich are incorporated And also it hath been adjudged That a Sheriff cannot summon himself and therefore by the Award of the Court the Writ was allowed to be good Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVIII. Sir John Bromes Case SIr John Brome 33 H. 8. acknowledged a Fine of certain Lands the Kings Silver was entred and the Conusans taken but the Fine was never engrossed and now he who claimed under the Fine came in Court and prayed that the Fine might be engrossed and the Court examined them upon their Oaths to what use the Fine was levied and in the Seisin and Possession of what persons the Lands whereof the Fine was levied had been after the Fine Vpon which Examination it appeared fully to the Court that the Party to whom the Fine was levied was seized after the Fine and suffered a Common Recovery of the Land and that the said Land had been enjoyed according to the said Fine at all such times since c. Whereupon the Court commanded that the Fine be ingrossed Vide Acc. 8 Eliz. Dyer 254. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXCIX The Lord Dacres and Philip Fines Case THe Case between the Lord Dacres and Fines was Tenant in Tail in remainder upon an Estate for Life of Lands holden in Capite levied a Fine thereof without Licence 3 Leon. 261. and Process issued against the Tenants for Life It was holden by all the Barons that by Plea he should be discharged it was holden That if the Conusor had any other Lands ubicunque in Anglia the Fine for Alienation should be levied upon them But it was moved If the Tenant should be driven to plead it because it appears upon Record that the Conusor was but Tenant in Tail in Remainder and that was in an Office containing such matter which was pleaded by another in another Cause before by which Office it appeared that the Lord Dacres was Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to Philip Fines and now Fines had levied a Fine sur Conusans de droit c. and because the same appeared on Record Manwood awarded that the Process against the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be stayed Trin. 29 Eliz. CC. Paston and Townsends Case IN Trespass by Paston against Townsend The Defendant pleaded that Tindal was seized in Fee by protestation and dyed seized and the Land descended To which the Plaintiff replyed and said c absque hoc that Tindal was seized in Fee upon which they were at Issue On the part of the Defendant to prove the Issue it was given in Evidence to prove the Issue in his right that the said Tindal long time before his death was seized and aliened and never after was seized It was said that that Evidence did not prove the Issue for the Defendant for the Seisin in Fee intended in the Issue is in the nature of a dying seized and so Periam conceived that the Defendants Plea did not intend any other Seisin a dying seized and the dying seized is taken by Protestation to avoid the doubleness So as the Seisin upon which the Issue is taken ought to be intended a Seisin continuing until the time of the death of Tindal and Seisin at large or a general Seisin at any time during the life of Tindal quod Anderson concessit Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCI. Griffith and Prices Case ERror by Griffith against Price upon a Iudgment in Chester in Ejectione firmae and the Error assigned was because the Original bore date 16 April 28 Eliz. and the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment 17 April 28 Eliz. So as it appeareth that the Action was brought before there was any cause of Action and that was holden to be Error And also Ejectione firmae is not a personal Action and afterwards the Iudgment was Reversed Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCII. Harris and Caverleys Case A Iudgment was given in London between Harris and Caverley upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for buying of Woolls and upon that Error was brought in the Kings Bench quod nota For this Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in London ought to be sued before the Maior Vide â— N. B. 22 23. And Wray asked Wherefore the Writ of Error was brought here To which it was answered by Dodding Clark that the Record was removed by Certiorari out of the Kings Bench at the Suit of the Defendant to the purpose to bring a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet And the Error was assigned in this that by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. it is enacted that upon every Information that shall be exhibited a special Note shall be made of the Day Month and Year of the exhibiting of the same into any Office or to any Officer who lawfully may receive the same And here upon this Information there is not any such Note according to the said Statute And in truth no Information may be exhibited for there is not any Officer there appointed for that matter for the entry in such Cases in that Court is Talis venit deliberavit hic in Curia Miloni Sands c. But in the Case at Bar the Entry is Talis venit deliberavit in Curia but without shewing to whom But note that the words of the said Statute of 18 Eliz. are in the disjunctive into any Office or to any Officer and that such Information shall not be of Record but from that time forwards and not before wherefore here this Information is not upon Record and then no Iudgment can be given upon it Cook This Information may be well sued in London for the words of the said Statute of 5 E. 6. give Suit in any Court of Record of the King And the Court in London is a Court of Record of the King and every Court of Record hath an Officer to receive Declarations and Pleas and if it be delivered into the Office it is good enough 2. The Offence is laid in the Parish of Bow in Warda de Cheap alibi in Civitate London and so there is not any place laid where the Offence shall be tryed Cook This Alibi is a Nugation Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCIII Peuson and Higbeds Case IN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared that in consideration that he by his Servant had delivered to the Defendant two Bills
the Kings Bench. CCVIII Barlow and Piersons Case BArlow brought a plaint of Debt in London against Edward Pierson which was his very name and he caused himself to be removed into the Kings Bench by the name of Edmund Pierson and in Easter last he put in Bail Edmund Pierson and we declared against him by the name of Edward his true name and Iudgment was given for us and now when we are to resort to the Bail we cannot find any such Person wherefore all our labour is lost and now we would declare de novo upon that Bail and we pray that the Court will give way to answer Kemp The ancient use was when any removed himself hither by Habeas Corpus the Plaintiff might declare against him at any time within a year after but of late time the Iustices to avoid over-long delays have taken this order that the Plaintiff in such Case declare within two Terms and this is the second Term in your Case wherefore you may declare And it was said that because that the Defendant had removed himself by the name of Edmund he is estopped to say the contrary But if it were upon an Original Writ here it is otherwise And afterwards the Plaintiff declared against him by the name of Edmund Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCIX. Kightley and Kightleys Case DEbt by Eustace Kightley against Charles Kightley Executors of the last Will of Francis Kightley The Defendant pleaded that they had fully administred The Case was this Francis Kightley made the Defendants his Executors who being within age administration was committed to another until they came of full age and after they were of full age the Iury found that in the hands of the Administrator fuerunt bona debita Testatoris amounting to the value of 4000 l. To which Administrator the Executors did release at their full age all manner of demands and if that release were Assets in the hands of the Executors was the Question Puckering Serjeant argued it was not Assets for a Release of a thing which is not Assets in the hands of an Executor cannot be Assets and things in Action before they come in possession cannot be Assets But a gift of Goods in possession is Assets And there is a difference betwixt a certain thing released and a thing incertain of a certain it is Assets for by such means he hath given a thing which is Assets but contrary of an incertain And this difference is proved by 13 E. 3. Execut. 91. where it is holden that if Executors release to the debtor he shall account for such sum before the Ordinary by Parn but Trew said he shall not account The whole Court was against Puckering And Anderson said It is a clear Case that this Release is Assets for he hath thereby given away that which might have been Assets And the Law doth intend that when he releases he hath recompence and satisfaction from the Party to whom the release is made And it is not requisite that every Assets be a thing in Possession or in the hands of the Testator for a thing may be Assets which never was in the hands of a Testator as monies for Lands or other Goods sold So if they come by reason of another thing which was in the Testators hands as the encrease of Goods by the Executors in their hands by merchandizing with the Goods of the Testator or Goods purchased by the Villein of the Testator after his death shall be Assets So monies received by the Executor of the Bailiff of the Testator after his death shall be said Assets Windam Iustice So it is if the Testator hath Sheep Corn or Swine and dyeth and they have young Lambs Pigs or Calves they are Assets for the reason aforesaid And he agreed that the release is Assets and he said it had been so adjudged and he denied the difference taken by Puckering Periam agreed with the rest in all and also denied the difference And he said the incertainty must be such that the same cannot be proved to the Court or unto a Iury that the thing released might not by possibility have been Assets For if Trespass be done to the Testator by taking his Goods and he dyeth and the Executors release all Actions the same is Assets because it might be proved to the Iury that had they not released but brought their Action of Trespass de bonis asportatis in 〈◊〉 â—estatoris that they might have recovered damages which should have satisfied the Debts or Legacies of the Testator and therefore it shall be Assets And yet the thing recovered cannot be in the Testator or a thing in possession or certain in the hands of the Executors With whom Rhodes agreed And Periam conceived that such Administrators made durante minori aetate of the Executor could not by our Law neither sue or be sued For as he conceived the Infant was the Executor and an Infant Executor may either sue or be sued and may release if there be a sufficient consideration given him wherefore he said if an Administrator doth release where he hath no cause nor good consideration he shall be answerable of his own Goods when he cometh of full age for the wasting of the Estate and such a release shall be Assets and it was holden that a release before Probate of the Will is good and it is Assets also And the same Term Iudgment was given that the Release of the Executor was Assets CCX Temps Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte by Dyer upon the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 28. That a Feoffment of the Lands of his Wife it shall not be a discontinuance mes que but that the Wife may enter after the death of her Husband is an Abridgment of the words precedent for in some Cases such a Feoffment is a discontinuance as if after the Feoffment they be divorced she cannot enter but is put to her Writ cui ante divortium CCXI. Pasc 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte by the Opinion of the whole Court A man made his Will in this manner I will and bequeath my Land to A. And the name of the Devisor was not in all the Will That yet the Devise was good by Averment of the name of the Devisor and proof that it was his Will and if a man lying sick having an intent to make his Will by words makes such a Devise but doth not command it to be put in writing but another without his knowledge or command puts the same in writing in the life of the Devisor it is a good Devise for it is sufficient if the Devise be reduced into writing Pasc 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXII. Brasiers Case NOte It was agreed by all the Iustices and affirmed by the Prothonotaries That if the Devisor levieth a Fine and the Disseisee in preservation of his right against the said Fine enter his Claim in the Record at the Foot of the said Fine
upon all that matter it was holden that the said Francis was inheritable 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXXIV. Grey and Edwards Case IN an Attaint by Grey against Edwards it was holden by Wray Gaudy and Jeoffries That if one makes a Deed and that by these words Dedi conveyeth Lands to another without any words of Bargain and Sale and that for a sum of mony If the Deed be debito modo enrolled the use shall pass as well as if the words of Bargain and Sale had been in the Deed because that a sum of mony was paid for the Land. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXXV. Webbs Case IN Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That whereas Cobham was indebted to J. S. and J. S. to the Defendant the said Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would procure the said J. S. to make a Letter of Attorney to the Defendant to sue the said Cobham promised to pay and give to the Plaintiff 10 l. It was objected Here was not any Consideration for to induce the Assumpsit for the Defendant by this Letter of Attorney gets nothing but his Labour and Travel But the Exception was not allowed of For in this Case not so much the Profit which redounds to the Defendant as the Labour of the Plaintiff in procuring of the Letter of Attorney is to be respected Temps Roign Eliz. CCXXVI Heggor and Felstons Case IN Trespass the Case was A Copyholder surrendred to the use of his Wife for Life and after to the use of his Daughter in Fee the Wife is admitted It was holden that the Daughter after the death of the Wife Copyholder Surrender by Attorney might without any admittance surrender the same Land for the first admittance was sufficient And Manwood said that Roper was Steward of a Mannor and one of the Copyholders of the said Manor being in Ireland he made a Commission to one to receive a Surrender from him there and it was holden a good Surrender CCXXVII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte by Manwood chief Baron for a Rule to all Counsellors That they do not advise any Collectors of Subsidies or Fifteens to exhibite any Bills in the Exchequer Chamber for the not payment of Subsidies for such Bills shall not be allowed hereafter because they have remedy by Distress Also it was That if any be assessed for the Fifteens which he ought to pay or if two Towns ought to pay together and one Town be taxed more than it ought to be or hath been accustomed those who are grieved by such Assessment may have a Commission out of the Exchequer which is called ad aequaliter taxand and that was put in practice in a case between Bartace and Hind where one of these was Lord of Little Marlow and the other of Hedsore It was also holden That Fifteens are to be levied of Goods and Chattels properly and a Township is sometimes richer than at other times and therefore it is not reasonable they pay their Fifteens always according to the same proportion But Clark Baron held where the Custom hath always been that the Fifteens shall be taxed according to the quantity of Acres then the rate and proportion shall be always on whosoever holdeth the Land. And as to the Commission ad aequaliter taxand Manwood and Fanshaw said That they could shew twenty Presidents of it Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXXVIII Harris Case THe Case of Harris of the Middle Temple was Tenant in tail in remainder upon an Estate for life is attainted of Felony 2 Leon. 122. Hughs Qu. 13. 3 Leon. 185. 1 Inst â— If he hath forfeited his Remainder during his Life Popham Attorney General He hath forfeited it to the Queen for after his attainder the Law will not suffer it to remain in him and it cannot vest in the Lord of whom the Land is holden for the person attainted being Tenant in tail in remainder was not very Tenant to the Lord therefore if in none of them the Queen shall have it and the Law shall punish the offence so sharply that it suffer nothing to remain in him So Tenant in Dower and by the Courtesie And it is a Maxim What a man hath in his own right he may forfeit but it is not a certain rule Whatsoever a man may grant he may forfeit as Guardian in Socage and Executors may grant that which they cannot forfeit 2 Leon. 126. A man seized in the right of his wife is attainted of Felony the Queen shall have but the profits of the Land during the life of the Husband Vide Register 292. Where the husband seized in the right of his wife of certain Lands is outlawed of Felony the King seizeth and hath the Lands during the life of the husband after the death of whom issued a Diem clausit extremum Vide F.N.B. 254. D. Cook Tenant in tail in possession is attainted of Felony the King shall have but the profits but as our Case is being Tenant in tail in remainder upon an Estate for Life nothing shall be forfeited during his life and after the death of the Tenant in tail so attainted of Felony the Issue in tail may enter for the King hath not the Freehold for if the King had the Freehold the Issue in tail could not enter without Office vide Old Natura Brevium in the Writ of Escheat That the King shall have only the profits At another day it was argued by Egerton Solicitor That the Queen hath the Interest of him in the Remainder during his life for a man so attainted cannot be receiv'd against the Queen and if a man attainted of Felony purchaseth Land and dyeth his wife shall not be endowed of it And he said that this Remainder vested in the Queen without Office then not pardoned by 23 Eliz. It hath been objected That if the Remainder be in the Queen without Office by this attainder of Felony by the Common Law then also in case of attainder for Treason and then what need was there that the Statute of 33 H. 8. should be made which enacteth That in cases of Treason it shall vest in the King without Office. As to that I answer That that Statute was made in affirmance of the Common Law and also for other things given to the King by the Statute which were not given by the Common Law as Conditions Rights c. So as the King might grant over without Office and also the Subject have a Petition of Right before Office which was not at the common Law 33 H. 8. 20. in the saving in the end of it And as to the Statute of 18 H. 6 cap. 6. such things were in the King without Offce for by the common Law before Office the King might grant them but he could not grant them if they were not vested in him and the said Statute was made to such intent that the Queen should be fully informed of her Title c. by
in a way to the Church and that by reason of the custom of the Land and not in their Person Vide 7 E. 4. 26. Where it is pleaded That all the Inhabitants within such a Town have used to have Common there and for a Township to have a way to the Church and by Danby it is good and Littleton said it ought to be pleaded by way of Vsage and 18 E. 4. 3. All the Inhabitants of such a Town time out of mind have used to have Common c. Where a difference was taken where the Prescription is in the Person and where in the Land. 15 E. 4. 29. Cooper Inhabitants of a Town may well prescribe and he vouched Bracton 222 223. Quando acquiritur ex longo usu sive constitutione cum pacifica possessione continua non interrupta ex scientia negligentia patientia Dominorum Et etiam omitti potest per negligentiam and he vouched Britton 144. Common is obtained by long sufferance and also may be lost by long negligence c. The Case was adjourned CCCLXX Mich. 5 Jac. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life of a Rent acknowledgeth a Statute and releaseth to the Terr-tenant the Statute is forfeited It was holden by Cook and two other of the Iustices in Communi Banco That the Rent as to the Conusee was in esse CCCLXXI IT was holden by Yelverton in his Reading That if a man makes a Lease for two years and confirms the Estate of the Lessee for 20 years it is a good confirmation for 20 years because that all is but a Chattel CCCLXXII IF 2 Ioyntenants are for life and the one grants his Estate for the life of his Companion it was holden to be a Forfeiture for first it is a Severance of the Ioynture and then a Lease for the life of another CCCLXXIII Mich. 5 Jac. In the Common Pleas. TWo men were joyntly bound in an Obligation the one is Principal the other is Suerty the Principal dyed the Suerty took Administration and the Principal having forfeited his Obligation the Suerty made an Agreement with the Creditor and took upon him by Bond to discharge the Debt In Debt brought by another Creditor of the Intestate upon fully Administred pleaded by the Administrator it was a Question if upon shewing of the Obligation and that he had satisfied it and contented it in his proper Debt he should be relieved upon that Plea. It was adjudged he should not because by the joyning with the Principal the Debt became his own Debt CCCLXXIV IF Land be given to A. and B. for the life of C. the remainder to the right Heirs of A. or B. who shall survive It was holden That if A do release to B that the remainder was destroyed And if Land be given to one in Tail and if J. S. comes to Westminster such a day the remainder to J. S. in Fee if the Estate-tail descends to two Coparceners who make Partition now if J. S. come to Westminster the Fee shall not accrue because the particular Estate is not in the same plight as it was before CCCLXXV Mich. 5 Jac. In the Common Pleas. IT was resolved That a Copyholder was not within the Statute of Wâ—â—ls CCCLXXVI Mich. 5 Jac. In the Common Pleas. A Man makes a Feoffment with warranty If the Feoffee brings a Warrantia Chartae against the Heir who pleads riens per discent at the time of the Voucher and it is found for the Tenant It was holden That the Plaintiff should never after have Execution of Lands which after descend for that it is peremptory for the Demandant CCCXXLVII Mich. 5 Jac. adjudge acc ' THe Queen hath the Isle of Garnsey and cognisance of Pleas within it for her Ioynture A man within Garnsey being disturbed to present to a Church which is void brings a Quare Impedit in Communi Banco It was holden in this Case That Garnsey is an Island where our Law runneth not but it is otherwise of the Isle 〈◊〉 Man c. And it was said That if the King grants cognisance of Pleas a man shall not have cognisance of Quare Impedit Assise Redisseisin c. CCCLXXVIII Mich. 5 Jac. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was resolved by the Iustices That if a Parson takes a Benefice above the value of 8 l. with a Dispensation and afterwards takes a 3 l. Benefice that the first Benefice is void by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. CCCLXXIX 44 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was said that it was adjudged 44 Eliz. in Banco Regis That if Lessee for life granteth his interest to his Lessor that the same shall not enure as a Surrender because there wants words of Surrender but shall enure by way of Grant only CCCLXXX Hil. 5 Jac. In the Kings Bench by Cook. IT was holden by Cook Chief Iustice 1 Roll. 844. Syderf 445. If a man seized in Fee deviseth that after the death of his Son without issue that J. S. shall have his Lands that in that case the Son hath an Estate in Fee determinable and that the Remainder is good Mich. 5 Jac. In the Kings Bench. CCCLXXXI Balls Case A Copyholder pleaded That the Custom of the Manor was that every Copyholder for life might appoint in the presence of two others that such a man should have his Copy-hold after his death without any Surrender to his use and that the two Tenants should assess for his Fine what Sum they pleased so as it was not lesser than had used to be paid where the Lord would assess a reasonable Fine and it was adjudged that it was a good Custom Pasc 6 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXXXII Glascocks Case A Copyholder alledges the custom to be That all the Tenants within such a Manor in Essex had used to cut down Trees to repair their Copyhold and Freehold Tenements within the Manor and also to sell their Trees at their pleasure And adjudged a good custom Mich. 1 Jac. In the Common Pleas Rot. 854. CCCLXXXIII Sapland and Ridlers Case IT was adjudged after long Argument That where the custom of a Copyhold Manor was to admit for life and in remainder for life at any time when there is but one Copyholder for life in possession And during the minority of the Heir within the age of 14 years his Guardian in Soccage in his own name admits a Copyholder in remainder for life that it was a good Admittance according to the custom and he was Dominus pro tempore well enough as to that purpose although it was objected by Walmsley That the Guardian is but a Servant and not Dominus but because it was agreed that he had a lawful interest the admittance was good And so it was adjudged Pasc 3 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXXXIV Duke and Smiths Case IT was agreed That if he in the Reversion suffereth a Common Recovery to Vses his Heir cannot plead that his Father had not any thing at the