also of Statutes We cannot deny but that we have Lands of the Conusor and of the Gift of the Conusor our Ancestor whose Heir we are who was indebted to the Queen and yet we are not within this Statute Was or shall be indebted shall not be intended after the Gift made for if he first convey his Land and afterwards becomes indebted the same is not within the Statute and where a mischief is to be remedied by a Statute the remedy in exposition of the Statute is to be applied according as the mischief doth require Shall be is to be intended of future Debts after the Statute and in our case the Father was not Receivor or other Officer to the Queen And if this Statute should be so construed the Father might take 10000 l. for the Marriage of his son and assurance of Lands unto him and then if he will acknowledge a Debt to the Queen he should defeat the whole which should be a very great mischief The words are By Gift after the Debt acknowledged to the Queen And he cited the Case 19 Eliz. Plow 191. betwixt Ludford and Gretton upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. the words of which are That whatsoever Warrant hereafter to the Chancellor of England addressed the day of the delivery of the same it be entred of Record in the Chancery and that the Chancellour make Letters Patents upon the same Warrants bearing date the day of the said delivery in the Chancery and not before and all Letters Patents made to the contrary shall be void And the Case was That a Warrant was directed to the Chancellour for the making of Letters Patents and delivered to him before the making of them but the day of the delivery was not entred of Record c. And it was holden that notwithstanding that the Letters Patents were good for the mischief at the Common Law intended to be reformed by that Act was not the post-dating of the Letters Patents but the ante-dating and therefore that ought to be principally taken into consideration which mischief being understood the words of the said Statute are to be applied to it ipsae etenim Leges cupiunt ut jure regantur i. with an Equity according to the Mischief and not always according to the precise words and in that case it is sufficient if the Letters Patents bear date after and not before the delivery of the Warrant and that was the matter intended to be reformed Also as our Case here is we are not within this Statute for the words are Of the Gift of his Ancestour but here the Son hath not the Lands of the Gift of his Ancestour but rather by the Statute of Vses and so he is in the Post and not in the Per by his Ancestour for here the Fine was levied to divers persons unto the Vses aforesaid and here the Gift was not a mere gratuity to his Son but in consideration that he should marry the Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston and also the Father was the King's Debtor after the Gift and not before Popham Attorney-General to the contrary The letter of the Statute is with us for he comes in of the Gift of his Ancestour who was indebted to the Queen and although that the Gift was by way of use yet the precedents in the Common-Pleas and other Courts are That he may declare of the Feoffment of such a one although it was by way of use and he said If A. be bound to enfeoff B. of such Lands if he maketh a Feoffment to the use of B. and his Heirs he hath well enough performed the Condition and if the Case should not be within the Statute then should that branch of the Statute be idle and to no purpose For if the Ancestour be seised and becometh indebted to the Queen and after makes a conveyance ut supra the same is provided for by the first branch of the Statute For the Land is liable to the Recognizance or Obligation made to the King and that they shall be as effectual as a Statute Staple and reason requires that the son who comes in by mere gratuity of his Ancestour should be charged And it was a common practice before the making of that Statute That the King's Officers would convey their Lands to their children and then become the King's Debtors for the remedy of which mischief the Statute was made and the Statute of 27 Eliz. doth not respect the Heir because he is Heir but as a purchasor onely and that upon good consideration Coke If any fraud can be found in our Case then without doubt we should be within the Statute but being upon good consideration it is out of the Statute nor was there any purpose in the father when he made the said Conveyance to become the King's Debtor or Officer to him for if there were then he is within the Statute also the Gift had been a mere gratuity c. And afterwards at another day the Case was moved by Coke and he said That here is not any Gift because it was in consideration of Marriage and then no gift for it is an old Proverb What is freer than gift Egerton The father giveth to his son and heir the same is within the Statute and yet here is consideration scil of blood Coke contrary Where the father giveth to his younger son or to his daughter which is not his heir and of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron And afterwards as Coke reported the son and his Lands were discharged CXV Amner and Luddington 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Error 3 Len. 89. 8 Co. 96. ERror was brought in the King's-Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. The Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased unto Pierpoint for ninety nine years who devised the same by his Will in this manner I bequeath to my Wife the Lease of my House during her life and after her death I will that it go amongst my Children unpreferred Pierpoint died his Wife entred and was possessed virtute legationis praedict and took Husband one Fulshurst against whom one Beswick recovered in an Action of Debt 140 l. upon which Recovery issued forth a Fieri facias and upon that a Venditioni Exponas upon which the Sheriff sold the said term so devised to one Reynolds Fulshurst died his Executor brought Error to reverse the Iudgment given against the Testator at the Suit of Beswick the Wife did re-enter and sold the Land and died Alice an unpreferred Daughter of Pierpoint did enter and upon that matter found by special Verdict in the Common-Pleas the entry of Alice was adjudged lawfull upon which Iudgment Error was brought in the King's-Bench And it was argued upon the words of the Devise because here the House is not devised but the Lease it self scil all his interest in the thing devised And it is not like unto the Case betwixt Welchden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plow 519.
entred upon Ross the Plaintiff and enfeoffed Rockwood who enfeoffed Weston Coke for the Plaintiff The Case is no more but where a man hath issue a son and a daughter by several women and Deviseth his Lands to his son and the heirs of the body of the Father lawfully begotten in which case if the Son dieth without issue the Tail is extinct and the Daughter shall never have the Land for she doth not take by way of Reversion or Remainder and she doth not take in possession because the possession was in Jeofry who was the Heir of Henry c. And these Cases were vouched 1 Roberge's Case 2 E. 3. 1. to Tail John Mandevile took to Wife Roberge and Mandevile gave land to Roberge haeredibus ipsius Johannis quos ipse de corpore praedict Robergiae procreaverit there the Book is That the Formedon was Quae M. dedit Robergiae haeredibus dict Johannis quos ipsae de corpore dictae Robergiae procreaverit Et quae post mortem praefat Robergiae R. filii haeredis dict Johannis Mandevile haeredis ipsius Johannis de corpore dicto Robergiae per dict Johannem procreat c. and the same Writ awarded good which Coke denyed to be Law. And he cited the Case of Dyer 4 and 5 P. and Ma. 156. A. gives Lands to one for life the Remainder thereof rectis haeredibus masculis de corpore dict A. legitime procreat remanere inde rectis haeredibus dict A. who hath issue two Sons and dieth A. dieth the eldest Son hath issue a Daughter and dieth without issue male And he conceived first That in this case the limitation of the Remainder in Tail to the right Heirs of the body of the Donor is void for the Donor cannot make his own right Heir a Purchasor without departing with the Fee-simple of his person But admitting the limitation is good he said we are to consider If this entail to the Son once vested and commenced in the possession of the Son when he dieth without issue male The Estate be spent or that the same shall go to the younger Son And he said that it was the opinion of Dyer in that case That the younger Son was inheritable to the said Estate-tail as in the Case of Littleton 82. where the condition is That the Feoffee shall give the Lands to the Son and Heir of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Father and Mother lawfully begotten and the Husband and Wife before any such Gift die having issue and afterwards the Feoffee gives the Land to the Son and Heir of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Father and Mother begotten the condition is well performed and if the eldest Son to whom the Gift is made dieth without issue the youngest Son shall inherit And in a Formedon in the Reverter upon such a Gift the Writ shall be Et quae post mortem of the eldest Son ad ipsum reverti debet because the Husband and Wife obierunt sine haerede de corpor suis inter eos exeunt And such was also the Opinion of Saunders But Brook Brown and Catlin were clear contrary And he said that Bendloes Serjeant who reporteth that Case doth affirm That Iudgment was given in that case That the Estate-tail was spent and that the Daughter should have the Lands and not the second Son and so he said That in the Case at the Bar the Estate-tail was spent But he said That he conceived that in the principal case at Bar there is not any Estate-tail at all because the words upon which the Estate-tail is conceived are incertain and too general viz. secundum antiquam Evidentiam for there might be many ancient Evidences for the words may extend to Evidences which cut off the Estate tail as well as to the Entail of Guntwardy He also argued That the Partition was void and then the Lessee had a good interest for certain parts of the Lands for Partition cannot be made of an Vse and he said that he agreed That Partition betwixt Husband and Wives of Lands if it be equal should bind the makers because they are compellable to make Partition of them but contrary of an Vse for that they are not compellable to do Also in the principal Case the Land entailed is allotted to one of the Coparcenors which is not good but during the Coverture and afterwards void and then the Lease is void but in part and so the Conusance is not good Atkinson contrary and he said I conceive that by words of Relation a Fee may pass without the word Heirs See 39 Ass 12. The Father seised of Lands in fee doth enfeoff his younger Son in fee and the Father continues the possession of the Lands claiming to hold them at the will of the Son and the Son coming into the Town where the Lands do lie in the hearing of his Neighbours saith to his Father You have given to me these Lands naming them As fully as you have given them to me I give them back to you again and the same was holden to be a good Gift to the Father 43 E. 3. 22. The King seised of a Manor to which an advowson is appendant by Escheat or Conveyance gives the said Manor as entirely as such a one held the said Manor before the Escheat or Conveyance the Advowson shall pass without special mentioning of it And so here in our Case at Bar This Will hath reference to the ancient Evidence and it shall be as strong as if he had set down the special words of Entail and to ancient Evidence before the Entail it cannot extend for then a fee should pass and then the Devise should be void because to his Heir and the word Antiqua Evidentia shall have reference to the Charter which was made by Guntwardy for that was an ancient Evidence made two hundred years past and he cited the Case of 40 E. 3. 8. the Provost of Beverley's Case and conceived that the Estate was not spent for that the Estate-tail was in Jeofry as the fee was in him Lands are given to the Father for life the Remainder to the Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father the Father dieth the Tail and the fee are in the Son but yet after the death of the Son without issue the Lands shall be in the Brother's Son by descent and not as Purchasor And in our Case Jeofry was in in the Tail as right Heir of Henry and if Jeofry dieth without issue his Brother of the half bloud shall have the Lands as in the Case before cited of 40 E. 3. but that shall be in Tail by force of the Devise And he said That in this case here the Partition was made good enough although it were of Lands in use for a man might contract for an Vse without Deed 11 H. 4. Partition 156. Partition of an Advowson without Deed
adjudged by the whole Court that the Covenant did not lie by one of them onely but ought to be brought by them both LXI Carter 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Being seised of the Manor of Staple in Odiham 1 Cro. 208. Owen Rep. 84. 8 Co. 119. and of divers other Lands in Odiham suffered a common Recovery of the whole and by Indenture expressed the uses in this manner viz. of all his Lands and Tenements in Odiham to the use of his wife for life the remainder over c. And of the Manor of Staple to the use of his youngest son in tail but by the clear opinion of the whole Court although the Manor of Staple was in Odiham yet the wife shall have nothing therein for the intent of the party was that the son should have the same and his wife the residue and accordingly Iudgment was given LXII Cobb and Prior 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case betwixt Cobb and Prior was this A man seised of Lands in Fee devised the same to his Wife during the minority of his Son upon condition that she should not do Waste during the minority of the said Son and died The Wife married a Husband and died the Husband committed Waste It was holden by all the Iustices That the same was not any breach of the Condition and Iudgment was entred accordingly LXIII Taylor and Brounsal 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. IN an Information upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. by Taylor against Brounsal the Case was That John Brounsal was seised and gave the Lands to T. B. and the Heirs of his body c. the Remainder to R. B. and the Heirs male of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J. B. T. B. died having issue a Daughter and R. B. made a Lease for years of the Lands And it was holden by the Court to be no maintenance within the said Statute for he in the Remainder might make a Lease for years Then it was given in Evidence That a common Recovery was had against the Husband and Wife with a single Voucher and so the Remainder limited to R. B. destroyed and that after that Recovery R. B. made the Lease To which it was said by the other side That the said Recovery was never executed and no discontinuance of the Remainder and then the Lease made by R. B. was good and the truth of the Case was That such a Recovery was had and an Habere facias seisinam awarded and retorned but no Execution was in truth had upon it nor the Recoveror never entred And if R. B. who is a stranger to the said Recovery shall be admitted against the Recovery to say That no Execution was thereof was the Question and therefore all the matter was found by special Verdict It was also given in Evidence That the Land was given to T. B. and the Heirs males of his body and then when the Daughter which is not in truth inheritable entereth if that Entry she being privy in bloud to R. hee Vncle shall be a Disseisin or Abatement c. as in the Case of Littleton where the youngest Brother entreth after the death of the Father for in such case the youngest Son doth not get any Freehold but is but a Tenant at sufferance Anderson When the Daughter enters and takes a Husband who leaseth for years and the Lessee entreth the same is a Disseisin Periam doubted it for he said When the younger Son entred the Freehold was in him which Anderson doubted LXIV Maunsel and Vernon 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IQ Debt by Maunsel against Hen. Vernon Esquire who came in by Capias i. compulsary Process and pleaded That he was Hen. Vernon Lord Powis and so a Baron of the Parliament and demanded Iudgment of the Writ Note some said That if the Defendant had come in by Issue joyned or gratis and not by compulsary Process he could not have pleaded this Plea or any other Misnosmer The Plaintiff replyed That the Defendant is an Esquire absque hoc that he is Lord Powis and a Baron of the Parliament and as the Iury was ready at the Bar to try this Issue this matter was objected And Anderson conceived That this Plea to the Writ was not good for the name of Lord is not any degree as Knight Duke Earl nor is it parcel of the name nor parcel of addition and therefore it is no Plea in abatement of a Writ and all the Writs of Parliament directed to Barons to summon them to Parliament shall have their Names Sirnames and Additions as if they be Knights Knights and if Esquires they shall be named Esquires and if a Bond be made by J.S. Lord R. the Writ shall not be so for the King by his Writ doth not name any one Lord but otherwise it is of Duke Earl c. for these are Offices of Dignity and parcel of their Names and not onely Additions Windham and Periam contrary and they conceived that there was no difference in this point betwixt a Lord and an Earl for which cause the Court being in doubt although that the Exception was entered of Record would have saved the same to the party and taken the Iury de bene esse but afterwards because it appeared it was joyned in the prejudice of Sir Edward Herbert who was a stranger thereunto and whose Title was concerned therein and there was none on his part to inform the Iury the Iury was at last dismissed by the Court. LXV Penruddock and Newman 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae by Penruddock against Newman 1 Leon. 279 the Plaintiff declared of a Lease made by the Lord Morley and upon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That W. Lord Mounteagle seised of the manner of D. whereof c. became bound in a Statute in such a sum of Money to A. who died the Executors of A. sued Execution against the said Lord scil Extendi facias a Liberate issued upon which the said Manor was delivered to the Executors but the said Liberate was not retorned and it was farther found That the Executors being so possessed of the Manor the Lord commanded a Court Baron to be holden there which was done by sufferance and permission of the Executors and in their presence at which time the Executors said to the Lord the Conusor We have nothing to do with this Manor And upon this Verdict several matters were moved 1. If the Execution were well done because the Writ of Liberate was not retorned and as to that divers Books were cited 21 H. 6. 8. 18 E. 3. 25. And there is a difference betwixt a Liberate and a Capias ad satisfaciend and Fieri facias these Writs are Conditional Ita quod habeas corpus c. Ita quod habeas denarios hic in Curia 32 H. 8. ca. 28. 16 H. 7.
as taken for Rent arrere yet he cannot be said his Bailiff at the time of the distress which was granted by Rhodes Periam and Windham and as to that which hath been objected That if this traverse be allowed the meaning of the party shall be drawn in question i. e. the meaning of him who took the cattel the same is not any mischief for so it is in other cases as in the case of Recaption See 9 H. 6. 1. 45 E. 3 4. CCLXXV Humphreston 's Case Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. More 103. 1 Anders 40. Dyer 337. Owen 64. Sty 293. IN an Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That W. Humphreston seised of the Manor of Humphreston suffered a common Recovery to be had thereof by Kinnersley and Fowk in the Writ of Entry in the Post to the intent that they should make an Estate to the said W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife for their lives the remainder Seniori puero dicti W. and to the heirs of the body dicti senioris pueri legitime procreat the remainder to the heirs of the body of the said W. Humphreston with divers remainders over And afterwards the Recoverers in December following by Indenture made an Estate accordingly and made Livery to W. Humphreston and his wife and afterwards in November 2 E. 6. by Indenture between the said W. Humphreston of the one party and Kinnersley on the other part The said W. Humphreston did covenant with the said Kinnersley to do all such lawfull and reasonable things for to assure the said lands unto the use of the said W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of the eldest child of the body of the said W. Humphreston lawfully begotten and to the heirs of the body of the said eldest child of the body of the said W. Humphreston and after to divers other uses over and afterwards Ter. Pasch 2 E. 6. W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife levyed a Fine of the said land to C. and B. in Fee to the use of the said Indenture Elionar died W. Humphreston married another wife and had issue a daughter named Frances and afterwards had issue a son named William and died William the son being of the age of six years entred into the lands and leased the same to the Plaintiff for years who being ejected by the Defendant brought the Ejectione firmae And this special Verdict And the points moved upon it were argued by Atkins Phetiplace Fenner Fleetwood Plowden and Bromley and afterwards this Case was argued by the Iustices And Gawdy puisne Iustice conceived That Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff First he conceived that this Lease for years made by the Infant without Deed and without Rent reserved is not void so as every stranger shall take advantage of it but onely voidable for an Infant may make a Bond and a Contract for his commodity and profit and the same shall bind him as for his meat and drink apparel c. But if upon such Lease he had reserved a small Rent as one peny where the land was worth 100 l. per ann such a Lease had been void and in our Case this Lease was made upon the land and was made for to try the title to it which is a good consideration and to the profit of the Infant and for his advancement and then the Lease is not void It hath been objected That here the Recovery being suffered to the intent that the Recoverers should make an Estate ut supra c. that the use shall rise presently upon the Recovery to him who suffered the Recovery and then the Recoverers could not make Livery unto him he held strongly That the use and the possession should be adjudged in the Recoverers untill they made the Estates c. for they otherwise could not make the Estates c. 2 Roll 789. and these words To the intent shall be construed that they shall have the lands untill they made the Estates c. And he held that the remainder limited Seniori puero where there is not any in rerum natura is good enough as a remainder limited to him who shall first come to Pauls And he conceived that the son should take this remainder and not the daughter and he conceived that the Estate tail here was not executed i. e. the second intail Divers Authors of Grammer have been produced to prove that Puer may be taken both ways Tam puer quam puella Desporterius Calapine Melancthon and the Grammer allowed but I conceive that Puer is a word proper for a Boy and Puella for a Maid and where we have proper words we ought not to iudge but according to them and because the word is doubtfull we ought to consider the cause upon the circumstances and therefore it is to be intended that W. Humphreston had a greater desire that his son should have his Inheritance than his daughter if there be not some special matter to prove that the intent of the father was for his daughter Southcote Iustice agreed with Gawdy in the first point and also that the Recoverers have convenient time to make the Estates and that they are to make the same without request for the benefit of the wife who is a stranger to it and is to have the lands for her ioynture and he cited the Case of the Abbat of York 44 E. 3. 8. and 9. where the difference is taken between a Feoffment made upon condition to re-enfeoff the Feoffor or to enfeoff a stranger And here in our Case the Feoffment is made in convenient time and here is sufficient consideration That the Recoverers shall be seised to their own uses untill c. And these words Roll supra Roll 407. Ea intentione shall be taken for a Condition And also that this remainder limited Seniori puero is good notwithstanding that there be not any Senior puer alive at the time And as to the word puer he held that it did extend to both Sexes indifferently and because it is doubtfull what Sex the father intended we are to construe the same upon the circumstances which appear upon the parts of the Indentures and here it appeareth upon the Indenture that he hath explained his mind scil Eldest child be it Male or Female As if I have two sons named J. and I devise my lands or limit a remainder to J. my son the Law shall construe this Devise to extend to my younger son for without devise or limitation my eldest son should have it But if J. S. hath two sons known by the names of A. and I Devise lands to A. son of J.S. there I ought to explain my meaning openly And he conceived That the Estate tail is executed defeasiable in W. Humphreston upon issue afterwards had and that the daughter should have the lands and not the son and if the Fine destroy the remainder in abeyance limited
remain in the Feoffees who are put in Trust with it and therefore have interest in the Lands until all the Trusts be performed and therefore the second Wife was advised by her Council to make her Entry in name of the surviving Feoffee and the interest which the Feoffees have in the interim untill the execution of all the uses is a Fee-simple determinable for the whole interest is not devested or driven out of the Feoffees untill the whole Trust be accomplished i. untill all the uses limited upon the Feoffment are executed and have their full perfection And whereas it hath been alledged on the other side That upon the second Feoffment nothing passed out of the Feoffees for which it shall not be said in Law their Livery but that the Attorney shall be said the sole Disseisor As to that I conceive That whatsoever was lost in the Feoffees passed by that Livery If he in Reversion upon an Estate for life makes a Charter of a Feoffment and a Letter of Attorney to make Livery of seisin without words ad expellendas omnes c. if Livery be made by force thereof the Fee-simple shall pass And he cited a Case which was argued before all the Iustices of England reported by himself 2 and 3 Ma. 131. Divers Leases for years were made of the Demeans of an Abby after which the Reversion was granted to the Countess of Richmond for life after which King Edw. 6. granted the Reversion in Fee to the Earl of Warwick who made a Feoffment of all to certain persons to the use of his eldest Son and his Wife for her Iointure with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery and seisin the Attorney made Livery accordingly and by that Feoffment and Livery it was adjudged that the Fee-simple did pass So in our Case upon this second Feoffment a Disseisin is done to D. the first Wife and yet the right of the Feoffees doth pass thereby and although it shall not be taken in Law their Livery yet it shall be adjudged their confirmation because they have joined in the Deed and that shall bind their right to establish the same in the new Feoffees as if the Disseisee join in a Feoffee by Deed with the heir of the Disseisor And as to that which hath been objected that because at the time of the Feoffment the Feoffees had not any thing c. and therefore nothing shall pass and they have likened to the Case where the Father is disseised and the Son and heir doth release to the Disseisor the same shall not bind the heir after the death of his Father The same is not like our Case for there is a great difference betwixt a Release and a Feoffment for if the Son disseise the Father and maketh a Feoffment in Fee in the life of his Father notwithstanding that he had not any right at the time of the Feoffment yet he is bound XXVI Thurkettell and Tey 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 342. 1 Cro. 110 111. IN Debt by John Thurkettell against Edw. Tey and Mary his Wife Executrix of Robert Thurkettell the Case was That Agnes Thurkettell Mother of Robert the Testator devised certain Lands to Robert and afterwards devised 40 l. to the Plaintiff John upon condition that the said John Cum requisitus esset acquietaret retaxaret praedict Roberto omnes actiones reales personales querelas c. praedict 40 l. per dict voluntat legatis tantummodo exceptis Agnes died Robert made two Bonds to John The first was endorsed to pay 20 l. parcell of the said Legacy within a year after the death of the said Agnes so as the Plaintiff release according to the will of the said Agnes The second Obligation was with the same condition to pay 20 l. residue of the said Legacy within two years after the death of the said Agnes upon condition to release ut supra and all this matter was pleaded in barr And farther That Robert required the said John to make the Release c. which he refused and they were at issue upon the request and it was found for the Plaintiff i. Quod dict Robert. non requisivit c. upon which Verdict Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff upon which the Defendants brought Error because it appeareth upon the Record here quod Billa praedict prosecuta fuit infra duos annos post mortem dict Agnet sic ante diem solutionis For the second Bond see 46 E. 3. 28. by Finchden and Persay and see there by Persay That if my Writ be brought before the day of payment and doth depend in suit till after the day of payment that my Writ is made good for at all times the Defendant was my Debtor And afterwards in the principal Case the Iudgment was affirmed in the Exchequer-Chamber and note that the day of payment did incurr pendent the Writ XXVII Lightfoot and Butler 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was said in this Case by the Solicitor General That if one holdeth of the Queen as of her Manor he shall not have the privilege of the Exchequer for that cause But if the King grants Tithes and thereupon reserveth a Rent nomine decimae and a Tenure of him there he shall have the privilege The principal Case was Co. 4. Inst 118 119. that one of the parties claimed the Lands in question as his Freehold but holden of the Queen as of such a Manor and the other claimed it as Copyhold holden of the same Manor And the Freeholder did suggest in the Exchequer That the demands of the Manor are not indifferent Clark Baron If it be so this Court shall have jurisdiction Manwood If the matter pass against you wrongfully wherefore may you not have an Assise And the Case of Beaumorris was cited but I remember not to what purpose i. The Mayor and Commonalty of Beaumorris were Patrons of a Chantry and they and the Chantry Priest made a Lease for years by Indenture in the end of which was this Clause In cujus rei testimonium tam the Priest quam the Mayor and Commonalty have put their common seal and it was moved that there was not any seal for the Priest for he could not have a common seal with the Mayor and Commonalty Clark Twenty men may seal with one seal and they may also seal with one seal upon one piece of Wax onely and that shall serve for them all if they all lay their hands upon the seal together Manwood They may all seal with one seal but upon several pieces of Wax Gent when many are parties to a Deed the words are Sigilla omnia which cannot be aptly said in this Case where all seal upon one piece of Wax XXVIII Barns and Smith 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer EManuel Barns Executor of Barns late Bishop of London 3 Len. 171. brought Debt for arrerages of Rent reserved upon a Lease for years of certain Mines demised
he said Misnosmer shall be tried where the Writ is brought c. So Ne unque administer as Executor c. Manwood Here the Lease is said to be made at Durham in a place certain if now there be not any other local thing said which might draw the trial elsewhere it shall be tried at Durham where the Lease is made An Infant makes a lease for years rendring Rent and afterwards re-enters and avoids his Lease by reason of his nonage and Title is made against him by the Lease upon which he pretended nonage it shall be tried where the Lease was made and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXIX Ross and Morrice 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench EDward Ross was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Edward Morrice 1 Cro. 108 109. and George Manly Defendants who made Conusance as Bailiffs to Jerom Weston The Plaintiff declares of the taking of two Geldings 20 Decemb. 29 Eliz. at Nayland in the County of Suffolk in a certain place called Nayland-Court-Meadow And the Conusance is that the place where was a Freehold of the said Jer. Weston c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance shewed That long time before Sir Christopher Danby was seised of 30 acres of Meadow in Nayland whereof the place where c. and Leased the same by Indenture to Thomas Calton 19 Maii 31 H. 8. Habendum from the Feast of the Annunciation 1553. for the term of 45 years Who 1 E. 6. assigned his Interest to Edw. Ross the Plaintiff's Father who 1 Maii the said 1553. entred and 11 Eliz. granted his Interest to Bamford and Mascal who entred and were possessed Sir Christopher Danby died seised of the Reversion 13 Eliz. and the same descended to Thomas Danby his son and heir 14 Eliz. Mascal died Bamford 15 Eliz. granted to the Plaintiff Habendum from the 17 of March 1583. for three years which expired 26 Eliz. Bamford entred and afterwards Thomas Danby granted the Reversion to Edw. Rockwood in Fee to which the said Bamford Attorned and the Plaintiff by force of the said Lease put in his Cattel c. The Plaintiff Replicando said That long time before that Danby had any thing Jeofry Lord Scroop had issue of his body Henry Lord Scroop and died And that one John Guntwarby was seised of the said Manor of Nayland whereof c. in Fee by his Charter 25 E. 3. gave to the said Henry Lord Scroop the same Et haeredibus corpore suo exeuntibus who had issue Stephen who entred and died seised having issue John who entred and died seised having issue Thomas who entred and 3 H. 7. suffered a Common Recovery to the use of himself and his heirs The Recoverers enfeoffed Thomas seised also of many other Lands and had issue Ralph Jeofry Alice Elizabeth and Margery and afterwards died seised Ralph Lord Scroop entred and thereof did enfeoff divers persons unto the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and the heirs males of the said Ralph and afterwards the said Ralph being possessed of the said Charter of entail made ut supra by Guntwardy 7 H. 8. Devised that the Feoffees should be seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and if they died without issue of the body of the said Ralph the said Jeofry then living that then the Feoffees should be seised to the use of the said Jeofry being his Vncle for his life and after his decease ad usum Rectorum haeredum in perpetuum secundum antiquam Evidentiam inde ante factam with an averment that the said Ralph at the time of the said Devise and of his death was possessed of the Charter of Entail made by the said Guntwardy and that the said Charter was the most ancient Evidence of the said concerning the said Manor Ralph died without issue possessed of the said Charter by which the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to his use for life and after to the use of the said Jeofry for life and after his decease of the right heirs of the body of Henry Lord Scroop lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and the said Charter and of the residue of the Manors to the use of the said Jeofry and his heirs Eleanor died after whose decease the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of the said Jeofry right heir of the said Henry Lord Scroop of his body begotten and of the other lands to the use of the said Jeofry in Fee Jeofry died without issue by which the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery Cosins and heirs of the body of the said Henry Scroop c. And of the heirs of the bodies of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and Charter as to the said Manor of Nayland and of the other Manors to their use in Fee And afterwards the said Alice took to husband James Strangways who had issue Thomas Elizabeth took to husband Fitz Randolph who had issue Elizabeth Dorothy Agnes Alice Margery took to husband Danby who had issue Sir Christopher Danby named in the Bar and afterwards all the said husbands and their wives died by force of which the said Feoffees were seised of one part of the said Manor of Nayland in three parts to be divided to the use of the said Thomas Strangways and of another part to the use of the four daughters of the said Elizabeth and her husband Fitz Randolph and of another such part to the use of the said Christopher Danby and of their heirs in Tail and of the other lands to the use of them in Fee in degree of Coparcinary Elizabeth the eldest daughter of Fitz Randolph took to husband Shirley Dorothy her sister took to husband Eshe Agnes took to husband Maynel and Alice took to husband Dranfield Thomas Strangways had issue James and died And afterwards partition was made by which to James Strangways were allotted lands in Kent and agreed that the Feoffees should be seised of the said lands to the use of the said James and his heirs and to no other use To Sherley and Elizabeth his wife lands in Essex were allotted and agreed upon the partition that the Feoffees should be seised to the use of them c. in Fee c. And to Danby the said Manor of Nayland in tail by reason of the Devise and Charter aforesaid as to the said Manor of Nayland and of other lands in Fee. And afterwards 23 E. 8. notice was given to the Feoffees of the said partition and averred that the partition was equal c. and that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said partition untill 27 H. 8. and confessed the Lease made by Danby to Calton and all the assignments set forth in the Bar to the Avowry and farther shewed That Thomas Danby
AN Information was exhibited in the Exchequer for the Queen against the Executors of William Jordan Surveyor of the Ordinance c. and the Executors of John Bowland Deputy of Ambrose Earl of Warwick Master of the Ordinance c. In which was set forth for the Queen That certain Powder Pellets and other furniture of War came unto the hands of the said Jordan and Bowland in respect of their said Offices to the value of 400000 l. and shewed how much came to each of them and the special charge incertain per quod onerabiles computabiles Dominae Reginae devenerunt nec tamen computum unquam inde reddiderunt nec reddere voluerant sed bona catalla praedicta ad usus suos proprios converterunt in deceptionem dictae Dominae Reginae c. The Defendants pleaded Not guilty upon which the Queen's Attorny did demur in Law because the Defendants have answered onely to the Conversion in which case although they have not converted yet if the said Goods have come to the hands of their Testator it is sufficient for the Queen and the Defendants are chargeable to the Queen for the same And the Opinion of all the Barons was clear that the Defendants ought to answer to the Charge c. XLIII Collet and the Bailiffs of Shrewsbury 's Case Pasc 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a false Imprisonment the Defendants justified by Prescription scil that they have used if any person within their Town contemptuose se gesserit against the Bailiffs of the said Town or any Warden of any Trade there to commit such a person to Prison for the space of a day or more at the least at their discretions And shewed farther That the Plaintiff did mis-behave himself tam factis quam verbis against the Wardens of such a Mystery in the said Town c. And when the Bailiffs super Querimoniam eis inde factam sent for the Plaintiff he would not come to them but mis-behaved himself against them tam dictis quam factis for which they did commit him to Prison c. upon which there was a Demurrer And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because their Prescription is not good for it is too large to imprison Subjects at their discretion Also they have set forth the offence of the Plaintiff generally i. Misbehaviour tam factis quam dictis without alledging any special Misdemeanor in certain XLIV Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 3 Leu. 79. IT was holden by the whole Court That where a man makes his Will in this manner I will and bequeath my Land to A. and the name of the Devisor is not in the whole Will yet the Devise is good by averment of the name of the Devisor 1 Cro. 100. 1 Leo. 113. and by proof that it was his Will. And if one lying sick in extremis having an intent to devise his Land by word makes such a Devise but doth not command the same 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 in writing during the life of the Devisor XLV Leonard Lovelace 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN Waste the Case was 1 Anders 132. More Rep. 371. Savile Rep. 75. 1 Cro. 40. That Lands were devised to the Father of the Defendant and to his eldest Issue male de corpore suo exeunti And upon Demurrer it was adjudged That by this Devise no Estate passed but an Estate for life unto the Father of the Defendant the Remainder to his eldest Son for life so as no Estate of Inheritance passed thereby and therefore punishable for Waste XLVI Cobb and Prior 's Case Postea 48. Hill. 33 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was A man deviseth his Lands to his Wife during the minority of his Son upon condition That she shall not doe Waste during the minâ—â—â—â—y of her said Son and dieth The Wife takes a Husband aâ—â— dieth the Husband commits Waste It was holden by the whole Court That the same is not any breach of the Condition XLV Salway and Luson 's Case Mich. 30 and 31 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Leon. 169. MAtthew Salway brought a Writ of Right against Luson and the Writ was Messuagium 200 acr jampnor bruerae and exception was taken to the Writ because that jampnor bruerae were coupled together where they ought to be distinctly severed and so many acr jampnor and so many acr bruerae although it was objected on the part of the Demandant in maintenance of the Writ That in the Register fol. 2. the Writ of Right is Redditu unius librae Mac. Obed. i. Mace and Cloves together without distinction or severance And it was said in a Writ of Right we ought to follow the Register and therefore a Writ of Right was abated because the word Pomarium was put in the Writ for in the Register there is no such Writ and the word Gardinum comprehends it But in other Writs as Writs of Entry c. it is otherwise See the Case of the Lord Zouch 11 Eliz. 353. In a Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin mille acr jampnor bruerae But the exception was not allowed for it may be that jampnorum bruerae lie so promiscuously that they cannot be divided And see 16 H. 7. 8. and 9. The respect which the Iustices there had to the Register so as they changed their opinions conformable to the Register Another exception was taken to the Writ because the Demandant demands duas partes custodiae de Hay in the Forest of C. and the opinion of the whole Court was that the Writ ought to be Officium custodiae duarum partium de Hay and not duas partes custodiae As Advocatio duarum partium Ecclesiae not duas partes advocationis another exception was because the Writ was duas partes c. in three to be divided whereas it should be divisus non dividend for dividendum is not in any Writ but a Writ of Partition And by Windham the parts of this Office are divided in right Quod Curia Concessit another exception was taken because in the Writ it is not set down in what Town the Forest of C. is so as the Court doth not know from whence the Visne should come for no Venire shall be de vicineto Forestae as de vicineto Hundredi Manerii and that was holden to be a material exception Another exception was taken because a Writ of Right doth not lie of an Office for at the Common Law an Office did not lie of it but now it doth by the Statute of West 2. For it was not liberum tenementum but the party grieved was put to his Quod permittat And of this opinion was the whole Court. XLVIII Johnson and Bellamy 's Case Hillar 31 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas
had also bona catalla felonum fugitivorum and at the payment the Lord St. John claimed the money But all the Barons of the Exchequer were clear of Opinion That the Lord St. John could not have the money for the place of payment nihil operatur but the Obligation is the substance which came to the Lord of Northampton within the Isle of Ely. Popham the Queens Attorny claimed the money for the Queen for the Lord of Northampton cannot have it for by the general words of bona catalla felonum things in Action do not pass but by express words they well pass otherwise not And therefore day was given to the Lord of Northampton to shew his Letters Patents LXXXII Ards and Smith 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. Rot. 2737. In the Common Pleas. 3 Co. 8. EDward Ards brought a Replevin against Smith and Reading the Defendants made Conusance as Bailiffs to Robert Chamberlain and shewed That one A. was seised of the Manor of Keney in Fee whereof the place where is parcel and so seised gave the said Manor to Richard Chamberlain and Sibil Fowler and to the Heirs males of the said Richard Richard and Sibil intermarry and have issue Edward Richard dieth Sibil dyeth Edward hath issue Leonard and dieth Leonard hath issue Francis and dieth Francis hath issue Robert in whose Right the Conusance is made and dieth Robert entreth The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance sheweth That one B. was thereof seised and thereof enfeoffed one Cottesford then Master of Lincoln College and the Fellows thereof after which the said Leonard Son and Heir male of the said Edward 25 H. 8. did release to the said Master and Fellows with warranty the said Robert in whose Right the said Conusance is made being Heir male of the said Robert and demanded Iudgment if against that warranty c. The Defendants confess the Gift before to the said Richard and Sibil and that they had issue the said Edward but farther shewed That after the death of the said Richard Sibil and Edward her Son leased the said Manor for years to one Mascal who entred and was possessed Edward suffered a common Recovery unto the use of the Recoverors who entred and ousted the Lessee and enfeoffed the said B. who enfeoffed the said Master and Fellows the Lessee re-entred Sibil died Leonard Son and Heir apparent of Edward released to the said Master and Fellows with warranty Edward died Leonard died and thereupon a Demurrer was by the parties and the matter was If this Recovery being suffered by him in the Remainder in tail upon an Estate for life the Recoverors entring upon the Lessee for years of the Lessee for life and putting him out and afterwards the Lessee for years re-entring If now any Estate did remain in the College after the Re-entry which might work a Release Snag Serjeant argued That a sufficient Estate did remain in the College upon which a Release might enure i.e. an Estate to begin after the death of Sibil and the expiration of the term for years and although rei veritate Edward was not Tenant of the Freehold at the time of the Recovery yet such an exception doth not lie for the Issue and to that purpose he cited the Opinion of Fairfax 12 E. 4. 14. Shuttleworth Serjeant contrary This Recovery works nothing but by way of Estoppel and Conclusion and therefore the issue in tail may well disclose the matter and avoid such Recovery and the better Opinion in the Case cited before 12 E. 4. is That such a Recovery against such a person is utterly void which see there by â—ittleton Choke and Brian 14 E. 4. 2. and also 28 Ass 17. and Dyer 8 Eliz. 252 253. Land conveyed to the Husband for life the Remainder to the Wife in tail the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Husband and Wife The Husband and Wife suffer a common Recovery the Husband hath issue and dieth and afterwards the Wife dieth the issue shall avoid the Lease and Recovery See also the Case betwixt Hare and Snow Plow 20 Eliz. 514. where a common Recovery was had against Tenant in tail and his Wife whereas in truth the Wife had nothing in the Land whereof the Recovery was suffered It was holden that the issue in tail or any other person might shew the truth of the matter for he shall not be bound by any Estoppel which his Father hath admitted by joyning in Voucher with his Wife for he is not subject to the Estoppel and therefore it was holden That if the Wife in such case might sue Execution to have in value yet the Son in tail might oust him of it So 8 H. 4. 122. a Praecipe is brought against Tenant in tail who prays in aid of a stranger as Tenant for life who enters into the aid and bars the Demandant and afterwards the Tenant in tail dieth his issue is at large to claim the Estate-tail although the mouth of his Father was estopped as to it So Tenant in tail brought a Quod ei deforceat and counted upon an especial tail whereas in truth it was a general tail and recovereth and dieth the said Recovery shall not conclude the issue See 33 H. 6. 18. And in our Case when the Recoverors enter by force of the recovery the same is a wrong to the Lessee for years and also to the Tenant for life for the one is ejected and the other disseised and therefore the Re-entry of the Lessee doth defeat all the Estate which was in the College under that Recovery and here the Entry of the Lessee for years shall avoid all the Estate which was conveyed to the College by the Recoverors See 44 E. 3. 30 31. Bassingborn's Assise Land is given to A for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to C. in Fee A. aliens in Fee the Ancestors collateral of him who hath the Fee doth release to the Alienee with warranty B. enters here the whole warranty is lost and all the first Estate is recontinued So in our Case by this Entry of the Lessee the whole Estate of the College under the Recovery is defeated so as nothing remains in the College upon which the Release can enure and then there is no warranty in the Case And as the Case is here Edward who suffered the Recovery dieth before the descent of the warranty by the death of Leonard by whom the Release with warranty was made by the death of which Edward the Interest which the College had in the said Manor by the said Recovery and the Estoppel of it was determined and utterly gone and then the warranty descending afterwards cannot attach upon the possession which was at the time of the warranty made which was by the conclusion which by the death of Edward is determined and removed by an Eign Title i. the Entail As if Tenant in tail doth discontinue the Discontinue is disseised Tenant in tail releaseth with warranty to the
was both against the common Law and also against all Conscience These matters coming to the knowledge of the Iustices and the mischiefs thereupon following being very frequent and it appearing that the Tenant in tail was a dangerous fellow and that there was no safe dealing with him they took consideration of them and considering also with themselves That Lineal Warranty and Assets and Collateral Warranty without Assets did bar the Entail upon this consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries So as by that means Tenant in tail hath Potestatem alienandi as he hath at the Common Law and by this means right was done to the Common Law because its authority was restored and thereby injury was done to no man But as for Tenant for life he never had Potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the recovery shall stand in force untill after the death of Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is alive Truly if the Law should be such great mischiefs would follow For then great Iointresses the Widows of great persons having assurances to them of great and stately Houses and of Lands furnished with Timber of great yearly value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit waste and the same should be dispunishable which would be an intolerable mischief and so he concluded that the suffering of a Recovery was a forfeiture and Iudgment Trin. 21 Eliz. was given and entred accordingly XC Noon 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer DEBT was brought in London against one as Executor and upon fully administred pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who assigned the same to the Queen whereupon a Scire facias issued out of the Exchequer against the Defendant into the County of Dorset The Serhiff retorned Nulla bona c. which Scire facias was upon a Constat of goods in another County It was agreed by all the Barons that the Debt was well assigned to the Queen And also that the Scire facias might issue forth of another Court than where the Record of the Iudgment remained and that upon a Constat of goods in another County than where the Writ is brought or where the party is dwelling he may well have a Scire facias in another County But the Retorn was challenged because contrary to the verdict As in a Replevin No such beast is not a good Retorn but Averia elongata or Nullus venit ex parte querentis ad monstrand averia And here the Sheriff might have retorned Devastavit which well stands with the Verdict 5 H. 7. 27. But as to that it was said by the Barons That it is true that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ was brought is concluded by the Verdict to make any retorn contrary to it but the Sheriff of another County shall not so be but the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought ought to retorn Devastavit c. and thereupon the Plaintiff shall have Process into another County But the Question farther was If a Scire facias upon Testatum shall issue into another County before that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought had retorned a Devastavit for some conceived That a Devastavit where the Writ was brought ought first to be retorned and then upon a Testatum Process should issue forth into any County within England But others were of opinion That without a Devastavit retorned upon a Testatum Process might be sued forth immediately into any other County Williams said If I recover goods by Action brought in Midd. I may upon a Testatum have a Capias into any foreign County XCI Western and Weild 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN a Writ of Accompt brought in London the Defendant pleaded Never his Receiver c. which was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgement given that the Defendant should accompt Afterwards the Defendant brought his Writ of Privilege and if the same should be allowed after Iudgment was the Question Coke It shall be allowed for the Defendant hath not surceased his time This Iudgement to accompt is not properly a Iudgment for no Writ of Error lieth upon it before the accompt be ended Manwood Regularly after Iudgment no privilege shall be allowed but that is to be intended of a Iudgment ended but here notwithstanding this Iudgment the Action is depending and therefore he conceived that the privilege should be allowed in this case It was objected That then the Plaintiff should be at great mischief for he should lose the advantage of his Trial for he must begin again and plead again and have a new Trial. Clark the Plaintiff shall have benefit of his former Trial by way of Evidence XCII Brian and Cawsen 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Rot. 1353. 3 Len. 115. IN an Action of Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen That William Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the custome of the Manor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he devised them in this manner i. I bequeath to John Th. my House and Land in M. called Larks and Sone To Steph. Th. my House and Land called Stokes and Newmans and to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said John Stephen or Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their bodies lawfully begotten then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their Heirs in manner aforesaid to give and sell at their pleasure but if it fortune one of them to die without issue of his body lawfully begotten Then I will that the other brothers or brother have all the said Houses and Lands in manner aforesaid and if it fortune the three to die without issue in like manner Then I will that all the said Houses and Lands be sold by my Executor or his Assigns and the money to be given to the poor The Devisor dieth John Stephen and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without issue John and Stephen are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath issue J. and surrenders all his part of the whole and his Estate therein to the use of Stephen and his heirs who is admitted accordingly Stephen comes of full age John the father dieth Stephen dieth without issue John the son as cosin and heir of Stephen is admitted according to the Will and afterwards dieth without issue The Wives of the Plaintiffs are heirs to him and are admitted to the said Lands called Larks and Sone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcell of Lands where c. by force whereof they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done and it was found That A. sole Executor died intestate and that Cawsen
her customary interest as it were paramount the interest of the eldest Sister which she claimed by the Indenture Glanvil The customary interest of the eldest Sister is extinct upon this matter by reason of her agreement to it afterwards Where an Estate is given to one by a lawfull act it shall be adjudged in the party before agreement until it be disagreed unto and if the party do once agree he cannot afterwards disagree unto it If an Estate be lawfully made to a Copyholder but for years his whole interest in the Copyhold is determined and that a Freehold cannot be waived in pais but onely by matter of Record See 13 R. 2. Joynt-tenants 13. A Charter of Feoffment was made to four and Seisin was delivered to three of them in the name of them all and afterwards the fourth Feoffee came and saw the Deed and said That she would not have any thing in the Lands but altogether disagree unto it and it was that that disagreement by word in pais did not devest the Freehold out of her But when the party doth disagree in a Court of Record there the Freehold is out of the party ab initio and if he once agree he shall not disagree afterwards See Littl. Sect. 648. Tenant in tail enfeoffeth his Son and Heir apparent and another and Livery and Seisin is made to the other according to the Charter of Feoffment in the name of the Son also the Son not knowing of it nor disagreeing to the Feoffment the other Feoffee dieth the Son neither occupies the Lands nor takes the profits of them during the life of his Father the Father dieth the same is a Remitter to the Son because the Freehold is cast upon him and there is no default in him and therefore he is remitted But upon an illegal act is otherwise for if A. disseise B. to the use of C. in such case nothing is in C. before an express Agreement for the Disseisin was an unlawfull act And in this Case at Bar it doth not appear that the eldest Sister is dead and therefore the Right of the second Sister cannot now come in question Shute Iustice If the second Sister at the time of the making of the said Indenture had agreed unto it then it had been a full extiguishment but by an agreement afterwards it is not good Gawdy Iustice The remainder is in consideration of the Law and the Estate of the first Sister is not so determined that any can take advantage of it for the Lord against this Lease by Deed indented cannot enter or claim any thing and the second Sister although she hath not agreed yet she cannot enter during the life of her elder Sister for her Remainder takes effect in possession after the death of her said Sister But if any should take advantage of it it should be the Lord if his Deed indented did not stand against him And afterwards Iudgment was given against the younger Sister Clench Iustice was of another Opinion viz. That the Entry of the younger Sister notwithstanding that her elder Sister was alive was lawfull Quaere of that XCVIII Wellock 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A Parson in consideration of twelve pence granted to one of his Parishioners That he should hold his Lands discharged of Tithes It was holden by the whole Court That the same was no good Discharge being without Deed as a Lease of his Tithes But it was holden If the Parson afterward sueth the Parishioner for Tithes against the same Grant and Promise the Parishioner may have an Action upon the Case against the Parson upon his Promise although he cannot plead the Grant as a Lease XCVIII Lawson and Hare 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 178. A Replevin by Lawson against Hare who avowed for a Leet Fee and shewed how that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the Hundred of C. have used to hold a Leet once every year and that at each time when such Leet hath been holden the Inhabitants within the said Leet have used to pay to the Lord of the Leet 16 d. for a Leet Fee and that the Lords of the said Leet have used to distrain for the same and shewed farther that 5 Julii 26 Eliz. he held there a Leet c. The Plaintiff replied Absque hoc that they had used to distrain and issue being joyned it was found for the Defendant It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because that the Defendant had entitled himself to a Leet by an Estate in the Hundred and did not shew a Deed of it which was said he ought to have done as is 11 H. 4. 48. And of such opinion was Anderson and Windham Iustices Periam and Rhodes Iustices contrary as this case is and that the Avowant need not shew a Deed But if the hundred it self had been in question then a Deed ought to have been shewed But here the Avowant entitles himself to one thing scil a Leet and a Leet Fee by reason of the Hundred and it is sufficient for him to say That he is seised of the Hundred c. although it be by disseisin for if he hath possession of the Hundred be it jure vel injuria he shall have also all things incident thereunto for the possession of the Hundred draws to him the Leet and the Leet the Leet Fee. But admit in this case a Deed ought to be shewed 1 Cro. 217. 245. we are to see if the same be helped by the Statute of Jeofailes which extends to defaults in form in Writs Original or Iudicial Counts Declarations Plaints Bills c. 18 Eliz. cap 14. and such defects are thereby helped And by Anderson although that the Avowant be Quasi an actor yet in Rei veritate he is Defendant For although that he is to have retorn of the Cattel if it be found for him yet he who fueth the Replevin is the Plaintiff and if the Defendant will justifie the distress and not avow he is meerly Defendant and not a Plaintiff or Actor no more than in a Praâ—cipe quod reddat The Tenant voucheth and recovereth in value he cannot be said Plaintiff or Defendant and the Avowant cannot be Nonsuit as the Plaintiff But Windham and Periam were of a contrary opinion For Avowry is in lieu of a Declaration and the Plea of the Plaintiff to the Avowry is not called a Replication but a bar to the Avowry But admit the Avowry be within the Statute then if the Statute of Jeofailes there extend to help it And Anderson conceived that it did But the Plaintiff might have demurred upon the Avowry for the not shewing the Deed and Iudgment should have been given for him but when he hath traversed and the issue found against him now it shall be intended that Avowant hath a Deed although he hath not shewed the same Another Exception was taken because it is said in the Avowry That the said Leet
the Lessee entred 29 Sept. which is before the Term begins For the words of the Habendum are From the Feast of St. Michael therefore the Feast of St. Michael is no part of the Term and then was the Defendant a Disseisor and the day after the Term began which cannot alter his Estate but that he continueth a Disseisor and then he is not in by force of the said Lease and so no Rent can be due Williams As the Declaration is here the same is not any disseisin for the Plaintiff set forth in his Declaration That the Lessee the Defendant hath occupied the Land demised the whole year and so hath not admitted any Disseisin it being in his election to make it a Disseisin or not Clench Iustice Be it a Disseisin or not or be it that the Defendant entreth or not he is to pay the Rent Gawdy The Lessee is a Disseisor and continueth a Disseisor and yet Debt lieth against him for the Rent by reason of the privity of Contract which see Rysden's Case 24 H. 8. Dyer 5. And so in our Case Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXII Monings and Worley 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 561. Error IN Debt upon an Obligation brought by Mary Worley against Monings in the Common-Pleas The Condition was That if Mary Worley the Plaintiff in the said Action doth not depart out of the service of the Defendant without license of the Defendant Monings nor marry her self but with his consent Then if the Defendant shall pay to the said Mary within twenty eight days after demand by her made of Monings at his house at Waldersey 100 l. That then c. And the Defendant in the said Action pleaded That the said Mary the Plaintiff in the said Action 4 Maii 30 Eliz. departed out of his service without licence The Plaintiff Mary by Replication said That 6 Septemb. the same year she departed out of his service with licence and that 4 Octob. after she demanded the said 100 l. at Waldersey aforesaid and he refused to pay it Absque hoc that she departed out of his service 4 Maii 30 Eliz. without licence and the Writ bare date 18. of October next after the demand And it was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given for her in the Common-Pleas and now a Writ of Error is brought by Monings Tanfield The Iudgment ought to be reversed for always the Replication in such cases ought to contain sufficient Cause of Action and sufficient breach of the Condition or otherwise the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment although that the Issue be found for him as 7 E. 4. 31. In trespass for taking of goods of A. and B. A. pleads Not guilty B. justifies the Plaintiff makes Title to the goods by a gift B. traverseth the gift and it is found for him against the Plaintiff A. is found guilty Now although A. be found guilty yet the Plaintiff shall not have judgment against him for it is found that he hath not any Title to the goods As in Debt upon a Bond against A. and B. A. pleads Non est factum B. pleads the release of the Plaintiff and it is found the Deed of A. and that the Plaintiff hath released to B. the Plaintiff shall never have Iudgment for upon the Verdict it appears that he hath not cause of Action And here in the Replication there is not a sufficient breach shewed of the Condition for although that Mary hath not departed from the service of the said Defendant yet the same is not material but the Defendant had twenty eight days after the demand to pay the 100 l. but the same is not so here for the Plaintiff hath prevented the Defendant for the demand is alledged to be 4. Oct. and the Writ bears date 18. Octob. the same year and so the Defendant had not his time allowed him Gawdy The issue is taken upon the departure out of his service so as the demand is not now material and therefore the alledging of the same is surplusage and shall not hurt And the Defendant hath pleaded in Bar the departure of the Plaintiff out of his service upon which he relieth and the demand set forth in the Replication is not to be regarded as to prejudice the Plaintiff As 3 Ma. Dyer 115. Lessee for years covenants that he will not cut any Trees The Lessor assigns the breach of the Covenant in succidendo twenty Oaks The Lessee pleads that he did not cut the twenty Trees nor any of them The Iury found that the Defendant had cut down ten Trees The Plaintiff upon that Verdict shall have Iudgment for the rest is but surplusage and more put in issue than there needs to be Fenner It is not any full Plea to say That the Plaintiff did not depart out of the service of the Defendant 4 Maii for if she departeth at any other time she shall not recover for which cause she ought to have pleaded That she continued in his service untill such a day and then she departed with his licence and the inducement to the traverse ought to be sufficient matter otherwise it is not a full Plea nor the Traverse is not good And if it be surplusage yet if it be not matter against her self it makes the Plea naught which see 1 H. 7. 29. 6 H. 7. 16. Gawdy conceived that the Iudgment was well given for the Defendant was at his liberty to plead the departure of the Plaintiff without his licence or to stand upon the demand And now although he pleads the departure yet the demand is not confessed And afterwards the Iudgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas was affirmed CXXIII Bashpool 's Case 27 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was this The Father seised of Lands Stiles Rep. 148. is bound in an Obligation and deviseth his Lands to his Wife untill his Son cometh to the age of twenty one years the remainder to the Son in Fee and dieth and no other Lands descend or come to the Son from his Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in that case at his Election might wave the Devise and take by descent or è contra See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But Gawdy and Shute Iustices 3 Len. 118. were of opinion That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent Clench contrary CXXIV Bennet and Shortwright 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was 1 Cro. 206. The Defendant sued the Plaintiff in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in kind and now the Plaintiff prayed a Prohibition and suggested That they had used in the said Parish time out of mind c. to take the tenth Sheaf in satisfaction of Tythe of Corn c. and in those years in which the Plaintiff had supposed the subtraction of his Tythes he had severed the tenth Sheaf from the nine parts and the Parson would not take
's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 291. 1 Len. 247. 3 Len. 174. That whereas he was possessed of a parcel of Land called the Parsonage lying adjoyning to a certain River from the 29 of May 29 Eliz. untill the day of the bringing of this Writ the Defendant had the said twentieth day of May stopt the said River with certain Loads of Earth and so it continued untill the fourteenth day of February by which his land was drowned and so he had lost the profit of it by that time And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That upon the Declaration there doth not appear any cause of Action for the Plaintiff hath made Title to the Land drowned from the twentieth of May so as that day is excluded and the Nusance is said to be made the twentieth day and so it appeareth the Nusance was before the possession of the Plaintiff and if it were so then cannot he complain of any wrong done before his time To which it was answered That although the stopping was made before his possession yet the continuance of the same is after and a new wrong for which an Action lieth as 5 H. 7. 4. It was presented That an Abbat had not cleansed his Ditch c. by reason of which the Highway is stopt The Successor shall be put to answer to the said Indictment by reason of the continuance of it And see that continuation of a Nusance is as it were a new Nusance 14 and 15 Eliz. 320. And it may be that the Plaintiff was not damnified untill long time after the twentieth day of May scil after the stopping And the words of the Writ here are satisfied and true And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXX Trusto and Ewer 's Case Pasc 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 23. IN this Case it was agreed for Law That if a Controversie be betwixt two for the Title of a Lease for years and they submit the matter to Arbitrement and the Arbitrators award that one of them shall have the term the same is a good Gift of the interest of the term See 12 Ass 25. 14 H. 4. 19. 24. But if the Award be that the one shall permit the other to enjoy the term the same is no Gift of the interest therein See as to the Arbitrement 9 E. 4. 44. CXXXI Andrew 's Case Pasc 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 214. IN the Case of Andrews of Grays Inn it was holden by Gawdy and Fenner Iustices That if a Lease for years be made by Deed indented with these words demisi ad firmam tradidi That upon that Writ of Covenant lieth against the Lessor if he himself entreth upon the Lessee but contrary if a stranger enter if it hath not clause of Warranty For by Fenner when Covenant is brought upon that word Demisi the Plaintiff shall recover the term it self but not damages and that cannot the Plaintiff do when a stranger entreth and that was holden for clear Law See 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. A covenant against the Heir in such case CXXXII Bigg and Clark 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. Rot. 549. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case in the Court of Hertford the Plaintiff declared How that the Defendant hired a Horse of the Plaintiff to carry three Bushels of Coals from Ware to his House in Hertford and that the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise the Plaintiff quod ipse in via praedicta nollet onerare the said Horse aliter than with the said three Bushels of Coals And the Plaintiff said That the Defendant had loaded the said Plaintiff's Horse with a greater weight than with the said Coals and so had hurt his Horse upon which the Plaintiff recovered And Error was brought and the Error assigned was this That it is not specially shewed how the Defendant aliter loaded the said Horse with what thing As 19 H. 6. In Debt against Executors they plead That they have onely expended such a sum of the Goods of the Testator in Funeral expences absque hoc that they have administred aliter vel alio modo the Plaintiff cannot Reply and say that they have administred aliter vel alio modo without shewing how Another Error was assigned because it is not certainly shewed how the Horse was hurt but that Exception was not allowed for it is not the point of the Action but for the first matter the Iudgment was reversed CXXXIII Toley and Windham 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 206. 3 Len. 150. That whereas certain controversies were betwixt the Plaintiff and Defendant for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in his life time and whereas he had brought a Writ of Subpoena out of the Chancery against the Defendant for the said profits taken by the Father of the Defendant in his life intending to put in a Bill against the Defendant in the said Court The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would stay his intended Suit promised That if the Plaintiff can prove that the Father of the Defendant took the profits or had the possession of the said Land under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff that he should pay to him for all the said profits And farther declared That he had proved that his Father had taken the profits under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff Coke took up Exception to the Declaration because it is not shewed How and by what means under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff he took the profits as by Lease for that is traversable Gawdy Iustice The Son hath not any cause of Action or Suit for the profits taken in the time of the Father therefore the staying of Suit arising from such matter is not any consideration But as to the other Exception because it is not shewed how and by what Title he took the profits it is well enough As unto the other Exception it was moved at another day that there was a Case betwixt Stone and Withypool An Infant promiseth to pay a simple Contract Stone and Withypool's Case and thereupon there was a Suit in the Chancery but it was holden that it was not maintainable for the promise was void because there was no consideration And it was agreed by all the Iustices that this Action would not lie for the Plaintiff hath declared That where certain Controversies were betwixt the Father of the Defendant and him scil the Plaintiff himself for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in the time of the Father of the Plaintiff c. and he doth not shew that he himself is Heir or Executor of his Father and therefore the Chancery cannot give him any remedy And on the other
Statute and the penalties thereof And upon a great deliberation it was by them all resolved and agreed That notwithstanding the said Conveyance the said Lands were liable to the said Statute And as to the Iurors who against the Evidence given to them for the Queen gave their Verdict ut supra Process was awarded against them out of the Court of Exchequer for to appear before the Lord Treasurer and the Barons And for their said contempt they were committed to the Fleet and each of them fined 50 l. CLXXVI Moore and Savil 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN an Ejectione firmae by Moore against Savil the Case was That Tenant in tail leased the Land to the father mother and son for their lives by Indenture in which it was comprehended That forasmuch as the Lessor is but Tenant in tail and so cannot by Law limit these Estates by way of Remainder but jointly in possession and his intent was That because this Lease was procured and obtained at the special suit and costs and charges of the father That the said son should suffer his father and after him his mother to take the profits of the said Lands demised and to occupy and hold the said Lands to their onely profit without interruption of the said son notwithstanding his joint Estate in possession with them Provisum igitur est That if the said son shall challenge claim demand or take any profits of the Lands so demised or enter into the same during the life of his said father or mother That then the Estate to him limited by the said Indenture should cease and be utterly void And it was the clear opinion of the whole Court That this Condition and Proviso was utterly void for it is contrary to the Estate limited before as in the Case cited by Coke at the Bar. If I lease to you my Lands for 20 years Proviso that you shall not occupy the same the two first years the same Proviso is void and contrary and repugnant to the Estate CLXXVII Lord Cromwel and Townsend 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber HEnry Lord Cromwel exhibited a Bill in the Star-Chamber against Roger Townsend Esquire for that the said Roger Townsend in an Action betwixt James Taverner Plaintiff and James Cromwel Farmor of the said Lord Cromwel Defendant in Trespass in the favour and unlawfull maintenance of the said Taverner did procure a partial Iury to be retorned And upon the hearing of the Cause the matter given in Evidence was That the said Taverner was a Copiholder of the said Lord Cromwel and that the said Lord Cromwel pretending that the said Taverner had forfeited his Copihold caused the said James Cromwel to make an Entry in the right of the said Lord upon the said Taverner upon which Entry Taverner brought an Action of Trespass against the said James Cromwel in which Action the parties were at Issue upon the forfeiture And before any Venire facias issued forth Taverner hearing that one Steward who was Bailiff of the Franchize under the Earl of Arundel and who ought to make the Pannel c. was purposed to have made the said Pannel not duly viz. to retorn therein great Gentlemen of the County who were Lords of Manors in favour of the said Lord Cromwel went unto the said Roger Townsend who was then one of the principal servants and agents of the said Earl and shewed to him that if those great persons and Lords of Manors be retorned for the trial of that Issue peradventure they would not so easily appear for the expedition of the parties as people of lesser condition and also many of them being Lords of Manors and having customary Tenants and therefore not indifferent to try that Issue and prayed his Order to the said Steward for the making of an indifferent Pannel where upon a conference with the said Steward for the making of an indifferent Pannel and shewing to him the making of the said Pannel was not convenient or any equal course to retorn Knights Esquires or Lords of Manors but rather such sufficient persons for the greater expedition of Iustice and indifferency of the trial And afterwards the said Taverner exhibited a Petition shewing all the special matter and praying him to give Order for the making of an indifferent Pannel for the trial of that Cause which Petition was delivered to the said Earl by the said Townsend in the name of the said Taverner Vpon which the Earl did refer the said matter to three of his chiefest agents and Counsellours i. Dicksey Townsend and Carrel and delivered to them the Book of Freeholders within the said Franchise who according to their Commission made a Pannel which was retorned and the Iury passed with the said James Cromwel in the right of the said Lord And if this intermedling of Townsend with this matter as abovesaid c. especially his conference with the Bailiff be maintenance or not was the Question And by the Lord Anderson and the Lord Wray chief Iustices It was delivered for Law That because the said Townsend was in manner a servant of the said Earl who had retorn of Writs and one of his principal Counsellours and agents and hearing Ex insinuatione of the said Taverner the misdemeanour of the Bailiff of his Lord could not do better than to shew to the Bailiff his duty for it concerned the honour of his Lord and also his Inheritance in the Franchise But if the said Townsend had been a mere stranger to the said Earl so as no such privity had been betwixt them it had been clearly maintenance in Townsend as it was lately adjudged in this Court in the Case of one Gifford Gifford's Case where the parties being at Issue and a Venire facias was to the Sheriff to retorn a Iury a stranger wrote to one of the Iurors who was retorned in the Pannel praying him to appear at the day and to doe in the Cause according to his Conscience and that was adjudged Maintenance And afterwards upon the full hearing of the cause the said Townsend by the sentence of the said Court was acquitted of every Maintenance with great allowance and approbation of many Lords of the Council there present Bromley Cancellario tantum exclamante CLXXVIII Sir Moil Finch 's Case 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Roll 184. 1 Cro. 220. Poph. 25. 1 Roll 215. THE Case was this The King and Queen Philip and Mary leased for seventy years for certain Rent payable at the Feasts of Saint Michael and the Annunciation Proviso that if the Rent be behind and not paid by the space of forty days after any of the Feasts aforesaid that the Lease shall cease and be void At Mich. 9 Eliz. the Rent was not paid according to the Proviso but a Month after the said forty days it was paid and Acquittance given for it and so the Rents due after unto 30 Eliz. were duly paid and Acquittances given for the same
in fact so as he might have an Assise or an Action of Trespass Antea 210 1 Cro. 920. Ow. 96. So the Law is now taken A. deviseth his Lands to B. and dieth and a stranger entreth and dieth seised before any Entry by the Devisee now is the Devisee without remedy And here in our Case the Intruder hath not gained any possession in the Lands by his intrusion no more than if the King gives Lands to one in Fee and before the Patentee enters a stranger enters now cannot the Patentee grant it over if he doth not reduce the Estate by Entry See Dyer 9 and 10 Eliz. 266. P. 20 Eliz. in Curia Ward Garbery's Case acc The Queen seised of the Manor of Beverley a stranger erected a Shop in a vacant plat of the Manor and afterwards took the profits of it without paying any Rent for the same to the Queen and afterwards the Queen granted the Manor to the Earl of Leicester and he never entred into the said Shop nor took any Rent for the same and afterwards the Occupier of the Shop died in possession and his Son and Heir entred and the better opinion was that the same was not a descent against the Patentee because at the first it was not a disseisin against the Queen Another Question was moved as to a path-way then in question And the Iury found that one side of the path-way was the Land of the Parson of the Church and the other side the Church-yard and prayed the opinion of the Court therein to whom the interest of the path-way did belong to which it was said by the Court That that ought to be found by the Verdict For although that both be the Freehold of the Parson yet the soil of the path-way might be conveyed by an express Grant unto another But the Court seemed to incline that the soil of the path-way did belong to him who had the Lands on both sides and that is the Case as well of a high-way as of a path-way And it is also good Evidence to prove such matter Who hath used to cut down the Trees or to cleanse the way CLXXXIII Wiseman 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Court of Wards 6 Co. Weeden Baldwin's Case IN the Court of Wards before the Lord Treasurer Master of the Wards Wray chief Iustice Anderson and Periam Assistants to him the Case was That Wiseman was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service in Capite had issue by a former Wife who died and made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of her who should be his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of himself and of his issue of the body of such Wife to be begotten the remainder over Wiseman took a Wife and had issue and died If now living the Wife the issue shall be in Ward was the question It was argued by Coke That he shall not be in Ward And first it was agreed of both sides and also by the Iustices That it was a remainder and not a reversion and that at the Common Law the descent of a remainder during the Estate for life doth not entitle the King unto Wardship and there we are to see if upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. the last branch of it where two or more persons hold any Lands of the King by Knights-service jointly to them and the heirs of one of them and he that hath the Inheritance thereof dieth his heir being within age in every such Case the King shall have the Ward and marriage of the body of such heir so being within age the life of the Freeholder or Freeholders of such Lands notwithstanding See 33 H. 6. 14. That the father to prevent Wardship may alien and take to him and his son and the heirs of the father which mischief was intended to be remedied by the said Statute But these words shall not in construction thereof extend farther than the words especially because they cross the Common Law and go to charge the Inheritance of others and therefore they shall be taken strictly and not by equity as the Statute of West 2. cap. 40. Cum quis alienat jus uxoris suae concordat est Quod de cetero secta mulieris aut ejus haeredis non differatur propter minorem aetatem haeredis qui warrantizare debuit that Statute is taken strictly for if the Vouchee voucheth over the second Vouchee shall have his age Quod vide 18 E. 4. 16. Also the Stat. of West 1. enacts That where the Disseisor dieth seised the Disseisee shall have his Writ upon the Disseisin against the heir of the Disseisor of what age soever he be So the heirs of the Disseisee yet it is holden 9 E. 3. If the Disseisor leaseth for life and dieth and the Lessee be impleaded and makes default after default upon which the heir of the Disseisor prayeth to be received being within age he shall have his age notwithstanding the said Statute which shall be taken strictly because it controlls the Common Law and chargeth the Inheritance of the Subject So upon the Statute of West 1. cap. 39. That none shall vouch out of the line upon that Statute although the Tenant to the Action against whom the Praecipe is brought is bound by the Statute yet Tenant by receit is at large and he may vouch at the Common Law 2 H. 7. 2. 16 H. 7. 1. for these Statutes go in abridgment of the Common Law and therefore shall be taken strictly Now according to this Statute it is of the same nature as the other before remembred and therefore shall not be extended in construction beyond the Letter As Sir Rowland Hill's Case Grandfather father and son the grandfather seised of Land ut supra makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the son in Fee The grandfather dieth the father dieth the son shall not be in Ward Causa qua supra For this Statute shall not be construed by equity and by it the words thereof Preferment of children shall not extend unto the childrens children but to the children onely of the King's Tenant who makes the Conveyance And the words in this Statute or otherwise shall not be intended to other persons than are remembred in the Statute There was a Case late where the Statute was construed in such a manner Quod vide 18 Eliz. 345. Thornton's Case A Lady seised of Lands in chief made Conveyance of her Lands for the advancement of her bastard-daughter the same Conveyance is not within the Statute See also the Lord Powes's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. So in the Case of Sir Hugh Calverley the Law was taken That where the Husband dieth seised in the right of his Wife and they levy a Fine unto the use of the Husband and Wife for the advancement of the Husband such Conveyance and disposition is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Popham contrary And as to
the Case of making this Statute it was not to overthrow a foundation as it hath been said but it was rather a gratuity of the Subjects to the King for his bounty towards them for whereas by the Statute of Vses Vses were executed in possession so as the Subjects could not dispose of their Lands by their Wills as before the Vses Now by this Statute the King was pleased to give his Royal assent to an Act by which Lands might become devisable in respect of which the Subjects added to this Act the last clause to give him Wardship where it did not lie before by the Common Law and that as a recompence from the Subjects for the King's bounty and therefore it ought to be construed beneficially for the King. And to prevent covin and fraud was not the scope of this Statute For if three purchase Lands unto them and to the heirs of two of them now it is uncertain whose heirs shall inherit for non constat which of them shall survive and therefore no covin is averrable in such case and yet if the survivor of two to whom the Fee is limited dieth his heir within age such heir shall be in Ward So if such Lands be given to two and to the heirs of him of those two who shall first come to the Church of Paul Now it is uncertain which of them shall first come to the Church of Paul yet if he who first cometh to the Church of Paul dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward which Cases prove that covin and fraud were not the cause of making this Statute but onely the thankfulness of the Subjects unto the King for his bounty as abovesaid for if this Act had not been made the Subjects should not have power to dispose of their Lands for the advancement of their children but all should descend So as now the King hath lost the Wardship and Primer seisin of two parts of the Lands of his Tenant and hath also lost the averment of covin which he had by the Common Law where Estates were made by the King's Tenant for advancement of their children In respect of which losses the Subjects gave unto the King Wardship in case where the Lands continue in jointure as to that which hath been said That this Statute shall not be taken by equity I conceive the contrary the words of the Statute are In every such case i. e. In every like case not onely where two or more persons hold jointly to them and the heirs of one of them but also in every the like Case as the Case now in question and in every Case where the life of him who hath the Freehold is the sole impediment quo minus the heir hath not the Land by descent in Demesne And it may be resembled unto the Statute of Marlbridge of Collusion which speaks of Leases for years Quas tradere voluerint ad terminum annorum and yet a Lease for life or Lease for years is within the said Statute for the Statute was made in restraint of an ill liberty that the Tenants had by the Common Law in prejudice of their Lords which see 4 E. 6. 53. Plow 59. And as to the word otherwise that may be construed for payment of his Legacies And as to equity enlarging the Statute speaks where many hold and to the heirs of one yet if two hold to them and the heirs of one of them the same is within the Statute And as to Equity restraining he puts this case Land is given to the Husband and Wife and the heirs of the body of the Wife who have issue the Wife dieth the issue within age he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute but because that other matter That the Estate for life in the Husband is an impediment Quo minus he shall be in Ward It is a maxim of the Common Law That the father shall have the Wardship of the son and heir apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within the Letter of the Statute So if Lands be given to my Villain and to another and to the heirs of my Villain who dieth seised his heir within age I seise the Villain and claim the remainder he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute But I conceive in our Case the King shall have two Wards Simul semel the heir general of Wiseman and the issue in tail the heir general by the Common Law by reason that his father was the King's Tenant who disposed of his Lands for the advancement of his children and therefore the Queen shall have the third part in Ward And also the heir special shall be in Ward for that part of the Statute And it is no new thing to have two Wardships for one and the same Lands As 14 H. 8. of the heir of Cestuy quae use and also of the Feoffee and if the Tenant dieth seised having issue a daughter who is his heir the Lord seiseth the daughter and marrieth her and afterwards a son is born he shall have the Wardship also of him So of the heirs of the Disseisor and Disseisee and he said If Lands holden in chief be leased for life the remainder to A. in Fee A. dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward and that by reason of these words in the Statute In every such case it is not the same Case but the like Case for if he who hath the Fee dieth so as the Freehold survives to the other now the Estate becomes as an Estate for life the remainder over It was adjourned CLXXXIV The Lord Howard and the Town of Walden 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer More Rep. 159. Post 162 163. BEtwixt the Lord Howard and the Town of Walden the Case was That the King made a Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster Tenend in feodi forma reddend inde sibi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. The question was How and of whom the Tenure should be It was argued by Plowden That it should be holden of the King as of his Dutchy he said The King is not bounden by the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum but here upon this Feoffment the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy All Grants of the King notwithstanding that they be of Lands yet they savour of the person of the King and his Prerogative being wrapt up in his person shall guide the disposition of the land and he said that this Tenure shall be implyed by reason and in respect of his person And the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum extends to Tenants onely Libere tenentes magnatum aliorum but the King is not Libere tenens alicujus magnat 32 H. 6. 21 22. The King hath an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy to which
first Fine doth not make any discontinuance and yet he conceived it is not altogether void against the issues before that they enter for no Right remains in the Conusor against his Fine and he conceived also that this clause ex uberiori gratia nostra did extend to pass more than passed before for he conceived that the Queen intended more liberally viz. the Reversion for this same is not any matter of Prerogative but this is a matter of interest which might even in the Case of the King pass out of the King by general words And see 3 H. 6. 6 and 7 Br. Patents A Grant of the King ex insinuatione shall not hinder the force of the words ex mero motu And the opinion of the Court was That the Reversion which was in the King did not pass by this Grant For the scope of the whole Patent was as was conceived to grant the same onely which the Queen had ratione attincturae Anderson held the Patent insufficient because that the Prohibition was not full and certain Also he said That ex speciali gratia c. would not help this Case if it were well argued for the Estate tail is not well recited but onely that he was seised de Statu haereditario c. so as the Queen was deceived Periam contrary The Queen was apprised well of the mischief and Grant aforesaid viz. of such Estate with which he departed by the Fine And as to the other point it was the opinion of Walmsley That the Fine with Proclamation did bind the Entail And as to the Objection which hath been made That the Conusor at the time of the Fine levied was not seised by force of the Entail the same had been good matter to avoid a common Recovery to alledge such matter in the Tenant to the Praecipe but not to this purpose for if Tenant in tail levieth a Fine although he was not seised at the time of the Fine levied by force of the Entail yet such a Fine shall bind the issues So if the Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth the Discontinuee and so levieth a Fine And he conceived That the issue in tail is bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. even of the Gift of the King. And see 19 H. 8. 6. and 7. where it is holden That the issue in tail is bound by the Act of 4 H. 7. And whereas it hath been objected That it doth not extend but to such Fines which make a discontinuance at the Common Law the same is not so for if Tenant in tail of a Rent or Common levieth a Fine with Proclamation it is very clear that the issues shall be barred thereby And he relied much upon the Book of 29 H. 8. Dyer 32. Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King levyeth a Fine or suffereth a common Recovery although it be not a discontinuance because the Reversion is in the King yet it is a bar unto the issue But note That that was before the Statute of 34 H. 8. And see now Wiseman's Case 27 Eliz. Co. 2. part and see the Lord Stafford's Case 7 Jacob. Co. 8 Reports fo 78. CXCII Pleadal 's Case 21 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THe Case was That a man seised of Lands in fee took a Lease by Indenture of the Herbage and Pawnage of the same Land It was the Opinion of the whole Court that the same was no Estoppel to him to claim the Soil or the Freehold And it was said by Plowden and agreed by the Court That if the Father and Son be Ioint-tenants for an hundred years and the Son takes a Lease of his Father of the Lands for fifteen years to begin c. the same shall conclude the Son to claim the whole term or parcel of it by Survivor CXCIII 21 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber NOte That in the Star-Chamber it was resolved by the Advice of many of the Iustices That an Infant having levyed a Fine may declare the uses upon it and such Declaration is good notwithstanding his Nonage and Mr. Plowden affirmed 2 Co. 10 42 57. that so it was adjudged in his own Case by which he lost Lands of the yearly value of 40 l. So a Declaration by a man in duresse is good which Anderson denyed CXCIV The Lord Awdley 's Case 21 Eliz. In the Court of Chancery THE Lord Awdley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Sommerset Dy. 166 324 325. and afterwards by Indenture reciting the said Feoffment and the date of it and also that it was to the intent that his Feoffees should perform his Will as follows in effect viz. My Will is 6 Co. Sir Ed. Cloer's Case That my said Feoffees shall stand seised to the use That the said Hoddy shall receive of the yearly Profits of the said Lands one hundred pounds which he had lent to the said Lord Awdley and also stand seised to pay all his Debts upon Bills signed with his Hand and after the Debts paid That the said Feoffees shall make Estate of the said Lands unto him the said Lord Awdley and Ioan his Wife and to the Heirs of their Bodies c. with divers Remainders over The said Lord had issue by the said Joan and also had issue by a former Wife a Daughter The Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his Wife And it was the Opinion of divers of the Iustices and Sages of the Law That upon this matter no use was changed for it is not a last Will but an intent And although that the Feoffees shall be seised unto the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because that no consideration was for which they should be seised to their own use yet the same cannot make a new use unto the said Lord and his wife in tail without conveying an Estate for the wife is a stranger unto the land and also to the other use And it cannot be a Testament or last Will for the Estate mentioned in the said Writing ought to be made to the said Lord and his wife who cannot take by his own Will. And this matter was depending in the Chancery and the advice of the Iustices being there required they did deliver their opinions That by this Writing no use was changed nor any Estate vested in the said Lord and his wife and a Decree was made accordingly untill proof might be made of such an Estate made CXCV. Borough and Holcroft 's Case 21 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Co. 3. Inst 31. 4 Co. 45. IN an Appeal of Murther by the son of the Lord Borough of the death of his elder brother Henry Borough against Thomas Holcroft who pleaded That heretofore he had been indicted of the Murther of the said Henry Holcroft before J. S. Coroner of the Verge and also Coroner of the Country of Middlesex within which County the Verge was and upon that indictment he was arraigned and confessed the
against a general Statute of which every one ought to take notice Periam When the Case was in the Common Pleas it was moved If of a sentence given by the high Commissioners an Appeal did lie and it was certified by Clark Doctor of the civil Law that it did for the Commissioners are as the Delegates of the Queen And as by the Canon Law one might appeal from the Delegates of the Pope unto the person of the Pope so now one may appeal from the high Commissioners to the person of the Queen See for that 24 H. 8. 12. Another Error was assigned because that the Commission gave authority to the Commissioners to adjudge upon confession of the party or upon the witnesses but here none of these two ways is found by the Verdict but sentence was given upon his Plea That he was sued in the Arches for the same cause and so they have not pursued their authority for the Act is That such Commissioners shall have authority by vertue of the said Act and of the said Letters Patents to exercise c. And they are directed by the Letters Patents that they shall proceed upon due proof had by confession or true witness to give sentence Periam Although they have not observed the due form prescribed unto them by the Letters Patents yet such sentence is not void Anderson If the party appeareth and will not answer it shall be taken pro confesso and he shall be condemned CCXVII Sir John Sand 's and Packsal Brocas 's Case Trin. 38 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIR John Sands brought an Action upon the Case against Packsal Brocas upon a Trover of goods and houshold-stuff The Defendant pleaded as to parcel that they were fixed to his Freehold in S. in Hampshire Absque hoc that he found them in other manner as to the part that the Plaintiff gave them to him at D. in Hampshire and as to the other part he pleaded Not guilty For the first part the Plaintiff caused it to be entred Non vult ulterius prosequi and took issue upon the two other and it was found for the Plaintiff by several Iuries in several Counties and damages and costs assessed by the Iuries and now the Defendant brought Error and assigned Error i. because the Plaintiff as to the first had entred Non vult ulterius prosequi which is a Non-suit and Non-suit in part is Non-suit in all Anderson It is a Question if this be a Non-suit The entry is Querens venit gratis concessit that as to the goods mentioned in the first Pleas Non vultulterius prosequi Ideo consideratum est quod nihil de iisdem versus the Defendant fiat est ille pleg in miseric the Defendant eat inde sine die Periam A Non-suit is when the Plaintiff is demanded and doth not appear but when he comes into Court and saith Quod non vult ulterius prosequi the same is a Retraxit Nelson Prothonotary Non-suit is upon default but here the Plaintiff appears and this is the usual form of entry of a Retraxit Another Error was assigned because both Iuries have assessed costs and Iudgment given according whereas the last Verdict ought to do it And where two Iuries are to try the issue the form of the entry after the first Verdict is Cesset executio untill the other issue be tryed Vid. 21 H. 6. 51. 36 H. 6. 13. Anderson Several issues cannot sever the costs although they may the damages for it is but one suit therefore but one costs and that is the reason that Iudgment shall not be given untill the last issue be tryed because that costs shall be but once assessed which was granted by the whole Court And by Periam The first Iury may assess costs for the whole suit Quod fuit concessum Coke Here are several Iudgments for the costs and although it be void for the later issue yet it is good for the first Periam How shall it appear unto us which Verdict was the first and which the last although that the one Verdict be entred of Record before the other the same doth not make that it was first given wherefore the whole shall be reversed CCXVIII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 224. A Man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his first son and his heirs The father and the Feoffees before issue for money by Deed give grant and enfeoff J. S. and his heirs who hath not notice of the use The Tenant for life hath issue and dieth the issue entreth Glanvile The use limited to the first son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and that the same is gone by their Livery See Plowden's Com. 340. And also he vouched the case of the Earl of Kent whereby the release of the surviving Feoffee a sleeping use was destroyed and could not afterwards be revived Harris The use may rise without entry of the Feoffees And he put a difference between uses created before the Statute and uses created after for in the first case they ought to enter and if they be disabled by any Act as in the case betwixt Gascoign and the Earl of Kent they shall never rise but in the later case all the authority and confidence is by the Statute out of the Feoffees and the uses contingent shall rise without aid of the Feoffees by the operation of the Law for the land is bound to the uses and charged with them As upon a Recovery in a Warrantia Chartae the land of the Defendant is charged pro loco tempore and according to the common experience in Conveyances for the payment of the Debts of the King as in the case betwixt Breden and Dennis The Debtor of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his heirs untill he makes default of payment of such a sum unto the King at such a day and upon default to the use of the King and his heirs Cooper There needs no entry of the Feoffees and he put the difference put before by Harris betwixt an use created before and an use created after the Statute And now the Feoffees have not any power to revive or destroy such cases but are onely as instruments to convey the uses for the use is created upon the Livery and is transferred by the Statute if the person to whom the use is limited be capable thereof at the time of the limitation thereof but if not the Law shall preserve the same and it cannot by any means be prevented And he put the case of Bro. Feoff to Uses 50. 30 H. 8. And there is a great difference betwixt an Vse limited before the Statute and after the Statute for now after the Statute the Feoffees have not any seisin whereof they may make a Feoffment And he put the case between Cheney and Oxenbridge Cheney leased to Oxenbridge for
in which was parcel demised and demiseable according to the custome of the said Manor by Copy in Fee whereof Langley was a Copiholder in Fee c. and the said Earl so seised enfeoffed divers persons of the said Manor unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Lord Lumley and Elizabeth his wife daughter of the said Earl and the heirs of their two bodies begotten who made a Lease of the said Customary lands by Indenture unto the Plaintiff for 100 years and the question was If by this Lease the lands be so severed from the Manor that the Copihold is extinct Walmesly took exception to the pleading for that Langley pleads That the custome within the Manor is That if any Copiholder seised of Customary lands of the said Manor dieth thereof seised having many sons That the youngest son shall inherit and he sheweth That the Lord of the said Manor granted to his father and his mother the said customary lands by Copy to have to his said father and mother and the heirs of his father c. And that his father died and that his mother survived him and died and he as youngest son according to the custome entred and he said That this custome set forth by the Defendant doth not maintain his entry For the custome intendeth but a general and immediate descent upon a Copy made unto a man and to his heirs but such is not the descent here for the wife surviveth during whose life the heir cannot enter nor is there here such Estate in the father of the Defendant unto whom the custome set forth in the Avowry can extend For the custome is alledged Where a Copyholder hath a Copyhold Estate to him and his heirs And here the Title of the Defendant is That a customary Estate was granted to the father and the mother and the heirs of the father so as this Estate is not within the Letter of the custome And to that purpose he cited the Case of Sir John Savage Sir John Savage's Case ante 109. late adjudged Where one entitled himself to a Copihold in this manner That within the Manor there is such a custome that if one taketh to wife any customary Tenant of the said Manor in Fee and hath issue by her he if he over-live such wife should be Tenant by the Curtesie and the Case in truth was That he married a woman who at the time of the marriage had not any Copihold but afterwards during the coverture a Copihold descended to her In that Case it was holden That no Tenancy by the Curtesie did accrue by that custome which did not extend but where the wife is a Copiholder at the marriage and a custome shall be in construction taken strictly and shall not be extended beyond the words of it And as to the matter in Law he said That by this Lease the custome was gone and then by consequence the customary Tenancy as to that land is determined for the Estate of the Copiholder is Secundum consuetudinem Manerii ad voluntatem Dom. And now by the Lease Langley cannot hold Secundum consuetudinem Manerii for now the services reserved upon the Copy and the advantages of Waste and other forfeitures are extinct so that if notwithstanding the Lease the customary interest should endure then such a Copiholder should hold this land discharged of all services c. in better Estate than any Freeholder at the Common Law and because the services in Law are discharge and cannot be recovered for that cause the customary interest is determined For the Case is 7 E. 4. 19. by Danby That the Copiholder shall have remedy against his Lord if he put him out for he payes a Fine when he enters but here during this Lease no Fine can be paid upon any descent c. and the Fine is the cause for which the Copiholder shall maintain his possession against the Lord But here no descent or surrender can be presented for there is not any Tenant who can do it See 21 E. 4. 80. by Brian As long as the Copiholder payeth unto the Lord the customs and services If the Lord putteth him out he shall have an Action of Trespass 42 E. 3. 25. If the Copiholder will not do his services the Lord shall seize the lands Dyer 100. 1 Cro. 35. And he resembled this Case to the case where the King grants lands probis hominibus de D. the same is a good Grant and that onely in respect of the Rent and for the reason of that it is a good Corporation But if the King releaseth the Rent the Corporation is dissolved and the Grant is become void Fenner Serjeant contrary and he said That by this Lease being the act of the Lord himself the customary interest is not determined c. And the whole Court was of clear opinion with Fenner That the Copihold did remain for otherwise by such practices of the Lords all the Copiholders in England might be defeated and if any prejudice be grown to the Lord by this act it is of his own doing and against his own act he shall not be relieved And by Periam Iustice The Lord by his act i. e. the making of the Lease hath destroyed his Seignory and lost the services as to this land And Windham Iustice said That the Lord himself had destroyed the custome as to the services but not as to the customary interest of the Tenant but the Lord Anderson was of opinion That the Rents and services do remain and if the Copiholder after such Lease committeth Waste that it is a forfeiture to the Lord and that will fall in evidence upon a trial although such Waste cannot be found by an ordinary presentment and the same Law which alloweth the Copiholder his Copihold interest against this Lease will allow unto the Lord his Rents and services and he said That the Lord shall have the Rents and services and not the Lessee Quod mirum against his own Lease See 33 Eliz. between Murrel and Smith now reported by the Lord Coke in his 4 Report fol. 20. CCLVIII. Russel and Broker 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RUssel brought Trespass against Broker 3 Len. 218. for cutting down of four Oakes The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. and that he is seised of a Messuage in D. And that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consuerunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad libitum suum capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in quolibet tempore anni but in fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is within the Forrest of c. and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de boscis c. per liberationem Forrestarii vel ejus Deputati prout boscus pati potest non ad exigentiam
meaning of the Obligee to have fine gold it was so taken 39 H. 6. 10. and 11. The word uterque id est quilibet pro parte sua See the Book so it was lately adjudged in the Court of Common-Pleas where three were bounden Et eorum uterque which was construed to be Quilibet for we ought always in construction of Deeds to have regard to the meaning of the parties and not to argue the aptness of the Latine word And I conceive That if a Lease be made for life the remainder puero of J. S. who hath a son and a daughter the son shall have the land c. for the most worthy shall be preferred and therefore if a Freeman marrieth a Neife she is enfranchised for ever according to the opinion of Fitzherbert which I hold to be good Law for the husband is the more worthy So if the Lease for life be made 〈◊〉 J. S. the remainder to the right heirs of A. B. who hath issue three daughters and dieth the eldest shall have the remainder and not the other with her because she is the more worthy and so a remainder upon an Estate for life of lands in Gavelkind limited to the right heirs of J. S. who hath issue two sons the eldest shall have it So here in the principal Case Puer shall be expounded son because he is the more worthy But here are other circumstances which give occasion of another construction for this doubtfull word Puer is explained by the English Indenture which the father W. Humphreston caused to be made Unto the use of the eldest Child which is a good exposition of the former Conveyance and I am of opinion that the same ought to be meant of the daughter for so soon as she is born the remainder vests in her and by the birth of the son after shall not be devested Land is leased to A. for life the remainder to T. son of A. who hath two sons of the same name the eldest shall have it because the more worthy but if afterwards the Donor declares his meaning to the contrary the same shall stand c. And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff and that the daughter should have the Lands CCLXXVI Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Poph. 182. Hughs Abr. Tit. Devise 657. Case 5. Savile 72 73. Dy. 371. b. Shep. Touch. 449. 15 H. 7. 12. Ante 43. Perk. 547. A Man devised his Lands to his Wife for life and because he was in doubt whether he should have issue or no he farther willed by his Will That if he should not have any issue by his Wife that then after the death of his Wife the lands should be sold and the money thereof coming distributed to three of his bloud and made his Wife and another his Executors and died The Executors proved the Will The other Executor died and the Wife sold the lands and it was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustices That the sale was good although it be not expressed in the Will by whom the Lands should be sold for the moneys coming of the sale are to be distributed by his Executors to persons certain as Legacies and it appertains to Executors to pay the Legacies and therefore they shall sell c. As if a man willeth That his lands shall be sold and that the moneys coming thereof shall be disposed of for the payment of his debts now the Executors shall sell the Lands for to them it belongs to pay debts Also they held 3 Cro. 278. 3. More 341. 1 Inst 113. a. 1 And. 145. that the Lands should be sold in the life of the Wife otherwise it could never be sold and also the surviving Executor shall sell the lands because the authority doth survive CCLXXVII Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THree men were bounden by Recognizance jointly and severally against all which the Conusee sued forth Execution by Scire facias and upon issue joined it was found for the Plaintiff in the King's-Bench and Execution awarded by Capias ad Satisfaciend And because the same erronicè emanavit being upon a Recognizance it was drawn off the File and now the Conusee brought an Action of debt upon the Iudgment against one of them and the opinion of the whole Court was that it would not lie because the Iudgment was joint against them all three CCLXXVIII Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A. Brought an Action upon the Case and declared That the Dean and Chapter of Westminster did lease unto him a house for years by Deed indented of which Indenture he was possessed and afterwards lost it and by Trover it came to the hands of the Defendant who sold it and converted the money thereof coming to his own use The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and the Plaintiff gave in evidence That the said Lease was made to him and to one B. and that the said Indenture was delivered to the said B. And that was agreed to be the possession of them both and afterwards B. died and afterwards A. the Plaintiff was the sole owner of it and that was holdden to be good Evidence on the part of the Plaintiff and if the Plaintiff can prove the other part of his Declaration i. e. that the Indenture came unto the hands of the Defendant and that he sold it that then he should recover But it was given in Evidence on the Defendants parts that the said B. sold to the said Defendant his part and interest in the said Lease and also the said indenture so as now he is become Tenant in common with the Plaintiff and then his sale doth not give any cause of Action to the Plaintiff and that was holden by the whole Court to be good evidence without pleading of it The Case went farther That A. being within age his father leased the lands for 20 years and afterwards the son at his full age upon the back of the Indenture did release to the Defendant all his right and it was holden by Wray Iustice That when the father leased he did it as Guardian to his son and it was not any Ejectment of the son but it was a Lease in the behalf of the son although the son might avoid it and then when the endorsment is ut supra the same is a good assignment and afterwards the Plaintiff was Nonsuit CCLXXIX Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That B. by his Will did devise to each of his daughters he having two daughters 200 l. and that the survivor should have the whole and shewed farther that one of his two daughters died and that B. made his Wife his Executrix and that the said wife took to husband the Defendant and farther declared That the Defendant in consideration of all that and that the Defendant should take the surviving daughter to wife and in consideration that the Defendant had Assets to pay all Debts and
John Mutton took to wife the now Tenant upon which Bar the Demandant did demur in Law. And it was argued by Jeofries Serjeant 13 Co. 48 49 54 55 56. 1 Co. 101. 3 Len. 253. That here the wife taketh nothing by this limitation because she was not capable thereof at the time of the limitation But if the use had been limited especially to John Mutton untill he took a wife and then unto the use of him and his wife for their lives the same had been a good use to the wife But in our Case the use is limited to the wife in praesenti and not upon a contingent and because the wife at the time of the limitation was not capable she shall never take after and yet it may be said That a joynt Estate may be in esse and yet to begin at several times as 18 E. 4. 12. A Feoffment is made to three and Livery is made to one of them and first one of them agrees to the Livery and a year after another agreeth and afterwards the third although they take nothing untill agreement yet when they have agreed the agreement shall have relation to the time of the Livery but in truth the reason thereof is because the Freehold shall be adjudged in them all untill they have disagreed And if a disseisin be to the use of A. B. and C. And first A. agrees to it and afterward B. and after C. although they took nothing untill agreement yet when they have agreed their agreement shall have relation to the time of the first disseisin and if in such case the Disseisor had made a Lease before agreement the party to whose use after agreeing shall avoid such Lease CCLXXXIV Stamford 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was A. took a wife and afterwards married Elizabeth Stamford living his first wife and by Deed gave part of his goods to the said Elizabeth and as to the residue of his goods being but of small value he made the said Elizabeth his Executrix and died she refused the Executorship for which the Ordinary committed Adminstration to B. Gawdy Serjeant asked the advice of the Court against whom the Action of Debt should lie for if the Creditor impleadeth the Administrator he hath not Assets if the Executrix her self she will plead that she hath renounced the Cxecutorship and that Administration is committed to B. And the opinion of Dyer Iustice was That the Gift is void by the Common Law and also by the Statute of 13 Eliz. and then if the Gift be void any way the Creditor may have an Action of Debt against the said Elizabeth as Executor of her own wrong And see that such a Gift is void by the Common Law 43 E. 3. 2. And by Manwood Iustice He who takes the goods of the dead shall not be charged as executor of his own wrong unless he doth something as Executor as to pay Debts make Acquittances c. See 41 E. 3. 31. 32 H. 6. 7. Dyer If one takes the goods of the dead and converteth them to his own use he is chargeable as Executor and so it hath been adjudged in the time of this Queen in the Case of one Stokes which was affirmed by Bendloes and Harper See now Co. 2 Part. 53. Reade's Case where no lawfull Executor or Administrator is there if a stranger takes the goods of the dead into his possession the same is a good Administration to charge him as Executor of his own wrong CCLXXXV Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Ante 178. THE Case was A man made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail and after to the use of his right heirs not having at the time of the Feoffment any son afterwards he suffered a common Recovery had issue a son who died in the life of his father having issue a son and afterwards he himself died It was holden by the Iustices in this Case That the son and heir of the son should not avoid this Recovery by the Statute of 32 H. 8. for there was not any remainder in him at the time of the Recovery had and the words of the said Statute are That such Recovery shall be void against such persons to whom the reversion or remainder shall then appertain i. e. at the time of such Recovery And it was said by one of the Serjeants at Bar That if lands be given to E. for life the remainder to B. in tail the remainder to C. in Fee B. dyeth his wife young with child with a son a Recovery is had against E. with the issue of C. and afterwards the son is born he shall not be helped by this Statute of 32 H. 8. for that remainder was not in esse at the time of the Recovery But it was holden in the principal Case That the heir might avoid the said Recovery by the Common Law for the recompence cannot extend to such a remainder which is not in esse CCLXXXVI Sidenham and Worlington 's Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 42. IN an Action upon the Case upon a Promise the Plaintiff declared That he at the request of the Defendant was surety and bail for J. S. who was arrested in the King's Bench upon an Action of 30 l. and that afterwards for the default of J. S. he was constrained to pay the 30 l. after which the Defendant meeting with the Plaintiff promised him for the same consideration That he would repay that 30 l. which he did not pay upon which the Plaintiff brought the Action the Defendant pleaded Non assumpsit upon which issue was joyned which was found for the Plaintiff Walmsley Serjeant for the Defendant moved the Court That this consideration will not maintain the Action because the consideration and promise did not concur and go together for the consideration was long before executed so as now it cannot be intended that the promise was for the same consideration As if one giveth me a Horse and a Month after I promise him 10 l. for the said Horse he shall never have Debt for the 10 l. nor Assumpsit upon that promise for there is neither contract nor consideration because the same is executed Anderson This Action will not lie for it is but a bare agreement nudum pactum because the contract was determined and not in esse at the time of the promise But he said it is otherwise upon a consideration of marriage of one of his cosins for marriage is always a present consideration Windham agreed with Anderson and he put the Case in 3 H. 7. If one selleth a Horse unto another and at another day he will warrant him to be sound of limb and member it is a void warrant for that such warranty ought to have been made or given at such time as the Horse was sold Periam Iustice conceived That the Action
the Defendant is cosin and heir of the Devisor and that he as heir entred and did the Trespass First it was agreed by all That by the first words of the Will the three Devisees had but for their lives But Fenner and Walmesley who argued for the Plaintiffs conceived that by force of the latter words scil If the said John Stephen and Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their body lawfully begotten Then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their heirs in manner aforesaid c. that they have Fee and the words in manner aforesaid are to be referred not to the Estate which was given by the first words which was but for life but to make them to hold in severalty as the first Devise would and not jointly as the words of the second Devise do purport And Fenner said It had been resolved by good opinion That where a Fine was levied to the use of the Conusee and his Wife and of the heirs of the body of the Conusor with divers Remainders over Proviso That it should be lawfull to the survivor of them to make Leases of the said Lands in such manner as Tenant in tail might make by the Statute of 32 H. 8. Although those Lands were never devised before the Fine yet the Wife survivor might demise them by force of the Proviso notwithstanding the words in manner c. So if Lands be given to A. for life upon condition the remainder to B. in manner aforesaid these words in manner aforesaid shall refer unto the Estate for life limited to A. and not to the Condition nor to any other collateral matter The words If they live untill they be of full age and have issue are words of Condition and shall not be construed to such purpose to give to them by implication an Estate tail for the words subsequent are That they shall have to them and their heirs to give and sell at their pleasures by which it appeareth that his intent was not to make an Estate tail for Tenant in tail cannot alien or dispose of his Estate c. And as to the latter words And if it fortune they three to die without issue c. these words cannot make an Estate tail and the express limitation of Fee in the former part of the Will shall not be controlled by implication out of the subsequent words As if Lessee for fourty years deviseth his term to his Wife for twenty years and if she die the remainder of the term to another although she survive the twenty years she shall not hold over And here the second sale appointed to be made by the Executor shall not take away the power of the first sale allowed unto the Devisees after issue Snagg and Shuttleworth Serjeants to the contrary And they said that the Defendant hath right to two parts for no Inheritance vesteth in the Devisees until full age and issue and because two of the Devisees died without issue they never had an Inheritance in their two parts and so those two parts do descend to the Defendant as heir to the Devisor no sale being made by the Executor These words If John Stephen and Roger are to be taken Distributive viz. If John live c. are to be taken Distributive scil If John live untill c. he shall have Inheritance in his part Et sic de reliquis As if I have right unto Lands which A. B. and C. hold in common and I by Deed release unto them all the same shall inure to them severally 19 H. 6. And here these latter words If they three die without issue it seems to be but an Estate tail See to that purpose 35 Ass 14. 37 Ass 15. For a man cannot declare his intent at once but in several parts all which make but one Inheritance and so it is said by Persay 37 Ass 15. we ought to adjudge upon all the Deed and not upon parcell And see Clatche's Case 16 Eliz Dyer 330 331. And it was said That if I give Lands to one and his heirs as long as J. S. hath heirs of his body the same is a Fee-simple determinable and not an Estate tail Quaere of that Then here the Fee-simple is determined by the death of the Devisees without issue and therefore the Lands shall revert to the heir of the Devisor especially there being no person in rerum natura who may sell for the Executor before any sale by him made died intestate and if he had made Executors yet the Executor of the Executor could not sell which see 19 H. 8. 9 10. And afterwards the Iustices resolved That no Estate tail is created by the Will but that the Fee-simple is settled in them when they came to their lawfull age and have issue so as the residue of the Devise is void And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs XCIII Hil. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. THE Case was this viz. By the Civil Law the Parson ought to have his Tythe by the tenth Ridg And in a great Field there was Corn upon the Arable Land Roll. 646. and Grass upon the Head Lands and in a Suit for Tythe Hay and Rakings of the Corn the Defendant did prescribe to pay the tenth Shock of Corn for all the Corn Hay and Rakings of the Corn and the Prescription was challenged not to be good for it is upon the matter a Prescription of Non Decimando for the tenth Shock is due of common Right and so nothing is for the Hay and Rakings It was holden by all the Iustices That for tying of Horses upon the Head Lands and eating of the Grass and Corn together that the Prescription was good But the doubt was when the Grass is made into Hay which is upon the Head Lands If it be a good Prescription then and discharge for the Hay because it is another thing than what is growing upon the Land But in the end all the Iustices agreed That by the Civil Law ut supra the tenth Ridg is due for Tythe Corn 1 Cro. 446. 475. therefore for the reaping binding and shocking it is a reasonable Prescription that the party shall have the Hay upon the Head Lands in recompence of the said other things and the Hay upon the Head Lands is but of little value XCIV 29 Eliz. Challoner and Bowyer 's Case IN Assise of Novel Disseisin by Challoner against Bowyer it was given in Evidence at the Assise That William Bowyer was seised and having issue two Sons and two Daughters devised his Lands to his younger Son in tail and for want of such issue to the Heirs of the body of his eldest Son and if he die without issue that then the Land shall remain to his two Daughters in Fee William Bowyer dieth the younger Son dieth without issue living the eldest Son having issue him who is Tenant in the Assise It was moved That notwithstanding that by way of Grant the
Son living his Father cannot take as heir i. by limitation as Heir to his Father because that none can be said or held Heir to his Father as long as the Father be alive yet by way of Devise the Law shall favour the intention of the party and the intent of the Devisor shall prevail But all the Court was strongly against it and held that as well in Case of Devise as of Grant all is one Whereupon the Tenant produced Witnesses who affirmed upon their Oaths That the Devisor declared his meaning concerning the said Will That as long as his eldest Son had issue of his body that the Daughters should not have the Land but the Court utterly rejected the matter and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XCV the Countess of Linnox Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN this Case it was said by Manwood chief Baron That whereas the Cistercians c. had a Privilege that they should not pay Tithes for their Lands quas propriis manibus excolant but their Fermors should pay Tithes and now by the Statute of 31 H. 8. they are dissolved That the Queen and her Fermors should be discharged of such Tithes as the spiritual persons were for the Queen cannot excolere ergo her Fermors shall be discharged and so long as the Queen hath the Freehold her Fermors shall have such Privilege although she Leaseth for years or at Will But if the Queen granteth over the Reversion then the Fermors shall pay Tithes More Rep. 915. XCVI Golding 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case against Gloding the Case was 1 Len. 296. 1 Cro. 50. Noy 18. A Feme sole being Tenant for life by Devise of Lands Leased the same for years to begin after her death and afterwards made another Lease 18 Octob. for twenty one years to the same Lessee to begin at Michaelmas before and the Pleading was Virtute cujus quidem dimissionis and the Lessee entred Crast Sanct. Mich. which was before the making of the Lease And upon the Grant of these two Leases the consideration of Assumpsit was grounded in an Action of the Case thereupon and six hundred pounds damages given And now this was moved in Arrest of Iudgment Coke for the Plaintiff Where two Considerations are laid down in the Declaration although that the one be void yet if the other be sufficient the Action upon the Assumpsit lieth and damages shall be taken accordingly And the Grant upon the Assumpsit was That both the Leases should be assigned to the Defendant and the Plaintiff hath declared accordingly although that one of the Leases be void And the Agreement was That the Plaintiff should assign totum statum titulum interesse suum quae habet in c. It appears here in the Pleading That the Lease was made the eighteenth of October and the Lessee did enter and was thereof possessed Crast Mich. which was before and so the Lessee then entering was a Disseisor But by Coke the same is not a Disseisin although that the Lessee entreth before the Lease made for there was a communication of a Lease although the Lease was not made before the eighteenth of October and peradventure it was by assent of the Lessor in which case it cannot be a Disseisin but be it a Disseisin yet in as much as he hath assigned all his interest quod ipse tunc habuit the Consideration is answered and he hath also delivered both the Indentures of Demise and hath granted all that which he might grant be such Grant void or good it is good Consideration enough as to us Egerton Solicitor contrary In every Action upon the Case upon a Promise there are three things considerable Consideration Promise and Breach of Promise As to the Consideration in our Case the Grant of the Lease which is to begin after the death of the Lessor is merely void And as to the second Consideration it appeareth That the Lessor at the time of the making of the Lease had but a Right for he was disseised for he who was afterwards the Lessee entred before he had any Lease made unto him and so here is not any consideration to ground the Assumpsit upon But admit that there be a consideration yet the Action doth not lie For 19 Eliz. a difference was taken by the Iustices scil When in the Declaration in an Action upon the Case two or more considerations are laid and are not collateral but pursuant As if I owe you an hundred pounds and I say That in consideration that I owe you 100 l. and in consideration that you shall give me 10 l. I promise to pay unto you the said hundred pounds which I owe you If you bring an Action upon the Case against me for the hundred pounds and lay in your Declaration both considerations although you do not pay me the ten pounds yet the Action lieth But where the considerations are not pursuant but meerly collateral and do not depend the one upon the other As in consideration that you are of my Councel and you shall ride with me to York I promise to give to you an hundred pounds there both considerations ought to be performed or otherwise the Action doth not lie and so here in the principal Case the considerations being collateral they both ought to be performed Afterwards upon consideration had of the Case by the Court Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and it was said by Coke That there was not any Disseisin in the Case but he who entred was Tenant at sufferance by reason of the precedent communication XCVII Curtise and Cottel 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was this That one Bonham was seised of a Manor within which there were divers Customary Lands demisable by Copy for three lives The Lord of the Manor did demise some of those Lands to three Sisters Habendum to them for their lives successive for the Fine of 100 l. by them paid and they being seised accordingly the eldest Sister who was Tenant in possession took to Husband one Chapman after which the said Lord by Indenture leased the same Land to the eldest Sister the Remainder to the Husband the Remainder to the second Sister and no Agreement was made thereunto by the second Sister by Deed before or after the making of the Indenture but four days after the Lease made she agreed to it in the Country and then took to Husband Curtise and they entred claiming the said Land upon which Entry the Action was brought The point was That when the Lease by Indenture was made to the eldest Sister at which time no agreement was made by the second Sister who was in Remainder yet when after she agreed If by that Agreement her Right to the Copihold were extinct or not so as the interest of the eldest Sister being gone by the acceptance of the Estate by the Indenture the second Sister might come and claim