A. who is admitted he shall not hold the Land charged and so it was adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas. CCXXXVII Mich. 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden by all the Iustices in the Common Pleas That the Queen might be put out of possession of an Advowson by two Vsurpations and shall be put to her Writ of Right of Advowson as a common person shall be for it is a thing transitory and if the Queen after such Vsurpations grant the Advowson the Grant is void and so it was adjudged CCXXXVIII Mich. 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Tenant in tail the remainder over to another in Fee makes a Lease for life according to the Statute and afterwards dyes without Issue and afterwards he in the Remainder grants his Remainder by Fine before any Entry and by Fenner the Conusee cannot now enter upon Tenant for life nor avoid his lease for by the Livery to the Tenant for life a Freehold passeth which cannot be avoided without an Entry As if a Parson makes a lease for life rendring rent and dyeth the Successor accepteth the rent now the lease is affirmed vide 18 E. 4. 25. and then when before any Entry he in the remainder grants his remainder the Grantee shall have it but as a remainder and so the Estate of the Tenant for life which before was voidable is now made good and so it was holden by Windham and Periam But by Mead and Dyer by the death of Tenant in tail without Issue the lease for life is become void for the Estate out of which the Estate for life is derived is determined by the dying without Issue Ergo c. Vide 21 H. 7. 12. A lease for life is made upon condition That if the Lessor pay to the Lessee at such a day 20 l. that his Estate shall cease now by the performance of the Condition the Estate is determined without any Entry CCXXXIX 32 H. 8. In the Common Pleas. NOte by all the Iustices of the Common Pleas That if a man holds of the King in chief by Knights Service and also holds of another Lord by Knights Service and dyeth his heir within age and the King seizeth the Wardship of the Body and Land and afterwards the heir cometh of full age and before Livery sued the other Lord grants over his Seignory to another and the heir Attorns It is a good Attornment and also Seisin of the Services had by such Lord by the hands of such an heir before Livery sued is good enough and shall bind him afterwards in an Avowry c. Temps H. 8. Vide 31 H. 8. Rot. 420. CCXL Sir William Hollis Case SIr William Hollis brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry Godfrey Fuliamb Kt. and William Waltham Clark The Case was Sir Ralph Langford Kt. was seized of the Manor of D. to which the Advowson was appendant and presented to the same Church one A. his Clark who was admitted c. And afterwards the said Sir Ralph granted the next Avoidance of the same Church to Sir Godfrey Fuliamb James Fuliamb George Fuliamb and William Walton eorum uni conjunctim divisim afterward the said Sir Ralph granted by fine the said Manor with the Advowson to Sir William Hollis in Fee the Church became void the said Sir Godfrey Fuliamb presented the said Waltham his Clark who was admitted c. And upon Argument at the Bar and Bench It was adjudged against the Plaintiff and the Presentment of Sir Godfrey sole without the others was good Notwithstanding also that Waltham the Presentee was one of the Grantees of the next Avoidance Tr. 31 H. 8. Rott 420. Vide 21 E. 4. 66. 35 H. 6. 62. See this Case lately Reported in Sir George Mores Reports by the name of Sir Godfrey Fuliambs Case CCXLI. Temps Roign Eliz. NOte by Hind and Hales the Kings Attorney Iustices of Assize in the County of Essex in the Case of the Bishop of London and one Heron Keeper of Cronden Park if the Keeper of my Park or any of his Servants without his assent of their own heads and without my commandment kill my Deers within the said Park being within his keeping or abateth or pulleth down any house within the Park or Barn for to lay Hay for the Deer there or cutteth any Trees Wood or Vnderwoods there growing and sells the same or gives it to another that in all these cases the Keeper of the Park shall forfeit his Office And it was agreed by them That such a Keeper hath not any estate or possession in the Park or in the Lodge but the possession remains always in the Owner of the Soil of the Park and the Keeper hath but the occupation and keeping and the surveying of the same for such a Keeper cannot justifie the holding of the Lodge with force in a Writ brought upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. by the Owner of the Park but it was agreed that he who hath the inheritance in such an Office shall not forfeit his Office for the causes aforesaid Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLII. Fitz and Pierces Case IN Ejectione firmae by Fitz against Pierce Pierce was outlawed and now came and shewed by way of Plea that the outlawry was erronious in this videlicet ad Com' meum tent ' 30 Jan. 29 Eliz. whereas the said day was Dies Dominicus and so there was no County Court It was the Opinion of Windham that the same matter did well lye in Plea for it is matter apparent within the Record as in the case of Brecket and Fish Plowd Com. 266. Rhodes and Periam were of a contrary Opinion and said the case cited is not like to the case at Bar for there it appeareth to the Court as Iudges when every Term beginneth and endeth but it is otherwise in our case si 30 die Januarii be dies Dominicus necne for it shall be tryed by the Country c. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLIII Keenes Case RAlph Keene Vicar of B. was Indicted for stopping quandam viam valde necessariam Indictment Nusance for all the Kings Subjects there passing Exception was taken to it because it wanted the word Regiam and the word necessariam doth not imply any matter for a Foot way is necessary Addition Also here the Party hath not any addition It is R. K. but it is not said Clarke and for these causes the Party was discharged Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLIV Peake and Pollorts Case ACtion upon the Case by Peake against Pollort Words upon these words Thou art a malicious and sedicious man and movest the Queens Subjects to Sedition It was the Opinion of the Court that the words were not actionable for they were too general for it may be that the Defendant hath stirred up the Tenants of a Manor to Tumults and Sedition which is not any great Scandal And the Statute of
where the Suit is Tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso CXXII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Debt IF Rent-corn be reserved upon a Lease for years and it is behind for two or three years the Lessor may have Debt for the Corn and shall declare of so much Corn and it shall be in the Detinet but yet he shall not have Iudgment to have Corn but so much mony as the Corn was worth every several year being accompted Clark Baron doubted if he shall recover the price of the Corn as it was at the time when it was payable or it was at the time of the Action brought Manwood The Law is clear that the Lessee shall pay according to the price it was at the time of the payment and delivery limited by the Lease Clark said A is bound to pay and deliver to the Obligee 10 Bushels of Wheat and no place is appointed where the payment shall be made the Obligor is not bound to seek the Obligee in what place soever as it is in Case of payment of mony for that the importableness therefore shall excuse him which Manwood granted CXXIII Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Barons Fine for Alienation without Licence that for Fines for Alienation without licence not only the Land aliened but the other Lands of the Alienor shall be chargeable Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXXIV Prowses Case IT was holden in the Case of one Prowse by Egerton Solicitor Tythes upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. where an Abbot had a Rectory impropriate and also Land within the same Parish c. and so paid no Tythes because he could not pay them to himself and for no other cause was discharged and after the Dissolution the Rectory is granted to one and the Land to another that in such Case the King nor his Patentees should not be discharged of Tythes for the Lands were not discharged in Right but if the Lands in the hands of the Abbot were discharged in Right as by composition or lawful means there the King and his Patentee should be discharged from payment of Tythes And it was said by Burliegh Lord Treasurer that if the Composition or Custom was that the Abbot and his Successors should be discharged without extending to Farmors or Lessees if the Abbot made a Lease and the Lessee paid Tythes as he ought and after the Reversion cometh to the King the Lessee should pay Tythes during his Lease but after the Lease determined the King and his Patentee should not pay but should be discharged by the said Statute and said the like matter was in the Chancery Trin. 30 Eliz. The Abbot of Tewkesbury having the Rectory impropriate of Tewkesbury 11 H. 7. purchased Lands within the said Parish to him and his Successors Unity no discharge of Tythes after the dissolution the King granted to G. the Rectory and to W. the Lands and if W. should pay Tythes was referred to Manwood and Periam who gave their Resolution that Tythes were payable Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXV Ropers Case ROper was robbed by Smith and within a week after the Robbery he preferred an Indictment against him and within a month after the Robbery he sued an Appeal against Smith and prosecuted it until he was out-lawed and thereupon Cook moved to have Restitution and they of the Crown Office said that the Fresh-suit was not enquired for upon an Appeal one shall not have Restitution without Fresh-suit Restitution Cook The Books are if the Defendant in the Appeal of Robbery be attainted by Verdict Fresh Suit. the Fresh-suit shall be enquired of But here he was attainted by Outlary and not by Verdict and so the Fresh-suit could not be enquired of and here the Indictment is within a week and the Appeal within a month after the Robbery is a Fresh-suit Wray Chief Iustice In our Law he is to pursue the Felon from Town to Town but the suing of the Appeal is no Fresh-suit vide 21 F. 4.16 Restitution grounded upon Outlawry and Appeal of Robbery without Fresh-suit enquired of 1 H. 4. 5. if he confess the Felony and so is 2 R. 3. 13. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVI Piers and Leversuches Case IN Ejectione firmae by Piers against Leversuch It was found by Verdict that one Robert Leversuch Grandfather of the Defendant was Tenant in Tail of the Land whereof c. and made Lease for years to Purn who assigned it over to Piers the Plaintiffs Father Robert Leversuch died W. his Son entred upon Piers who re-entred W. demised the Lands without other words to P. for life the remainder to Joan his wife for life the remainder to the Son of P. for life with warranty and made a Letter of Attorney to re-enter and deliver seisin accordingly P. died before that the Livery was executed and afterwards the Attorney made Livery to Joan W. died Edward his Son and Heir entred upon his Wife she re-entred and let the Land to the Plaintiff who upon an Ouster brought the Action Heal Serjeant When P. entred upon W. Leversuch the Issue in Tail he was a Disseisor and by his death the Land descending to his Heir the entry was taken away of W. Leversuch Cook contrary P. by his entry was not a Disseisor but at the Election of W. for when P. accepted such a Deed of W. it appeared that his intent was not to enter as a Disseisor and it is not found that the said P. had any Son and Heir at the time of his death and if not then no descent and there is not any disseisin found that P. expulit Leversuch out of the Land and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And Cook cited a Case which was adjudged in the Common Pleas it was Skipwiths Case Grandfather Tenant in Tail Father and Son the Grandfather died the Father entred and paid the rent to the Lessor and died in possession and it was adjudged the same was not any descent for the paying of the rent explained by what title he entred and so shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of another Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVII Penhalls Case PEnhall was indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for drawing his Dagger in the Church against J. S. without saying that he drew it with intent to strike the Party and for that cause the Indictment was holden void as to the Statute It was moved if it should not bee a good Indictment for the Assault so as he should be fined for the same By Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court the Indictment is void in all for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and then the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVIII Weshbourns Case WEshbourn and Brown were Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. and exception was
the Land be holden of the Queen and so Nature cannot be transferred therefore neither this Proviso And so is the Tenure of Frankalmoigne 35 H. 6. 58. and it should be a great rigour to take the bridle out of the hands of the Natural Vncle into the hands of Iustice which is Manus regia And he cited the Case of the Lord Norris where it was rul'd That where the Act of Attainder of Norris gave to the King all Rights Titles c. yet a Writ of Error was not given thereby Manwood Actions are not expresly given by the said Act of Attainder As to the second point I conceive that the Coveyance is become void when the terms within the two years are passed and shall not expect until the two years be expired for the Inrollment ought to be within the term so that if all the terms of the two years be past it is now impossible for to inroll the Deed within the time limited by the Statute and then by 29 H. 8 the Conveyance is void and then is the Queen seized in Fee at the time of the making of the Lease by the Attainder of Sir Francis As to the Certificate without Office it is not sufficient to entitle the Queen to the Land and I deny the difference put by Popham between a Condition to be performed on the part of the Patentee and on the part of the King I confess that a Certificate to inform the Queen or her Councel of the quantity quality value c. of the Land is good without Office but not to entitle the Queen de novo to the Inheritance of another I grant that the Commission is of Record but the tender of the King is matter in pais and not of Record Three things ought to be observed in every Certificate to make it a good and lawful Certificate according to the course of the common Law unless it be in cases of necessity as in case of Ouster le mere c. 1. It ought not to be in the absence of the party 2. It ought to be pendente placito convocatis in ea parte convocandis 3. It ought to be directed to a known Officer but a thing certified by a private person being no Officer cannot be good Also a Certificate according to the course of the common Law being good is not traversable At another day the Case was argued by Egerton Solicitor for the Queen The Condition is given to the Queen by 33 H. 8. and also by 29 Eliz. and this Condition in it self is a general and ordinary Condition and rests not in privity and such an Act as may be made by any stranger as well as by Sir Francis himself scil the tender of the King. The reasons which moved Sir Francis to knit this Condition to the Conveyance were natural but the Proviso and the performance of it not tryed to Nature and therefore all the cases of privity are here out of Seisin As to the Lord Brays Case the same was not any Wardship but only an Order for the government or his Son and Heir for the Wardship of the Father in the Son is not a Chattel in him As to the Case of the Lord Norris the Writ of Error could not accrue to the Queen for by the Act of Attainder no Actions were given to the King And here is not any such privity as hath been pretended for by the words of the Proviso the Ring might be tendred to his Executors or Administrators therefore the Condition might be tendred when he is dead therefore without privity Title for alienation in Mortmain of Lands purchased by a Villain of the King or for a Condition broken are not in the King before Office But here the Condition is to be performed on the part of the Queen which her Royal Majesty cannot perform and therefore Commissioners are appointed to do it which they have done and upon the Commission retorned have informed the Queen of all the performance of it and all is now upon Record And there is a great difference between Certificates as in our case and Certificates which have been cited on the other side which are used to make Tryals upon Issues joyned betwixt party and party and in such Certificates I confess the Law as Cook hath argued The Sheriff is not known to be such an Officer but by his Commission under the Great Seal he upon a Writ of the King to him directed Summons Disseisins Attaches c. these are matters in fait but when the Sheriff hath retorned his Service then it is become matter of Record So in our case the retorn of the tender c. where the Queen is to be informed of the Lands of the Subject which she is to have there ought to be an Office but here the Queen is to do an act and that she hath done under the Great Seal by Commission by the Retorn of which she is in the whole matter therefore there needs not an Office to inform her of that which she her self hath done by another Authorized by her to do it And he said that the Leases made by the Queen being Tenant pur auter vie were not void ab initio but from the time of the two years but now the Estate of the Queen for life is determined therefore also the Leases derived out of it Exception hath been taken to the Information scil Praedictus Franc ' per Indenturam suam factam inter c. without saying sigillo suo sigillat ' that is good enough for facta esse non potuit nisi etiam sit sigillat ' therefore facta includes sigillat ' And afterwards Trin. 33. Eliz. this Case was argued by the Barons Clark puisne Baron said That Iudgment ought to be given for the Queen And first he said I conceive that here upon this Indenture is no use created in Sir Francis for he shall pay for a Licence of Alienation if the Lands be holden in chief and they themselves in pleading the uses say Virtute cujus the said Sir Francis was seized in his Demesne as of Freehold for his life the remainder thereof c. Although this Condition be tyed to Nature and rests in privity as hath been objected and so inseparable yet by Act of Parliament it may be transferred Impropriations Frankalmoign Frankmarriage Guardianship in Socage cannot be given away regularly but by Act of Parliament they may which vide for Impropriations by the Statute of 31 H. 8. Impropriations of Abbies and Priories dissolved nam Parliamentum omnia potest It may alter the nature of Lands make Gavelkind discendable according to the course of the common Law and so of Borough-English Attaint Error Disceit c. are Actions which lye in privity yet by Act of Parliament they may be transferred And in the case of the Lord Norris If the Act of Attainder had given to the Queen all Actions she might have had a Writ of Error And we see by experience That the
he is not to have Damages because the Waste was not to his disinheresin and the Land he shall not recover against the Defendant for the Term is not determined and such was the Opinion of the Court. As to the matter in â—aw Shuttleworth said That the Action of Waste ought to be brought against the Lessee himself and not against the Assignee for when he grants over his Term excepting the Trees it is a good Exception for when the Land upon which the Trees grow is leased to another the Trees pass by the Lease as well as the Land and the property of them is in the Lessee during the Term by which when he grants his Land he may well except them as the first Lessor might have done and if the Lessee for years cutteth down the Trees the Lessor cannot take them for that he hath other sufficient remedy scil an Action of Waste Fenner and Walmsley contrary And they conceived that the Lessee had but a special Property in the Trees scil for Fire-bote Plough bote House-bote c. But if he demiseth the Land or granteth his Interest in it he cannot except the Trees nor his special Property in them no more than he who hath Common appendant may grant the Land excepting the Common And in such case the general Property in the Trees remains in the Lessor as parcel of his Inheritance And this appeareth by many cases 27 H. 8. 13. Lessee for life and he in the remainder joyn in a lease for life the Lessee commits Waste the Tenant for life and he in the remainder joyn in an Action of Waste the Tenant for life shall recover the place wasted and he in the reversion all the damages Vide 2 H. 7. 10 H. 7. cited before That the Lessor may licence the Lessee to cut the Trees which proves that the Property is in him And Vide 40 Ass 22. the Lessor shall have the Windfalls And as to that which hath been said That by the Exception of the Trees the Soil it self is also excepted that is true as to the Trees for nourishment and not otherwise for if the Lessor cutteth down the Trees or roots them up he shall not after meddle with the Land where c. but the Soil shall be entirely to the Lessee The Lessor during the Term may grant the Trees so cannot the Lessee therefore the greater and better Property in the Trees is in the Lessor and not in the Lessee and the Trees proprie loquendo are not parcel of the thing demised If this Exception of the Trees or Woods should hold place Inconvenience would follow for as it is holden in 15 H. 7. 11. If the Termor of Wood commits Waste in one corner of the Wood he should not lose all the Wood but that place only But if in the said Wood there are divers Plats of Land in divers places of the Wood if the Termor commits Waste in that Wood he shall lose all the said Plats although he hath not done waste in them for they are parcel of the Wood. Vide Temps E. 1. Fitz. Waste 127. and Vide ibidem Waste 112. 8 E. 2. Waste done in parcel of an House the whole House shall be recovered Vide also 30 E. 3. Fitz. Amendment 67. and 4 E. 3. Waste 10. Now if that be Law and the Exception be good how shall the place wasted be recovered here and against whom It seemed to the Lord Anderson That the Exception was void and that the Action was brought against the Assignee and he said it was a knavish and foolish Demise and if it should be effectual in Law some Mischiefs would follow which he would not remember Windham was of the same Opinion and that the Lessee could not assign his Estate with such Exception for he hath but a special Interest in the Trees scil for Fire-bote Plough-bote c. which should go with the Land. Periam conceived That as to such special Property that none could have it but he who hath the Land and therefore the Exception is void but as to the Fruit-trees such an Exception might be good and although that the Trees are not expresly demised yet quodam modo and after a sort they may be said demised as annexed to the Land and if waste be brought against him who made the Exception scil the Lessee he cannot say they were not let to him and therefore he doubted of the Exception And Rhodes doubted also of the Exception and Anderson said that he was clear of opinion that the Lessor should have the Windfalls and afterwards the Case was adjorned to be further argued c. Temps Roign Eliz. CCLXX. Audleys Case Uses THe Lord Audley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Somerset 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 followeth in effect viz My Will is that my said Feoffees shall stand seized to the use that the said Hoddy shall receive of the said Lands â—00 l which he had lent to the said Lord Audley and also to stand seized to pay all his Debts upon Bills signed with his hand and after â—he Debts paid that the Feoffees shall make an Estate of the said Lands to him the said Lord Audley and Joan his wife and to the heirs of their Bodies c. with divers Remainders over The said Lord Audley had Issue by the said Joan and also having Issue by a former wife a daughter the Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his wife and by the opinion of divers Iustices and Sages of the Law upon this matter no use was changed for it is not a last Will but an Intent and although that the Feoffees shall be seized to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because no consideration was wherefore they should be seized to their own uses yet the same could not make a new use to the said Lord and his wife in tail without conveying an Estate c. for the wife is a stranger to the Land and the same cannot be a Will or Testament for the Estate mentioned in the said writing ought to be made to the said Lord and his wife who could not take by his own Will and this matter was depending in the Chancery And the advise of the Iustices being there required they delivered their Opinions That by that writing no use was changed nor any use vested in the said Lord and his wife and a Decree was made accordingly until proof was made that such an Estate was made c. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXI. Walgrave and Somersets Case IN Trespass by Walgrave against Somerset the Case was That tenant at will cut down Trees and the Lessor brought Trespass vi armis And the Court was clear of opinion that the Action was well maintainable modo forma and Iudgment
of the first disturbance for that presentment did not pass to him being a thing in Action without mention thereof in his Grant. And if the Patentee brings a Quare Impedit of a second avoidance he shall make his presentment by the presentment of the King not making mention of the Vsurpation Yet if a Bishop present for Lops in the case of a common person he ought to make mention of it for that is a title to the Patron CCCXL Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench adjudged NOte In the Case of one Manning it was adjudged That where an Infant Executor sold the Goods of his Testator for a lesser price than they were worth and afterwards brought an Action of Detinue against the Vendee upon that Detinue in retardatione executionis Testamenti that the said Sale was good and should bind the Executor notwithstanding his Nonage 28 Eliz. In the Chancery CCCXLI The Lord Awdleys Case THe Lord Awdley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Somerset 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 followeth in effect viz. My Will is That my said Feoffees shall stand seized to the use that the said Hoddy shall receive of the profits of the Lands 100 l. which he had sent to the said Lord Awdley and also stand seized 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 Jone his Wife and to the Heirs of their two Bodies with divers Remainders over The said Lord had Issue by the said Jone and also had Issue by a former Wife a daughter the Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his Wife And by the Opinion of divers Iustices and Sages of the Laws that upon that matter no use was changed for it is not any last Will but an Intent And although that the Feoffees shall be seized to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because that no consideration was by which they should be seized to their own uses yet the same cannot make any Vse unto the said Lord and his Wife in tail without containing an Estate for the Wife is a Stranger to the Land And also it cannot be a Will for the Estate mentioned in the said writing ought to have been made to the said Lord and his Wife who cannot take the same by his Will. This matter depended in the Chancery And the advice of the Iustices being there required they delivered their Opinions That by the said Writing no Vse was changed nor any Estate vested in the said Lord and his Wife And a Decree was there made accordingly until proof be made that such an Estate was made CCCXLII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was in the Kings Bench in Debt It was found by Special Verdict That the Testator being possessed of divers Goods in London where he dyed and also at the time of his death the Queen being indebted unto him in the Sum of 4 l. 10 s. she then residing at Whitehall the Archbishop as Metropolitan granted licence of Administration to the Queen and the Bishop of London afterwards granted licence of Administration to J.S. The Court sent to the Civilians to appear in Court and to deliver their Opinions in this case And thereupon Lloyd Doctor of Law appeared and argued to this effect viz. That in ancient times in such cases the several Ordinaries committed several Administrations for the Goods in their Diocess respecive In which case the mischief was very great for the Creditor was driven to bring several Actions of the Administrators of the several Ordinaries Vide H. 7. 13 R. 2. Administrators 21. But afterwards upon a Decree upon a Composition in such cases the Metropolitan committed the Administration He further argued That debts cannot be said Bona Notabilia for they cannot be said within or without any County or Diocess and are things transitory and therefore called aes alienum And he said That the Administration granted by the Archbishop was void for as Archbishop he had not to intermeddle within the Diocess of another but as Legatus Papae And in the time of Hen. 2. Becket Archbishop of Canterbury was stiled Legatus Natus but now that power Legantine is determined and therefore the authority to commit Licences of Administration in another Diocess but in case of Bona Notabilia is determined And he said That by the Civil Law Jones Rep. 225. if a man deviseth all his Goods in such a County by that debts do not pass and yet by especial words a man may devise his debts Awbrey Doctor argued to the contrary and he confessed that in ancient times every Ordinary in such cases committed licences of Administration But he denied that the Prerogative which is now practised in such cases by the Metropolitan was given upon any Composition but that it began by Prescription If a man in his Iourney dyed in another Diocess notwithstanding that he had out with him but his necessary and ordinary Apparel in such case the Metropolitan committed the Administration and he said That as he conceived debts are Bona Notabilia secundum fictionem Legis they are local and he said to make Bona Notabilia it is sufficient if the Intestate have 3 l. in one Diocess and 2 l. in another Diocess But he said That posito that Bona Notabilia are not in the case yet the Administration granted by the Metropolitan is not void until it be revoked For although that the Metropolitan on the right of his Bishoprick hath not to intermeddle in another Diocess yet in this case because the Archbishop of Canterbury is a Patriarch For in Christendom there are four great Patriarchs and eight lesser Patriarchs whereof the Archbishop of Canterbury is one and by reason thereof he hath general Iurisdiction through all England Ireland c. But now by the Statute his Authority is restrained For he cannot cite any other out of other Diocess by any Process But notwithstanding he may do many great Acts by himself or his Chancellor in every Diocess and he argued very much upon the Prerogative of the Archbishop of Canterbury The Iustices did not then deliver any Opinion in this case Quaere If Letters of Administration of the Goods of a common person be committed to the Queen if good The case was adjourned Vide Cook 5 part Ucre and Jeffreys Case and Cook 8 part in Sir John Needhams Case for the Resolution of this Case CCCXLIII Pasc 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man made a Lease for life and afterwards made a Lease to another for years The Ordinary committed Licences of Administration to A. the Tenant for life and A. joyned in the purchase of the Fee-simple of the Land demised It was