the Sheriff because he is compellable to let him to bail but this is an Action at the Common Law for a false Return which if it should not be maintainable the design of the Statute would be defrauded for the Plaintiff cannot controll the Sheriff in his taking bail but he may take what persons and what bail he pleaseth and if he should not be chargeable in an Action for not having the body ready the Plaintiff could never have the effect of his Suit and although the Sheriff be chargeable he will be at no prejudice for he may repair his loss by the bail-bond and it is his own fault if he takes not security sufficient to answer the Debt The last clause in the Statute is That if any Sheriff return a Cepi corpus or reddidit se he shall be chargeable to have the body at the day of the Return as he was before c. that if implies a Liberty in the Sheriff not to return a Cepi corpus or reddidit se But notwithstanding by the opinion of North Chief Justice Wyndham Atkyns Justice the Plaintiff was barred Bowles Lassel's case they said was a strong case to govern the point and the return of paratum habeo is in effect no more then if he had the body ready to bring into Court when the Court should command him and it is the common practice only to amerce the Sheriff till he does bring in the body and therefore no Action lies against him for it is not reasonable that he should be twice punished for one Offence and that against the Court only Scroggs delivered no Opinion but Iudgment was given ut sup Cockram Welby ACtion upon the Case against a Sheriff for that he levied such a sum of money upon a Fieri facias at the Suit of the Plaintiff and did not bring the money into Court at the day of the return of the Writ Per quod deterioratus est dampnum habet c. the Defendant pleads the Statute of 21 Jac. of Limitations To which the Plaintiff demurs Serjeant Barrell This Action is within the Statute It ariseth ex quasi contractu Hob. 206. Speak Richard's case It is not grounded on a Record for then nullum tale Recordum would be a good plea which it is not it lies against the Executors of a Sheriff which it would not do if it arose ex maleficio Pemberton This Action is not brought upon the Contract if we had brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit which perhaps would lie then indeed we had grounded our selves upon the Contract and there had been more colour to bring us within the Statute but we have brought an Action upon the case for not having our money here at the day Per quod c. North. An Indebitatus Assumpsit would lie in this case against the Sheriff or his Executor and then the Statute would be pleadable I have known it resolved that the Statute of Limitations is not a good plea against an Attorny that brings an Action for his Fees because they depend upon a Record here and are certain Next Trinity Term the matter being moved again the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Nisi causa c. if the Fieri facias had been returned then the Action would have beén grounded upon the Record and it is the Sheriffs fault that the Writ is not returned but however the Iudgment in this Court is the foundation of the Action Debt upon the Stat. of 2 Edw. 6. for not setting out Tythes is not within the Stat. for oritur ex maleficio so the ground of this Action is maleficium and the Iudgment here given In both which respects it is not within the Statute of Limitations Barrow Parrot PArrot had married one Judith Barrow an Heiress Sir Herbert Parrot his Father and an ignorant Carpenter by vertue of a dedimus potestatem to them directed took the conusance of a Fine of the said Judith being under age and by Indenture the use was limited to Mr. Parrot and his wife for their two lives the remainder to the Heirs of the Survivor about two years after the wife died without issue and Barrow as heir to her prayed the relief of the Court. Vpon examination it appear'd that Sir Herbert did examine the woman whether she were willing to levy the fine and asked the husband and her whether she were of age or not both answered that she was She afterwards being privately examin'd touching her consent answered as before and that she had no constraint upon her by her husband but she was not there question'd concerning her age Sir Herbert Parrot was not examined in Court upon Oath because he was accused and North said this Court could no more administer an Oath ex Officio then the Spiritual Court could North Wyndham There is a great trust reposed in the Commissioners and they are to inform themselves of the parties age and a voluntary ignorance will not excuse them But Atkyns opposed his being fined he cited Hungates case Mich. 12 Jac. Cam. Stell 12. Cook 122 123. where a Fine by Dedimus was taken of an Infant and because it was not apparent to the Commissioners that the Infant was within age they were in that Court acquitted But North Wyndham Scroggs agreed that the Son should be fined for that he could not possibly be presumed to be ignorant of his Wifes age Atkyns contra But they all agreed that there was no way to set the Fine aside Term. Trin. 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Searle Long. QUare Impedit against two one of the Defendants appears the other casts an essoyn wherefore he that appear'd had idem dies then he that was essoyn'd appears and the other casts an essoyne Afterward an issued for their not Attachment appearing at the day and so Process continued to the great distress which being return'd and no appearance Iudgment final was ordered to be entred according to the Statute of Marlebr cap. 12. It was moved to have this rule discharged because the party was not summoned neither upon the Attachment nor the great distress and the Sureties returned upon the Process were John Doo Richard Roo an Affidavit was produced of Non-summons and that the Defendant had not put in any Sureties nor knew any such person as John Doo Richard Roo It was objected on the other side that they had notice of the suit for they appeared to the Summons and it appeared that they were guilty of a voluntary delay in that they forched in essoyne and the Stat. of Marlebr is peremptory wherefore they prayed Iudgment Serjeant Maynard for the Defendants If Iudgment be entred against us we have no remedy but by a Writ of Deceit Now in a Writ of Deceit the Sumners and veyors are to be examin'd in Court and this is the Trial in that Action but feigned persons cannot be examined It is a great abuse in the Officers to return such
to the second Twisd The Iury have found the Rent to be due for both years and we will now intend that he was in possession all the time for which the Rent is found to be due A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court at Chester to stay procéedings upon a Libel against one William Bayles for teaching School without Licence but it was denied Redman Edolfe TRespass and Ejectment by Original in this Court Sanders moved in Arrest of Iudgment upon a fault in the Original for a bad Original is not help'd by Verdict But upon Mr. Livesey's certifying that there was no Original at all the Plaintiff had Iudgment though in his Declaration he recited the Original In an Action of Assault and Battery and Wounding the Evidence to prove a Provocation was That the Plaintiff put his hand upon his Sword and said If it were not Assize time I would not take such Language from you The question was if that were an Assault The Court agreed that it was not for he declared that he would not Assault him the Iudges being in Town and the intention as well as the act makes an Assault Therefore if one strike another upon the hand or arm or breast in discourse it s no Assault there being no intention to Assault But if one intending to Assault strike at another and miss him this is an Assault so if he hold up his hand against another and say nothing it is an Assault In the principal case the Plaintiff had Iudgment Medlicott Joyner EJectione firmae The Plaintiff at the Trial offer'd in Evidence a Copy of a Déed that was burnt by the Fire the Copy was taken by one Mr. Gardner of the Temple who said he did not examine it by the Original but he writ it and it always lay by him as a true Copy and the Court agréed to have it read the original Déed being proved to be burnt Twisd Feoffée upon Condition is disseised and a Fine levied and five years pass then the Condition is broken the Feoffor may enter for the Disseisor held the Estate subject to the Condition and so did the Conizee for he cannot be in of a better Estate then the Conizor himself was Dawe Swayne AN Action upon the Case was brought against one for suing the Plaintiff in placito debiti for 600 l. and falsly and maliciously affirming to the Bailiff of Westminster that he did owe him 600 l. whereby the Bailiff insisted upon extraordinary Bail to his Damage c. The Defendant traverses absque hoc that he did falsly and maliciously affirm to the Bailiff of Westminster that he did owe him so much Winnington moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Action would not lie But the Plaintiff had Iudgment Keel If there had béen no cause of Action an Action upon the Case would not lie because he has a recompence by Law but here was a cause of Action If one should arrest you in an Action of 2000 l. to the intent that you should not find Bail and keep you from practice all this Term and this is found to be falsly and maliciously shall not you have an Action for this this Twisden said he knew to have been Serjeant Rolls his Opinion Morton Foxley's case is That if a man be outlaw'd in another County where he is not known an Action upon the Case will lye so an Action lies against the Sheriff if reasonable Bail be offered and refused Twisd If three men bring an Action and the Defendant put in Bail at the Suit of four they cannot declare but if he had put in Bail at the suit of one that one might declare against him Iudgment was entred as of Trinity Term for the Queen Mother and a Writ of Enquity of damages was taken out returnable this Term and she died in the Vacation-time Resolved that the first was but an interlocutory Iudgment and that the Action was abated by her death Twisd Some have questioned how you shall come to make the death of the party appear between the Verdict and the day in Bank and I have known it offer'd by Affidavit and by suggestion upon the Roll and by motion Troy an Attorney AN Information of Extortion against Troy an Attorney It was moved in arrest of Iudgment That Attorneys are not within any of the Statutes against Extortion and therefore the Information concluded ill the conclusion being contra formam Statuti Twisd The Statute of 3 Jac. cap. 7. is express against Attornies Keel I think as thus advised that Attornies are within all the Statutes of Extortion It was afterwards moved in arrest of Iudgment because the Information was insufficient in the Law for Sir Tho. Fanshawe informed that Mr. Troy being an Attorney of the Court of Common Pleas did at Maidstone cause one Collop to be impleaded for 9 s. 4 d. debt at the suit of one Dudley Sellinger c. and this was ad grave damnum of Collop c. but it is not expressed in what Court he caused him to be impleaded and that which the Defendant is charged with is not an offence for he saith that he did cause him to be impleaded and received the money the same day and perhaps he received the money after he had caused him to be impleaded Then it is not sufficiently alledged that he did illicite receive so much and Extortion ought to be particularly alledged Nor is there any Statute that an Attorney shall receive no more than his just Fées The profession of an Attorney is at Common Law and allowed by the Statute of Westm 1. cap. 26. and the Statute of 3 Jac. does not extend to this matter Non constat in this case if what he received was for Fees or no besides the suit for an offence against that Statute must be brought by the party not by Sir Tho. Fanshawe Keel If the party grieved will not sue for the penalty of treble damages given by that Statute yet the King may prosecute to turn him out of the Roll. Twisd I doubt that nor is it clear whether an Information will lie at all upon that Statute or not for the Statute does not speak of an Information Keel Whenever a Statute makes a thing criminal an Information will lie upon the Statute though not given by express words Twisd It appears here that this money was not received of his Client for he was against Collop But he ought to shew in what Court the impleading was for otherwise it might be before Mr. Major in his Chamber To which the Court agreéd So the Information was quash'd Burnet Holden THere were these two points in the case 1. If the Defendant dye after the day of Nisi prius and before the day in Bank whether the Iudgment shall be said to be given in the life of the Defendant 2. Admit it shall yet whether the Executor shall have the advantage taken from him of retaining to satisfie his own debt To the first
desirous to have the money paid before the day took another Bond for the same sum payable sooner and that this was in full satisfaction of the former Bond upon this plea the Plaintiff took issue and it was found against him And Serjeant Maynard moved that notwithstanding this Verdict Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for that the Defendant by his plea has confessed the Action and to say that another Bond was given in satisfaction is nothing to the purpose Hob. 68. so that upon the whole it appears that the Plaintiff has the right and he ought to have Iudgment 2 Cr. 139. 8 Co. 93. a. and day was given to shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment Vide infra hoc eodem Termino Savill against the Hundred of THe Plaintiff in an Action upon the Stat. of Wint. had a Verdict and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Felonious taking is not said to be in the High-way 2 Cro. 469 675. North. An Action lies upon the Stat. of Winton though the Robbery be not committed in the High-way to which the Court-agreed and the Prothonotaries said that the Entries were frequently so Per quod c. Calthrop Philippo ONe J. S. had recovered a Debt against Calthrop and procured a Writ of Execution to Philippo the then Sheriff of D. but before that Writ was executed Calthrop procured a Supersedeas to the same Philippo who when his year was out delivered over all the Writs to the new Sheriff save this Supersedeas which not being delivered J. S. procures a new Writ of Execution to the new Sheriff upon which the Goods of Calthrop being taken he brings his Action against Philippo for not delivering over the Supersedeas After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Action would not lie for that the Sheriff is not bound to deliver over a Supersedeas 1. Because it is not a Writ that has a return 2. Because it is only the Sheriffs Warrant for not obeying the Writ of Execution The Prothonotaries said that the course was to take out a new Writ to the new Sheriff Serjeant Strode argued that the Supersedeas ought to be delivered over because the Kings Writ to the old Sheriff is Quod Com' praedict ' cum pertinentiis uno cum rotulis brevibus memorandis omnibus officium illud tangentibus quae in custodia sua existunt liberet c. Reg. 295. 3 Co. 72. Westby's case Besides the Supersedeas is for the Defendants benefit and there is no reason why the Capias should be delivered over which is for the Plaintiffs benefit and not the Supersedeas which is for the Defendants And he said an Action will lie for not delilivering over some Writs to the new Sheriff though those Writs are not returnable as a Writ of Estrepement The Court inclined to his Opinion but it was adjourned to a further day on which day it was not moved Bascawin Herle versus Cooke THo Cook granted a Rent-charge of 200 l. per annum to Bascawin Herle for the life of Mary Cook habend ' to them their heirs and assigns ad opus usum of Mary and in the Indenture covenanted to pay the rent ad opus usum of Mary Bascawin Herle upon this bring an Action of Covenant and assign the breach in not paying the Rent to themselves ad opus usum of Mary The Defendant demurs 1. Because the words in which the breach is assign'd contain a negative pregnant Baldwin for the Plaintiff we assign the breach in the words of the Covenant Cur ' accord 2. Because the Plaintiff does not say that the money was not paid to Mary it would satisfie the Covenant 3. This Rent-charge is executed to Mary by the Stat. of Uses and she ought to have distrained for it for she having a remedy the Plaintiffs out of whom the Rent is transferred by the Statute cannot bring this Action Hereupon two questions were made 1. Whether this remedy by Action of Covenant be transferred to Mary by the Stat. of Uses or not And 2dly if not whether the Covenant were discharged or not North Wyndham When the Statute transfers an Estate it transfers together with it such remedies only as by Law are incident to that Estate and not collateral ones Atkyns accordant There is a clause in the Statute of 27 H. 8. c. 10. which gives the Cestuy que use of a Rent all such remedies as he would have had if the Rent had been actually and really granted to him but that has place only where one is seized of Lands in trust that another shall have a Rent out of them not where a Rent is granted to one to the use of another They agreed also that the Covenant was not discharged And gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Nisi c. Higden versus VVhitechurch Executor of Dethicke A Udita Querela The Plaintiff declares that himself and one Prettyman became bound to the Testator for the payment of a certain sum that in an Action brought against him he was Outlawed that Dethick afterward brought another Action upon the same Bond against Prettyman and had Iudgment that Prettyman was taken by a Cap. ad satisfaciend ' and imprisoned and paid the Debt and was released by Dethick's consent upon this matter the Plaintiff here prays to be relieved against this Iudgment and Outlawry The Defendant protestando that the Debt was not satisfied pleads the Outlawry in disability The Plaintiff demurs Baldw. for the Plaintiff Non datur exceptio ejus rei cujus petitur dissolutio He resembled this to the cases of bringing a Writ of Error or Attaint in neither of which Outlawry is pleadable 3 Cr. 225. 7 H. 4. 39. 7 H. 6. 44. Seyse contra Outlawry is a good plea in Audita querela 2 Cr. 425. 8 Co. 141. this case is not within the maxime that has been cited a writ of Error and Attaint is within it for in both them the Iudgment it self is to be reversed But in an Audita querela you admit the Iudgment to be good only upon some equitable matter arising since you pray that no Execution may be upon it Vide 6 Ed. 4. 9. b. Jason Kite's case Mich. 12 Car. 2. Rot. 385. Adj. Pasch 13. Cur ' accord ' If the Iudgment had been erroneous and a writ of Error had been brought the Outlawry which was but a superstructure would fall by consequence but an Audita querela meddles not with the Iudgment the Plaintiff here has no remedy but to sue out his Charter of Pardon Blythe Hill supra 221. THe case being moved again appeared to be thus viz. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against the Defendant as heir to the Obligor The Defendant pleaded that the Obligor his Ancestor dyed intestate and that one J. S. had taken out Letters of Administration and had given the Plaintiff
Windham and Scroggs contr for that the Iury are the sole Iudges of the damages At another day it was moved in arrest of Iudgment That the words are not actionable And of that Opinion was Atkyns But North Windham Scroggs contr And so the Plaintiff had Iudgment Atkyns The occasion of the making of the Stat. of 5 Rich. 2. appears in Sir Robert Cotton's Abr. of the Records of the Tower fol. 173. num 9. 10. he says there That upon the opening of that Parliament the Bishop of St. Davids in a Speech to both Houses declared the Causes of its being summoned and that amongst the rest one of them was to have some restraint laid upon Slanderers and Sowers of Discord which sort of men were then taken notice of to be very frequent Ex malis moribus bonae Leges The Preamble of the Act mentions false News and horrible Lyes c. of things which by the said Prelates c. were never said done nor thought So that it seems designed against telling stories by way of News concerning them The Stat. does not make or declare any new Offence Nor does it inflict any new Punishment All that seems to be new is this 1. The Offence receives an aggravation because it is now an Offence against a positive Law and consequently deserves a greater Punishment as it is held in our Books That if the King prohibit by his Proclamation a thing prohibited by Law that the Offence receives an aggravation by being against the King's Proclamation 2. Though there be no express Action given to the party grieved yet by operation of Law the Action accrews For when ever a Statute prohibits any thing he that finds himself grieved may have an Action upon the Statute 10 Rep. 75. 12 Rep. 100. there this very Case upon this Statute was agreed on by the Iudges So that that is the second new thing viz. a further remedy An Action upon the Stat. 3. Since the Stat. the party may have an Action in the tam quam Which he could not have before Now every lye or falsity is not within the Stat. It must be horrible as well as false We find upon another occasion such a like distinction It was held in the 12 Rep. 83. That the High-Commission Court could not punish Adultery because they had Iurisdiction to punish enormous Offendors only So that great and horrible are words of distinction Again it extends not to small matters because of the ill consequences mentioned Debates and Discord betwixt the said Lords c. great peril to the Realm and quick subversion and destruction of the same Every word imports an aggravation The Stat. does not extend to words that do not agree with this Description and that cannot by any reasonable probability have such dire effects The Cases upon this Statute are but few and late in respect of the antiquity of the Act. It was made Anno 1379. for a long time after we hear no tydings of an Action grounded upon it And by reading it one would imagine that the makers of it never intended that any should be But the Action arises by operation of Law not from the words of the Act nor their intention that made it The first Case that we find of an Action brought upon it is in 13 H. 7. which is 120 years after the Law was made so that we have no contemporanea expositio which we often affect That Case is in Keil 26. the next in 4 H. 8. where the Duke of Buckingham recovered 40 l. against one Lucas for saying that the Duke had no more conscience than a Dog and so he got money he cared not how he came by it He cited other Cases and said he observed That where the words were general the Iudges did not ordinarily admit them to be actionable otherwise when they charged a Peer with any particular miscarriage Serjeant Maynard observed well That the Nobility and great men are equally coucerned on the Defendants part for Actions upon this Statute lie against them as well as against the meanest Subject Acts of Parliament have been tender of racking the King's Subjects for words And the Scripture discountenances mens being made Transgressors for a word I observe that there is not one case to be met with in which upon a motion in arrest of Iudgment in such an Action as this the Defendant has prevailed The Court hath sometimes been divided the matter compounded the Action has abated by death c. but a positive Rule that Iudgment should be arrested we find not So that it is time to make a President and fix some Rules according to which men may demean themselves in converse with great persons Misera est servitus ubi jus est vagum Since we have obtained no Rules from our Predecessors in Actions upon this Statute we had best go by the same Rules that they did in other Actions for words In them when they grew frequent some bonnds and limits were set by which they endeavoured to make these Law certain The Actions now encrease The stream seems to be running that way I think it is our part to obviate the mischief So he was of Opinion That the Iudgment ought to be arrested but the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff North. There are three sorts of Hab. Corp. in this Court 1. Hab. Corp. ad respondendum and that is when a man hath a cause of suit against one that is in prison he may bring him up hither by Hab. Corp. and charge him with a Declaration at his own suit 2. There is a Hab. Corp. ad faciendum recipiendum and that Defendants may have that are sued in Courts below to remove their Causes before us Both these Hab. Corp. are with relation to the suits properly belonging to the Court of Common Pleas. So if an inferiour Court will proceed against the Law in a thing of which we have Conisance and commit a man we may discharge him upon a Hab. Corp. this is still with relation to Common Pleas. A third sort of Hab. Corp. is for priviledged Persons But a Hab. Corp. ad subjiciendum is not warranted by any Presidents that I have seen Term. Pasch 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Hall Booth NOrth In Actions of Debt c. the first Process is a Summons if the Defendant appears not upon that a Cap. goes and then we hold him to Bail The reason of Bail is upon a supposition of Law that the Defendant flies the Iudgment of the Law And this supposition is grounded upon his not appearing at the first For if he appear upon the Summons no Bail is required And this is the reason why it is held against the Law for any inferiour Court to issue out a Capias for the first Process For the liberty of a man is highly valued in the Law and no man ought to be abridged of it without some default in him A Church is in decay the Bishops Court must
feigned names The first cause thereof was the ignorance of Sheriffs who being to make a return looked into some Book of Presidents for a form and finding the names of John Doo and Rich. Roo put down for examples made their return accordingly and took no care for true Sumners and true Manucaptors For Non-appearance at the return of the great Distress in a plea of Quare Impedit final Iudgment is to be given and our right bound for ever which ought not to be suffered unless after Process legally served according to the intention of the Statute In a case Mich. 23. of the present King Iudgment was entred in this Court in a plea of Quare impedit upon non-appearance to the great Distress but there the party was summoned and true Summoners returned upon non-appearance an Attachment issued and real Sumners return'd upon that but upon the Distress it was return'd that the Defendants districti fuerunt per bona catalla manucapti per Joh. Doo Rich. Roo and for that cause the Iudgment was vacated Cur ' The design of the Statute of Marlebridge was to have Process duly executed which if it were executed as the Law requires the Tenant could not possibly but have notice of it For if he do not appear upon the Summons an Attachment goes out that is a command to the Sheriff to seize his body and make him give Sureties for his appearance if yet he will not appear then the great distress is awarded that is the Sheriff is commanded to seize the thing in question if he come not in for all this then Iudgment final is to be given Now the issue of this Process being so fatal that the right of the party is concluded by it we ought not to suffer this Process to be changed into a thing of course It is true the Defendant here had notice of the Suit but he had not such notice as the Law does allow him And for his fourching in essoyn the Law allows it him Accordingly the Iudgment was set aside Anonymus FAlse Judgment out of a County Court the Record was vitious throughout and the Iudgment reversed and ordered that the Suitors should be amerced a Mark but the Record was so imperfectly drawn up that it did not appear before whom the Court was held and the County Clark was fined Five pounds for it Cessavit per biennium the Defendant pleads Non-tenure He commenceth his plea quod petenti reddere non debet but concludes in abatement Serjeant Barrell He cannot plead this plea for he has imparled Cur̄ Non-tenure is a plea in bar the conclusion indeed is not good but he shall amend it Barrell Non-tenure is a plea in abatement The difference is betwixt Non-tenure that goes to the tenure as when the Tenant denies that he holds of the demandant but says that he holds of some other person which is a plea in bar and Non-tenure that goes to the Tenancy of the Land as here he pleads that he is not Tenant of the Land and that goes in abatement only The Defendant was ordered to amend his plea. Addison versus Sir John Otway TEnant in tail of Lands in the Parishes of Rippon Kirby-Marleston in the Towns of A. B. C. Tenant in Tail makes a Deed of bargain and sale to J. S. to the intent to make J. S. Tenant to the Praecipe in order to the suffering of a common Recovery of so many Acres in the Parishes of Rippon Kirby-Marlestone Now in those Parishes there are two Towns called Rippon Kirby-Marlestone and the Recovery is suffered of Lands in Rippon Kirby-Marlestone generally all this was found by special Verdict and further that the intention of the parties was that the Lands in question should pass by the said recovery and that the Lands in question are in the Parishes of Rippon Kirby-Marlestone but not within the Townships and that the bargainor had no Lands at all within the said Townships The question was whether the Lands in question should pass by this Recovery or not Shaftoe They will pass The Law makes many strained constructions to support common Recoveries and abates of the exactness that is required in adversary Suits 2 Rolls 67. 5 Rep. Dormer's case Eare Snow Plo. Com. Sir Moyle Finche's case 6 Rep. Cr. Jac. 643. Ferrers Curson In Stork Foxe's case Cr. Jac. 120 121. where two Villes Walton Street were in the Parish of Street and a man having Lands in both levied a Fine of his Lands in Street his Lands in Walton would not pass but there the Conusor had Lands in the Town of Street to satisfie the grant but in our case it is otherwise He cited also Rolls Abridgm Grants 54. Hutton 105. Baker Johnson The Deed of bargain and sale and the Recovery make up in our case but one assurance and construction is to be made of both together as in Cromwells case 2 Report The intention of the parties Rules Fines and Recoveries and the intention of the parties in our case appears in the Deed and is found by the Verdict Rolls Abridgm 19. 2 part Winch. 122. per Hob. Cr. Car. 308. Sir George Symond's case betwixt which last case and ours all the diffreence is that that case is of a Fine and ours of a Common Recovery betwixt which Conveyances as to our purpose there is no difference at all He cited Jones Wait's case Trin 27 Car. 2. in this Court and a case 16 Reg. nunc in B. R. when Hide was Chief Iustice betwixt Thynne Thynne North. The Law has always stuck at new niceties that have been started in cases of Fines and Common Recoveries and has gotten over almost all of them I have not yet seen a case that warrants the case at Bar in all points Nor do I remember an Authority expresly against it and it seems to be within the reason of many former resolutions But we must be cautious how we make a further step Wyndham I think the Lands in question will pass well enough and that the Deed of bargain and sale which leads the uses of the Recovery does sufficiently explain the meaning of the words Rippon Kirby Marlestone in the recovery I do not so much regard the Iuries having found what the parties intention was as I do the Deéd it self in which he expresses his own intention himself and upon that I ground my Opinion Atkyns agreed with Wyndham Indeed when a place is named in legal proceedings we do prima facie intend it of a Ville if nothing appears to the contrary stabitur praesumptio donec probetur in contrarium In this case the Evidence of the thing it self is to the contrary The reason why prima facie we intend it of a Ville is because as to civil purposes the Kingdom is divided into Villes He do not intend it of a Parish because the division of the Kingdom into Parishes is an Ecclesiastical distribution to Spiritual purposes
Modern Reports OR SELECT CASES Adjudged in the COURTS OF Kings Bench Chancery Common-Pleas and Exchequer since the Restauration of HIS MAJESTY King Charles II. Collected by a Careful Hand LONDON Printed for T. Basset J. Wright R. Chiswell and S. Heyrick MDCLXXXII THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER THese Reports the first except the Lord Chief Justice Vaughans Arguments that have been yet printed of Cases adjudged since His Majesties happy Restauration though they are not Published under the Name of any Eminent Person as some other Spurious Ones have been to gain thereby a Reputation which in themselves they could not Merit yet have been Collected by a Person of Ability and Judgment and Communicated to several of known Learning in the Laws who think them not Inferior to many Books of this Nature which are admitted for Authority A great and well-spread Name may be Requisite to render a Book Authentick and to defend it from that common Censure of which this Age is become so very liberal But it s own worth is that only which can make it Vseful and Instructive The Reader will find here several Cases as well such as have been Resolved upon our modern Acts of Parliament as others relating to the Common Law which are primae Impressionis and not to be found in any of the former Volumns of the Law and the Pith and Substance of divers Arguments as well as Resolutions of the Reverend Judges on many other weighty and difficult Points And indeed though in every Case the main thing which it behoves Vs to know is what the Judges take and define to be Law yet the short and concise way of reporting it which is affected in some of our Books doth very scantily answer the true and proper end of reading them which is not only to know what is Law but upon what Grounds and Reasons 't is adjudged so to be otherwise the Student is many times at a loss and left in the dark especially where he finds other Resolutions which seem to have a tendency to the contrary Opinion In this respect these Reports will appear to be more satisfactory and inlightning than many others several of the Cases especially those of the most important Consideration containing in a brief and summary way what hath been offered by the Counsel Pro and Con and the Debates of the Reverend Judges as well as their Vltimate Resolutions than which nothing can more Contribute to the Advantage of the studious Reader and to the setling and guidance of his judgment not only in the Point controverted but likewise in other matters of Law where the Reason is the same Ubi eadem ratio idem jus As to the truth of these Reports though the modesty of the Gentleman who Collected them hath prevailed above the importunity of the Book-Seller and he hath rather chosen to see his Book than himself gain the Publick Acceptation and Applause whereby it hath lost some seeming Advantage which the prefixing of his Name would have undoubtedly given it yet the Reader may rest assured that no little Care hath been taken to prevent any Mistakes or Mis-representations The Judgments having been examined and the Authorities here cited industriously compared with the Books out of which they were taken A TABLE of the Names of CASES contain'd in this Book A. ABbot and Moor. 12 Jacob Aboab 107 Addison versus Sir John Otway 250 Alford and Tatnel 170 Amie and Andrews 166 Anonymus 75 81 89 105 113 163 169 170 180 185 200 209 211 213 216 249 253 258 272 Daniel Appleford 82 Atkinson and Rawson 208 Austin and Lippencott 99 B. BAker and Bulstrode 104 Bascawin and Herle versus Cook 223 Bassett and Bassett 264 Barker and Reate 262 Barrow and Parrott 246 Barry and Trebeswycke 218 Sir Anthony Bateman's Case 76 Bear and Bennett 25 Beckett and Taylor 9 Benson and Hodson 108 Birch and Lake 185 Bird and Kirke 199 Birrel and Shaw 24 Blackburn and Graves 102 120 Blissett and Wincott 13 Blythe and Hill 221 225 Bonnefield 70 Boswill and Coats 33 Bradcatt and Tower 89 Brooking and Jennings 174 Brown versus 118 Brown versus London 285 Buckly and Turner 43 Buckly and Howard 186 Bucknal and Swinnock 7 Butler and Play 27 Burgis and Burgis 114 Burnett and Holden 6 Burrow and Haggett 219 C. CAlthrop and Philippo 222 Caterall and Marshall 70 Clerk versus Rowel and Phillips 10 Clerk and Heath 11 Cockram and Welby 245 Cole and Forth 94 Compton and uxor versus Ireland 194 Coppin and Hernall 15 Cox and St. Albanes 81 and Crisp versus the Mayor of Berwick 36 Crofton 34 D. COrporation of Darby 6 Darbyshire and Cannon 21 Davies and Cutt. 231 Daw and Swaine 4 Deering and Farrington 113 Delaval versus Maschall 274 Dodwell and uxor versus Burford 24 Draper and Bridewell 121 Sir Francis Duncomb's Case 285 Dyer and East 9 E. ELlis and Yarborough 227 Edwards and Weeks 262 F. FArrer and Brooks 188 Farrington and Lee. 268 Fettyplace versus 15 Fitsgerard and Maschal 90 Fits and al. versus Freestone 210 Fountain and Coke 107 Fowl and Doble 181 Fox and al. Executors of Pinsent versus Tremayn 47 72 296 Franklyn's Case 68 Furnis and Waterhouse 197 Fry and Porter in Chancery 300 G. GAvel and Perked 31 Gayle and Betts 227 Glever and Hynde 168 Goodwin and Harlow 2 Gostwick and Mason 3 Grafton 10 Green and Proude 117 H. HAll and Wombell 7 Hall and Sebright 14 Jacob Hall's Case 76 Hall and Booth 236 Haley's Case 195 Haman and Truant 72 Haman and Howell 184 against the Hambourough Company 212 Owen Hanning's Case 21 Harwood 77 79 Haspurt and Wills 47 Hastings 23 Healy and Warde 32 Heskett and Lee. 48 Higden versus Whitechurch 224 Holloway 15 Horn and Ivy. 18 Horn and Chandler 271 Horton and Wilson 167 Hoskins versus Robins 74 Howell and King 190 Hughes and Underwood 28 Humlock and Blacklow 64 I. JAmes and Johnson 231 Jefferson and Dawson 29 Jemy and Norrice 295 Ingram versus Tothill and Ren. 216 Jones and Tresilian 36 Jones and Wiat. 206 Jones and Powel 272 Jordan and Fawcett 50 Jordan and Martin 63 Justice and White 239 K. The King versus Baker 35 Morrice 68 Leginham 71 Holmes 73 Sir Francis Clark 195 Thornbor ' and Studly 253 The Bishop of Worc. Jervason and Hinkly 276 Leginham 288 Neville 295 King versus Standish 59 Sir John Kirle versus Osgood 22 Knowles versus Richardson 55 L. LAke versus King 58 Lampiere and Meriday 111 Lassells and Catterton 67 Lee and Edwards 14 Doctor Lee's Case 282 Legg and Richards 77 Leginham and Porphery 77 Lepping and Kedgewin 207 Liese and Satingstone 189 Love versus Wyndham and Wyndham 50 Lucy Lutterell versus George Reynell George Turbervile John Cory and Anne Cory 282 M. MAddox 22 Magdalen-Colledge Case 163 Major and Stubbing versus Bird and Harrison 214 Maleverer and Redshaw 35 Manby and Scot. 124 Martin and Delboe 70 Medlicot and Joyner 4 Gabriel Miles's Case 179
Milwood and Ingram 205 Monke versus Morrice and Clayton 93 Moor and Field 229 Lord Mordant versus the Earl of Peterborough 114 Moreclack and Carleton 73 Mors and Sluce 85 Mosedel the Marshall of the Kings Bench. 116 N. NAylor against Sharply and others 198 Norman and Foster 101 Nosworthy and Wildeman 42 O. OGnel versus the Lord Arlington Gardian of c. 217 Osburn and Walleeden 272 P. PAge and Tulse 239 Parker and Welby 57 Parten and Baseden 213 Parsons and Perns 91 Henry Lord Peterborough versus John Lord Mordant 94 Doctor Poordage 22 Porter and Fry 86 Prin and Smith 19 Pybus and Mitford 121 159 R. RAndal and Jenkins 96 Rawlin's Case 46 Redman and Edelfe 4 Redman 10 Redman and Pyne 19 Dominus Rex versus Vaws 24 Dominus Rex versus Turnith 26 Rich and Morrice 36 Richards and Hodges 43 Roberts and Mariot 42 289 Rogers and Danvers 165 Rogers and Davenant 194 Russel and Collins 8 S. SAvil against the Hundred of 221 Scudamore and Crossing 175 Searl and Long. 248 Sedgewicke and Gofton 106 Earl of Shaftsbury's Case 144 Slater and Carew 187 Smith and Wheeler 16 38 Smith and Bowin 25 Smith Lluellin al. Commissioners of Sewers 44 Smith's Case 209 Smith versus Smith 284 The Chapter of the Collegiate-Church of Southwell versus the Bishop of Lincoln 204 Southcote and Stowell 226 237 The Company of Stationers versus Seymor 256 Stead and Perryer 267 Strode versus the Bishop of Bathe and Wells and Sir George Hornet and Masters 230 T. TAylor and Wells 46 Taylor and Rowse Church-Wardens versus their Predecessors 65 Lord Tenham versus Mullins 119 Thredneedle and Lynham 203 Sir John Thoroughgood 107 Tildell and Walter 50 Tomlin and Fuller 27 Lord Townsend versus Hughes 232 Troy 5 Turner and Benny 61 Turner and Davies 62 V. VAughan and Casewell 7 Vaughton versus Atwood alios 202 Vere and Reyner 19 W. WAldron versus 78 Warren and Prideaux 104 Warren and Sayer 191 Watkyns and Edwards 286 Wayman and Smith 63 Wilbraham and Snow 30 Williams and Lee. 42 Williamson and Hancock 192 Wilson and Robinson 100 Wing and Jackson 215 Wood and Davies 289 Wootton and Heal. 66 Wootton and Penelope 290 Worthy and Liddal 21 Y. YArd and Ford. 69 Z. ZOuch and Clare 92 Errata PAge 40. line 2. a Conveyance with power lege a Conveyance reserving a power p. 50. l. 23. to Nicholas Love the Father if he should so long live lege to Nicholas Love the Father for a term of years if the Cestuy qui vies or any of them should so long live p. 54. l. 22. tenant for life dele for life p. 63. l. 26. pro Quer ' lege pro Defendent ' p. 109. l. 20. if tenant in tail grant a Rent lege if tenant be rendring a Rent p. 112. l. 9. of the month next year lege of the same month p. 127. l. 20. ab inconventi lege ab inconvenienti p. 128. l. 2. and lining thereupon lege and linnen Thereupon c. p. 136. l. 7. left lege lost l. 28. left lege lost p. 145. l. 20 21. repeated lege reported p. 170. l. 2. joyntly to lege joyntly and severally to p. 190. l. 31. A's ground lege B's ground p. 193. l. 5. a stranger a tenant in possession lege a stranger tenant in possession p. 206. l. 20. Shrewsbury the Liberties lege Shrewsbury and the Liberties p. 217. l. 8. shillings given lege shillings be given p. 223. l. 13 Mary it would lege Mary for if it were it would c. p. 245. l. 12. if he had lege that he had p. 262. l. 13. a verbal request lege a verbal discharge p. 271. l. 12. Heley lege Offley p. 285. l. 24. upon the Merchants lege upon the custom of Merchants The Cases of Trin. Term 29 Car. 2. in Com. B. end with page 270. and from that page to page 299. through a mistake of the Composer it 's printed C. B. instead of B. R. which the Reader is desired to to amend with his Pen. REPORTS Of divers Select Cases In the Reign of CAROLI II. Term. Mich. 21 Car. II. 1669. in Banco Regis ONe Mynn an Attorney entred a Iudgment by colour of a Warrant of Attorney of another Term then was expressed in the Warrant The Court consulting with the Secondary about it he said That if the Warrant be to appear and enter Iudgment as of this Term or any time after the Attorney may enter Iudgment at any time during his life but in the case in question the Warrant of Attorney had not those words or at any time after Wherefore the Secondary was ordered to consider the charge of the party grieved in order to his reparation Which the Court said concluded him from bringing his Action on the Case The Secondary said That in Trin. Hil. Term they could not compel the party in a Habeas Corpus to plead and go to Trial the same Term but in Michaelmas and Easter Term they could Mr. Solicitor moved for a new Writ of Enquiry into London and to stay the filing of a former because of excessive damages given but it was denied An Affidavit for the changing of a Venue made before the party was Arrested and allowed Moved in Battery for putting an Arm out of joint that the party might be held to special Bail but denied Twisd Follow the course of the Court. Mr. Sanders moved to quash an Order made by the Iustices of Peace for putting away an Apprentice from his Master and ordering the Master to give him so much Money Keeling The Statute of 5 Eliz. leaves this to their discretion An Indictment was preferred in Chester for a Perjury committed in London For which Keeling threatned to have the Liberties of the County Palatine seized if they kept not within their bounds Goodwin Harlow ERror to reverse a Iudgment in Colchester there being no appearance by the party but Iudgment upon thrée defaults recorded Revers'd Twisd If there be a Iudgment against thrée you cannot take out Execution against one or two Vpon a motion for a new Trial Twisden said That in his practice the Heir in an Action of Debt against him upon a Bond of his Ancestor pleaded riens per discent the Plaintiff knew the Defendant had levied a Fine and at the Trial it was produced but because they had not a Déed to lead the uses it was urged that the use was to the Conusor and his heirs and so the heir in by descent whereupon there was a Verdict against him and it being a just and due Debt they could never after get a new Trial. Gostwicke Mason DEbt for Rent upon a Lease for a year and so from year to year quamdiu ambabus partibus placuerit there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff for two years rent Sanders moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff alledges indeed that the Defendant entred and was possest the first year but mentions no entry as
such power nay if he have Children they must be living at his death Further by these Provisoes if the Contingencies do happen he hath but a power to declare the Vses he hath no Interest in him at all Litt. Sect. 463. It is one thing to have a power or possibility of limiting an Interest another to have an Interest vested 7 Rep. 11. Moor's Reports 366. about the delivery of a Ring where they hold that if it had been to have been done with his own hand it had not been forfeited The case of Sir Edward Clere is different from ours for if a man make a feoffment to the use of his last Will or to the use of such persons as shall be appointed by his last Will in this case he remains a perfect owner of the Land But if a man makes a Conveyance with power to make Leases or to make an Estate to pay Debts he hath here no Interest but a naked power The Duke of Norfolk's case is full in the point A Conveyance to the use of himself for life the Remainder to his Son in Tail with power to revoke under Hand and Seal adjudged not forfeited and yet he had a power to declare his mind as in our case Pagett's case Moor 193 194. Keeling If this way be taken a man may commit Treason pretty cheaply Twisden Whoever hath a power of Revocation hath a power of Limitation The reason is because else the feoffées would be seized to their own Vse Sir William Shelly's case in Latch Twisden There is no difference betwixt the Duke of Norfolk's case and this only here it is under his hand writing and there under his proper hand writing Afterward Term. Pasch 23 Car. 2. 1671. the Court delivered their Opinions Hales being then Chief Iustice Morton I conceive the Iudgment in the Common-Pleas is well given As for the first point whether this Conveyance made by Sir Simon Mayn be fraudulent or not the Counsel themselves have declined it and therefore I shall say nothing to it For the second I conceive no larger Interest is forfeited then during the Life of the Father If it be objected that the Father had by this Proviso jus disponendi I answer it is true he had a power if he had been minded so to do but it was not his mind and Will Now animus hominis est ipse homo but he must not only be minded so to do but he must declare his pleasure Hobart saith if a man will create a power to himself and impose a Condition or Qualification for the Execution of it it must be observed Now here is a personal and individual power seated in the heart of a man And it seems to me a stronger case then that of the Duke of Norfolk put in Englefield's case where yet the Condition was not given to the King by the Statute of Hen. 8. There was a later case adjudged in Latch betwéen Warner and Hynde a case that walked through all the Courts in Westminster-hall there by reason of the ipso declarante it could not be forfeited Rainsford I hold it is not forfeited My reason is because the Proviso is at an end and determined for when he dyed and made no Will there 's an end of the Proviso The altering of the old Trust is to be done by Sir Simon Mayn and it is inseparable from his person nothing can be more inseparable then a mans Will Moor 193. Twisd I am of the same Opinion Hales was of the same Opinion that nothing was forfeited but during Sir Simon 's life The Proviso he said did not create a Trust but potestatem disponendi which is not a Trust He said he did not understand the difference betwéen the Duke of Norfolk's case and this Accordingly the Iudgment was affirm'd In a cause wherein one Aston was Attorney Keeling said That a man may discontinue his Action here before an Action brought in the Common-Pleas But if he do begin there and then they plead another Action depending here and then they discontinue I take it the Attorney ought to be committed for this practice Twisden When I was at the Bar Error was brought and Infancy assigned when the Man was thirty years old and the Attorney was threatned to be turned out of the Roll. Serjeant Newdigate moved for a Certiorari to remove an Indictment hither from Bedford against several Frenchmen for Robbery Keeling Will it remove the Recognisances there to appear Twisden I never knew such a motion made by any but the King's Attorney or Solicitor Rainsford There is no Indictment yet before a Iudge of Assise Keeling You may have a Certiorari but it must not be delivered till the Indictment be found and then the Iudge hath the Prosecutors there and may bind them over hither and so the Trial may be here Keel A Iury was never ordered to a view before their appearance unless in an Assise Twisd Neither shall you have it here but by consent Nosworthy versus Wyldeman THe Plaintiff declares in an Indeb Assumpsit that the Defendant was endebted to him in 50 l. for so much money received of the Plaintiff by one Thomas Buckner by the appointment and to the use of the Defendant After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff could not have an Action for money received by the Defendant to the use of the Defendant But because it might be money lent which the Defendant received to his own use though he was to make good the value to the Plaintiff the Court will presume after a Verdict that it appeared so to the Iury at the Trial. For where a Declaration will bear two constructions and one will make it good and the other bad the Court after a Verdict will take it in the better sense And accordingly the Plaintiff had Iudgment Willams versus Lee. AN Action of Account It was prayed that the Court would give further day for giving the Account the matter being referred to Auditors Twisden The Auditors themselves must give further day Keeling The Auditors are Iudges whether there be a voluntary delay or not If they find the parties remiss and negligent they must certifie to the Court that they will not account Roberts Mariott MOved to discontinue an Action of Debt upon a Bond. Keeling We will not favour Conditions Ruled that the other side should shew cause why they should not discontinue Buckly versus Turner ACtion upon the case upon a Promise The case was that Edward Turner Brother to the Defendant was endebted to the Plaintiff for a Quarters Rent and the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff mitteret prosequi praedictum Edwardum Turner so the words are in the Declaration promised to pay the money After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that here is not any consideration for there is no loss to the Plaintiff in sending to prosecute c. nor any benefit but
question it had béen well enough now why may not a pair be understood of Sets or Suits or so many as will serve for a bed if it shall not be taken for a couple They quoted some cases in which it had béen adjudged that in Trover and Conversion for several things though it did not appear how many of each sort there were yet it had been held good Twisden acknowledged that there had been such Resolutions but said he knew not what to think of such cases considering the uncertainty of the Declarations And the word pair in our case is as uncertain as may be there a pair of Gloves a pair of Cards a pair of Tongs The word applyed to some things signifies more to others less and what shall it signifie here but by thrée Iudges against Twisden the Plaintiff had Iudgment Fox alii Exec ' of Pinsent versus Tremain THe Plaintiffs being Executors and some of them under age all appeared by Attorney and thereupon it was prayed that Iudgment might be stayed for 1. An Infant cannot make a Warrant of Attorney 2. An Infant appearing by Attorney may be amerced pro falso clamore and the reason is because it does not appear that he is under age but if he appear by guardian or prochein amy he shall not be amerced 3. The Infant may be much prejudiced For these reasons and because they said the practice had gone accordingly Iudgment was stayed The cases cited pro con were 3 Cro. 424. 2 Cro. 441. 1 Roll 288. Hutton Askew's case A Scire facias brought by two Executors reciting that there was a third but within age resolved that all must joyn Colt Sherwood's case resolved that an Infant Executor cannot defend by Attorney Twisden Where there are several Executors and one or more under age and the rest of full age all must joyn in an Action and Administration durante minore aetate cannot be granted if any of them be of full age Vid. infr Haspurt Wills A Special Action brought upon the Custom of Wharfage and Cranage in the City of Norwich The Declaration sets forth that they have a common Wharfe and a Crane to it and then they set forth a Custom that all Goods brought down the River and passing by shall pay such a Duty Obj. That the Custom is not good for that it is Toll-thorough which is malum Tolnetum Twisd There is a case in Hob. 175. of a bad Custom of paying the Charges of a Funeral though the Plaintiff were a Stranger and not buried in the Parish So here if they had unladed at the Key they should have paid the whole Duty nay if they had unladed at any other place in the City there would have béen some reason for it or if the Declaration had set forth that they had cleansed the River At Gravesend they claimed a Toll of Boats lying in the River of Thames and it was adjudged in Parliament to be malum Tolnetum To stay Heskett Lee. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given in a common Recovery in the County Palatine of Lancaster Weston The Tenant in the common Recovery is an Infant and appears by his Guardian but there is a fault in the admittance for whereas he ought to have been admitted as Defendant in this form scil A. B. admittitur per C. D. Gardianum suum ad comparendum defendendum he is admitted in the Record ad sequendum The second Error is in the appearance which is entred in this manner sc qui admissus est ad sequendum c. following the Error of the admittance ut Gardianus ipsius Thomae in propria persona sua venit defendit c. so that he is admitted ad sequendum which is the act of the Plaintiff And as Guardian he defends which is the act of the Defendant and further it is said that the Guardian appears in propria persona which cannot be Now I conceive that the Assignment of the Guardian and the appearance of the Guardian is triable by the Record and if the Infant should bring an Action against his Guardian he must declare that he was admitted to appear and defend his right Now whether will this admittance ad sequendum warrant such a Declaration I conceive it will not and that therefore the Recovery is erroneous Winnington I am for them that claim under the Recovery And I conceive this whole Record is not only good in substance but according to the form used in all common Recoveries If an Infant Tenant appear per Gardianum either as Defendant or Vouchée he shall be bound as well as one of full age And if the Guardian faint-pleads or mispleads the Infant hath an Action against him 9 Ed. 4. 34 35. Dyer 104. b. In our case there is a common Recovery wherein the Tenant is an Infant who ought to appear by his Guardian whether the admittance of him here by his Guardian be well entred or no is the question the word sequi signifies only to follow the cause and the Defendant doth prosecute and act a Venire by Proviso may be taken out at the Defendants Suit 35 H. 8. 7. so in a Replevin the Defendant is the prosecutor and the Tenant doth sue in common Recoveries and is the only person that doth prosecute and act so that I think the word is proper It is true one book is cited where prosequendum is void in an Ejectment 2 Cro. 640 641. Sympson's case but that Iudgment is upon the point of prochein amy There is a President for me in 6 Car. 1. which I believe was the president of this case And Sir Francis Englefield's case where the Infant came in as Vouchée is the same with ours As for the second Error assigned viz. that the Guardian is said to come in propria persona In the Earl of Newport's Case and in Englefield's Case propria persona is in the same manner as here Now the Law doth not regard so much the manner of the admittance as that a good Guardian be admitted Twisden This is a Recovery suffered upon a Privy Seal from the King and upon a marriage settlement upon good consideration and therefore ought to be favoured The word sequatur is as proper for the Defendant as for the Plaintiff And for the second the words propria persona are well enough being applyed to the Guardian who does in proper person appear for the Infant For an Infant to suffer a common Recovery if it were res integra it would hardly be admitted But if an Infant will reverse a common Recovery he ought to do it whilest he is under age as it was adjudged here about two years ago according to my Lord Coke's Opinion Weston If you stand upon that whether an Infant having suffered a common Recovery may reverse it after he is come of full age I desire to be heard to it Cur. advisare vult Tildell Walter A Vicar Libelled in
go to the Executors of A. and the Remainder there was to begin upon his dying without Issue at any time The case of Saunders and Cornish will not come to ours for there were many limitations for life successively to persons not in being c. In the case cited 1st Report 135. of an Estate for life limited to one and to every heir successively an Estate for life the limitation was naught because it would make a perpetual Free-hold and no body would know where the absolute Estate should vest So he prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff Coleman for the Defendant I conceive this to be a void limitation Mr. Jones would make this a middle case I shall discharge him of the first point though he has taken pains to argue it and I shall rest upon this That the limitation of a term after the death of a man without Issue of his body is void The case is put as a middle case to these two viz. If a man possessed of a Lease for years Devise it to I. S. for life the Remainder to J. N. for life the Remainder to J. G. for life these Remainders are good But if he do Devise to J. S. and the Heirs of his body the Remainder over this Remainder he admits to be void because it depends upon so remote a possibility as may never happen Now I conceive it is the same thing to limit it to one for life and if he dye without Issue then to another for life as to limit it to one and the Heirs of his body with a Remainder over He would tye it up from the ordinary and Legal Construction to issue at the time of his death If it be to be understood of dying without Issue at any time then Child Baylie's case and Cornishe's case are full Authorities in the point Vide 2 Cro. 459. Rolls 612 614. There Lessée for years deviseth to one for life and after to Wms. and his Assigns and if he dye without Issue then living the Remainder to I. G. This they say is good in case of a Fée-simple but they will not allow it in case of a term for years Now Mr. Jones would by Construction bring the words then living into our case The Legal Construction of the words dying without Issue is if there be a failer of Issue at any time to come In Pell Brown's case if the words then living had not been in the Will the case had not béen so adjudged Keeling You go up Hill a little Can Barnaby take so long as there is any Issue in being of Nicholas Jones He cannot Keeling Then Barnaby's Interest depends upon a Contingency that may never happen Jones I grant if Nicholas hath Issue at the time of his death that Barnaby shall never take but if he hath none he shall Keeling If I Devise Lands to A. for life and if he dye without Issue of his body to B. A. shall have an Estate Tail So in our case the words and limitation is the same though the Devisor having but a Lease for years there cannot be an Estate Tail of it yet he intended not that Barnaby should have any Estate as long as there were any Issue in being of Nicholas his body Twisden It appears to me upon the reason of the cases that have been cited that the Remainder to Barnaby must be void because of the remote possibility But then there will be a question to whom the Remainder of the term will go if Nicholas dye without Issue whether to the Executors of Nicholas or to the Executors of Doctor Love If A. Tenant for life of a term Devise it to B. for life the Remainder to C. for life the Remainder to D. for life I have heard it questioned whether these Remainders are good or not But it hath been held that if all the Remainder-men are living at the time of the Devise it is good if all the Candles be light at once good But if you limit a Remainder to a person not in being as to the first begotten Son c. and the like there would be no end if such limitations were admitted and therefore they are void And some Iudges are of the same Opinion to this hour If I Devise a term to A. for life after the death of A. his Executors shall not have it but it shall go to the Executors of the Devisor But if it be devised to A. generally without saying for life it shall go to his Executors after his death But a Devise for life vests in him only during his life and you may make a limitation over Keeling I take it that A. carries the whole term when devised to him for life because an Estate for life is larger then the longest term Twisden As a term for years doth admit of Remainders so it doth of Reversions if you will have it so and when he deviseth to A. during his life A. shall have it for his life but the Reversion shall be to the Devisors Executors But if he Devise it to A. for life and if he dye without Issue of his body the Remainder to B. what shall become of the Reversion then Keeling You start a new point Court You shall have our Iudgments this Term. Knowles versus Richardson ERror of a Iudgment in the Common Pleas in an Action upon the Case for obstructing a Prospect Sympson The stopping of a Prospect is no Nusance and consequently no Action on the Case will lie for it Aldred's Case 9th Report is express that for obstructing a Prospect being matter of delight only and not of necessity an Action will not lye Twisden Why may not I build up a Wall that another man may not look into my Yard Prospects may be stopt so you do not darken the light Iudgment nisi c. Twisden A man may be Indicted for Perjury in a Court-Baron Jones moved to have a Trial at Bar for Lands in Northumberland of 50 l. per annum Keeling It s a great way of off and never any Iury came from thence in your time Twisden But I have been of Councel in Causes wherein Trials have been granted at Bar for Lands there We have lost Cornwall no Iuries from thence come to the Bar and we shall lose Northumberland too The other side to shew cause Keeling upon a motion of Mr. Holt's said I have known many Attachments for Arresting a man upon a Sunday but still the Affidavit contained that he might have been taken on another day Twisd So for arresting a man as he was going to Church to disgrace him Term. Trin. 22 Car. II. 1670. in B. R. Parker VVelby AN Action upon the Case against a Sheriff for making a false Return The Plaintiff sets forth that one Wright was endebted to him in 60 l. and did promise to pay him and that thereupon a Writ was sued out against him directed to the Defendant being Sheriff of Lincolnshire who took him into his custody and after
5 Ed. 4. 6. Now for Authorities I confess there are great ones against me 2 Cro. fol. 335. Heath Ridley Moor. 838. Courtney versus Glanvill My Lord Coke in his Chapter of Praemunire 22 Ed. 4. fol. 37. But the greatest Authority against me is the case of Throgmorton Finch reported by my Lord Coke in his Treatise of Pleas of the Crown Chapter Praemunire But the practice has béen contrary not one person attainted of a Praemunire for that cause In King James his time the matter was referred to the Counsel who all agreed that the Chancery was not meant within the Statute which Opinions are inrolled in Chancery And the King upon the report of their Reasons ordered the Chancellor to proceed as he had done and from that time to this I do not find that this point ever came in question And so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant Saunders As to that objection that at the time when this Statute was made there were no proceedings in Equity I answer that granting it to be true yet there is the same mischief The proceedings in one part of the Chancery are coram Domino Rege in Cancellaria but an English Bill is directed to the Lord Keeper and decreed so that there is a difference in the proceedings of the same Court But admit that Courts of Equity are the Kings Courts yet they are aliae Curiae if they hold plea of matters out of their Iurisdiction 16 Ri. 2. cap. 5. Rolls first part 381. There is a common objection that if there were no relief in Chancery a man might be ruined for the Common Law is rigorous and adheres strictly to its rules I cannot answer this Objection better then it is answered to my hand in Dr. Stud. lib. 1. cap. 18. he cited 13 Ri. 2. num 30. Sir Robert Cotton's Records It is to be considered what is understood by being impeached Now the words of another Act will explain that viz. 4 H. 4. cap. 23. by that Act it appears that it is to draw a Iudgment in question any other way then by Writ of Error or Attaint One would think this Statute so fully penned that there were no room for an evasion There was a temporary Statute which is at large in Rastall 31 H. 6. cap. 2. in which there is this clause viz. That no matter determinable at Common Law shall be heard elsewhere A fortiori no matter determined at Common Law shall be drawn in question elsewhere He cited 22 Ed. 4. 36. Sir Moyle Finch Throgmorton 2 Inst 335. and Glanvill Courtney's case He put them also in mind of the Article against Cardinal Woolsey in Coke's Jurisdiction of Courts tit Chancery So he prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff Keeling It is fit that this cause be adjourned into the Exchequer-chamber for the Opinions of all the Iudges to be had in it We know what heats there were betwixt my Lord Coke Ellesmere which we ought to avoid Turner Benny A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment in the Common Pleas in an Action upon the Case wherein the Plaintiff declared that it was agréeed betwéen himself and the Defendant that the Plaintiff should surrender to the use of the Defendant certain Copy-hold Lands and that the Defendant should pay for those Lands a certain sum of money and then he sets forth that he did surrender the said Lands into the hands of two Tenants of the Manor out of Court secundum consuetudinem c. Exception The promise is to surrender generally which must be understood of a surrender to the Lord or to his Steward and the Declaration sets forth a surrender to two Tenants which is an imperfect surrender 1 Cro. 299. Keeling But in that case there are not the words secundum consuetudinem as in this case Jones Hill 22 Car. 1. Rot. 1735. betwixt Treburn Purchas two points were adjudged 1. That when there is an agréement for a surrender generally then such a particular surrender is naught 2. That the alledging of a surrender secundum consuetudinem is not sufficient but it ought to be laid that there was such a Custom within the Manor and then that according to that Custom he surrendred into c. accordingly is 3 Cro. 385. Coleman contra We do say that we were to surrender generally and then we aver that actually we did surrender secundum consuetudinem and if we had said no more it had béen well enough Then the adding into the hands of two Tenants c. I take it that it shall not hurt Besides we need not to alledge a performance because it is a mutual promise and he cited Camphugh Brathwait's case Hob. Twisden I remember the case of Treborne he was my Clyent And the reason of the Iudgment is in Combe's case 9th Rep. because the Tenants are themselves but Attornies And they compared it to this case I am bound to levy a Fine it may be done either in Court or by Commission but I must go and know of the person to whom I am bound how he will have it and he must direct me In the principal case the Iudgment was affirm'd Nisi c. Turner Davies AUdita Querela The point was this viz. an Administrator recovers damages in an Action of Trover and Conversion for Goods of the Intestate taken out of the possession of the Administrator himself then his Administration is revoked and the question is whether he shall have Execution of the Iudgment notwithstanding the revocation of his Administration Saunders I conceive he cannot for the Administration being revoked his Authority is gone Doctor Druries case in the 8th Report is plain And there is a President in the new book of Entries 89. Barrell I conceive he may take our Execution for it is not in right of his Administration he lays the Conversion in his own time and he might in this case have declared in his own name and he cited and urged the reason of Pakman's case 6th Report 1 Cro. Keeling He might bring the Action in his own name but the Goods shall be Assets If Goods come to the possession of an Administrator and his Administration be repealed he shall be charged as Executor of his own wrong now in this case the Administration being repealed shall he sue Execution to subject himself to an Action when done Twisden I think it hath béen ruled that he cannot take out Execution because his Title is taken away Iudgment per Cur. versus Defendentem Jordan Martin EXception was taken to an Avowry for a Rent-charge that the Avowant having distrained the Beasts of a Stranger for his Rent does not say that they were levant couchant Coleman The Beasts of a Stranger are not liable to a Distress unless they be levant couchant Roll. Distress 668. 672. Reignold's case Twisd Where there is a Custom for the Lord to seize the best Beast for a Heriot and the Lord does seize the
Trespass was brought for taking away a Cup till he paid him 20 shillings The Defendant pleads that ad quandam curiam he was amerced and that for that the Cup was taken Hales We cannot tell what Court it is whether it be a Court-Baron by Grant or Prescription if it be by Grant then it must be coram Seneschallo if by Prescription it may be coram Seneschallo or coram Sectatoribus or coram both Then it does not appear that the House where the Trespass was laid was within the Manor Then he doth not say infra Jur. Cur ' It was put upon the other side to shew cause Jacob Hall's Case ONe Jacob Hall a Rope-dancer had erected a Stage in Lincolns-Inn-fields but upon a Petition of the Inhabitants there was an Inhibition from Whitehall now upon a complaint to the Iudges that he had erected one at Charing-cross he was sent for into Court and the Chief Iustice told him that he understood it was a Nusance to the Parish and some of the Inhabitants being in Court said that it did occasion Broyles and Fightings and drew so many Rogues to that place that they lost things out of their Shops every Afternoon And Hales said that in 8 Car. 1. Noy came into Court and prayed a Writ to prohibit a Bowling-Ally erected near St. Dunstans Church and had it Sir Anthony Bateman's Case IN the Trial at Bar the Son and Daughter of Sir Anthony Bateman were Defendants the Action was an Ejectione Firmae The Defendants admitted the point of Sir Anthony's Bankrupcy but set up a Conveyance made by Sir Anthony to them for the payment of 1500 l. apiece being money given to them by their Grandfather Mr. Russell to whom Sir Anthony took out Administration Hales It is a voluntary Conveyance unless you can prove that Sir Anthony had Goods in his hands of Mr. Russell at the time of the executing it So they proved that he had and there was a Verdict for the Defendants Legg Richards EJectment Iudgment against the Defendant who dies and his Executor brings a Writ of Error and is non-suited It was moved that he should pay Costs Twisden An Executor is not within the Statute for payment of Costs occasione dilationis Hales I am of the same Opinion Harwood's Case HE was brought to the Bar by Habeas Corpus being committed by the Court of Aldermen for marrying an Orphan without their consent Sol. North. We conceive the Return insufficient and that it is an unreasonable Custom to impose a Penalty on a man for marrying a City-Orphan in any place of England Now we marryed her far from London and knew not that she was an Orphan Then they have put a Fine of 40 l. upon him whereas there is no cause why he should be denied Marriage with her there being no disparagement Twisden Mr. Waller of Berkingsfield was imprison'd six months for such a thing So the money was ordered to be brought into Court Vide infra 79. Leginham Porphery REplevin and Avowry for not doing Suit The Plaintiff sets forth a Custom that if any Tenant live at a distance if he comes at Michaelmas and pay eight pence to the Lord and a penny to the Steward he shall be excused for not attending and then says that he tendred eight pence c. and the Lord refused it c. Polynxfen I know no case where payment will do and tender and refusal will not do Hales Have you averred that there are sufficient Copy-holders that live near the Mannor Polynxfen We have averred that there are at least 120. Hales Surely tender and refusal is all one with payment Twisden An Award is made that super receptionem c. a man should give a Release there tender and refusal is enough Iudgment for the Defendant Waldron versus c. HAles It is true one Parish may contain thrée Vills The Parish of A. may contain the Vills of A. B. and C. that is when there are distinct Constables in every one of them But if the Constable of A. doth run through the whole then is the whole but one Ville in Law Or where there is a Tything-man it may be a Ville but if the Constable run through the Tything then it is all one Ville I know where three or four Thousand l. per annum hath béen enjoyed by a Fine levied of Land in the Ville of A. in which are five several Hamlets in which are Tythings but the Constable of A. runs through them all and upon that it was held good for all Here was a case of the Constable of Blandford-Forum wherein it was held that if he had a concurrent Iurisdiction with all the rest of the Constables the Fine would have passed the Lands in all In some places they have Tythingmen and no Constables Polynxfen Lambard 14. is that the Constable and the Tything-man are all one Hales That is in some places Praepositus is a proper word for a Constable and Decemarius for a Tything-man An Indictment for retaining a Servant without a Testimonial from his last Master Moved to quash it because it wants the words contra pacem 2. Becausâ—â—â—ey do not shew in what Trade it was So quash'd Moved to quash another Indictment because the year of our Lord in the Caption was in Figures Hales The year of the King is enough Moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court for that they Sue a Parish for not paying a Rate made by the Church-wardens only whereas by the Law the major part of the Parish must joyn Twisden Perhaps no more of the Parish will come together Counsel If that did appear it might be something Hales A Writ of Error will lie in the Exchequer-Chamber of a Iudgment in a Scire facias grounded upon a Iudgment in one of the Actions mentioned in the 27 of Eliz. cap. 8. because it is in effect a piece of one of the Actions therein mentioned Harwood's Case HE was removed out of London by Habeas Corpus the Return was That he was fined and committed there for marrying a City-Orphan without the consent of the Court of Aldermen Exception 1. They do not say that the party was a Citizen or that the Marriage was within the City and they are not bound to take notice of a City Orphan out of the City for their Customs extend only to Citizens in the City Exception 2. They have not shewed that we had reasonable time to shew cause why we should not be fined Twisden These Objections were over-ruled in one Waller's case Afterward in the same Term Weston spake to it There are two matters upon which the validity of this Return doth depend viz. The Custom and the Offence within the Custom The Custom is laid that time out of mind the Court of Aldermen have had power to set a reasonable Fine upon such as should marry an Orphan without their leave and upon refusal to pay it to imprison him I conceive this Custom as it is laid to
be unreasonable it ought to be locally circumscribed and confined to the City 17 Ed. 4. 7. there was an Action brought upon the Statute of Labourers for retaining one that was the Plaintiffs retained Servant the Defendant pleaded in abatement that there was no place laid where the Plaintiffs retainer was and this was held a good Plea for that if it were in another County then where the Defendant retained him it was impossible for the Defendant to take notice of a Retainer in another County No more can we take notice who is a City Orphan in the County of Kent Then they have returned a Custom to imprison generally but it should have beén that without reasonable cause shewn they might imprison and the party have liberty to shew cause to the contrary Then I conceive they have returned the Fact as defective as the Custom they say that he marryed her without their consent they ought to have said that he took her out of their custody and your Lordships will not intend that she was in their custody when she was out of the City Offley of the same side and cited 21 Ed. 3. Fitz. Guard 31. and Hob. in Moor Hussey's case 95. 3 Cro. 803. 3 Cro. 689. 1 Cro. 561. In all the cases its returned that they were Free-men of the City Mr. Solicitor North on the same side cited Day Savage's case Mr. Attorney General on the other side said that because it was impossible to give notice to all therefore ex necessitate rei they must take notice at their peril Hales The City has an Interest in the Orphan wherever the Orphan be And for notice he may enquire there is no impossibility of his coming to the knowledge whether she be an Orphan or no therefore if he takes her he takes her at his peril Twisden And for the Fine such a Fine was set in Langham's Case and adjudged good Let a Citizen of London live where he will his Children shall be Orphans Hales Some things are local in themselves some things adherent to the person and follow the person now this is an Interest which follows the person and is transmitted to his Children and the party must take notice of it at his peril Cox St. Albanes A Prohibition was prayed for to the City of London because the Defendant had offered a Plea to the Iurisdiction sworn and it had been refused Hales In transitory Actions if they will plead a matter that ariseth out of the Iurisdiction and swear it before Imparlance and it be refused a Prohibition shall go There was a case in which it was adjudged 1. That upon a bare surmise that the matter ariseth out of the Iurisdiction the Court will not grant a Prohibition 2. It must be pleaded and the Plea sworn and it must come in before Imparlance If all this were done we would grant a Prohibition here It was also agréed in that case that the party should never be received to assign for Error that it was out of the Iurisdiction but it must be pleaded Twisd So in this Court when there is a Plea to the Iurisdiction as that it is within a County Palatine they plead it before Imparlance and swear their Plea Twisden There was a Venire facias returnable coram nobis apud Westm whereas it should have béen ubicunque fuerimus c. yet because the Court was held here it was held to be good Hales I remember it Hales When in an inferiour Court the Venire facias is ad prox Cur ' it is naught because it is uncertain when the Court will be kept But if it be at such a day ad prox Cur. it is good Anonymus A Writ of Error of a Iudgment in White-chappel After the Record was read Hales said the acts of a Court ought to be in the present Tense as praeceptum est not praeceptum fuit But the acts of the party may be in the Preterperfect Tense as venit protulit hic in Cur ' quandam querelam suam And the Continuances are in the Preterperfect Tense as venerunt not veniunt But upon another Exception the Court gave time to move it again Moved for a melius inquirendum to be granted to the Coroner of Kent who had returned an Inquisition concerning the death of one that was killed within the Manor of Greenwich he had returned that he dyed of a Meagrim in his head when he was really killed with a Coach Hales A melius inquirendum is generally upon an Office post mortem and is directed to the Sheriff Twisden But this cannot be to the Sheriff In 22 Ed. 4. the Coroner must enquire only super visum corporis And if you will have a new inquiry you must quash this Indéed a new inquiry was granted in Miles Bartly's case Thurland prayed that the Court being the supreme Coroner would examine the misdemeanor of the Coroner Hales Make some Oath of his misdemeanor because he is a sworn Officer Without Oath we will not quash this Inquisition Newdigate said that in the case of Miles Bartly the inquiry was not Filed and that that was the reason why a new one was granted Hales Let the Coroner attend he must take the Evidence in writing and he should bring his Examination into Court. Daniel Appleford's Case A Writ of Mandamus was directed to the Master and Fellows of New-Colledge in Oxford to restore one Daniel Appleford a Fellow They return that the Bishop of Winchester did erect the Colledge and among other Laws by which the Colledge was to be governed they return this to be one viz. That if a Scholar or other Member of the said Colledge should commit any crime whereby scandal might arise to the Colledge and that it appeared by his own confession or full Evidence of the Fact that then he should be removed without any remedy and that Daniel Appleford a Fellow was guilty of enormous Crimes and was convicted and thereupon removed and they pray Iudgment whether this Court will proceed Jones By this conclusion they rely chiefly upon the Iurisdiction of the Court I will lay this for a ground that this Court hath Iurisdiction in Extrajudicial causes as well as Iudicial 11 Rep. Bagg's case And Appleford hath no remedy but this I will not say that he may not have an Action upon the Case but by that he will not recover the thing but damages And for an Assize if a man be a Corporation sole or head of a Corporation aggregate and be turn'd out wrongfully he may have an Assize but for a man that is but an inferiour Member of a Corporation no Assize lyeth for him because he is but a part of the body politick and doth not stand by himself but must joyn with others and as he cannot have an Assize so he cannot have an Appeal Dyer 209. 11 Rep. in Bagg's case 24 H. 8. 22. 25 H. 8. cap. 19. 4 Inst 340. by these Authorities it appears that we are without
not Repair but if you will discharge your self you must do it by prescription or ratione tenurae and say that such an one ratione tenurae or such part of the Parish hath always used time out of mind c. Anonymus AN Action of Debt upon a Bond the Condition Whereas one Bardue did give by his Will so much if he should pay it such a day c. The Defendant pleads bene verum est he did give him so much by his Will and Testament but he revoked that and made another last Will. The Court said he was estopped to plead so Hales It doth not appear when the Bond was made and it shall be intended to be made after the parties death Iudgment pro Querente Deereing versus Farrington AN Action of Covenant declaring upon a Deed by which the Defendant assignavit transposuit all the money that should be allowed by any Order of a Forreign State to come to him in lieu of his share in a Ship Tompson moved that an Action of Covenant would not lye for it was neither an express nor implied Covenant 1 Leon. 179. Hales You should rather have applyed your self to this viz. whether it would not be a good Covenant against the party as If a man doth demise that is an implied Covenant but if there be a particular express Covenant that he shall quietly enjoy against all claiming under him that restrains the general implyed Covenant But it is a good Covenant against the party himself If I will make a Lease for years reserving Rent to a Stranger an Action of Covenant will lye by the party for to pay the Rent to the Stranger Then it was said it was an Assignment for maintenance Hales That ought to have been averred Then it was further said that an Assignment transferring when it cannot transfer signifies nothing Hales But it is a Covenant and then it is all one as if he had covenanted that he should have all the money that he should recover for his loss in such a Ship Twisd seemed to doubt But Iudgment Lord Mordant versus Earl of Peterborough TRial at Bar the question was Whether the Earl of Peterborough was Tenant for life only of the Mannor of Mayden The Defendant did not appear the Plaintiff thereupon desired to examine his Witnesses that so he might preserve their Evidence Twisd When they do not appear what good will that do you for they will say you set up a man of straw and pull him down again There was a former Deed of entail with a power of revocation in it and after the Deed exhibited was made whereby the Estate was otherwise settled and there was a Ioynture to the present Lady and done by persons of great Learning in the Law The Revocation was to be by Deed under my Lords Hand and Seal in the presence of thrée Witnesses Now the question was whether this second Deed was a revocation in Law and an Execution of that power And the Court told the Counsel they should find it specially if they would but they refused Hales In 16 Car. Snape and Sturts case If there be a power of revocation and a Lease for years is made it doth suspend quoad the term but after it is good Then it hath been questioned formerly if there be such a power and the person makes a Lease and Release whether it was a Revocation But shall we conceive the learned Counsel in this case would have ventured upon an implicit revocation and not have made an express revocation So that you must be non-suit or find it specially But the issue being If he wee only Tenant for life he said he must go back to the Chancery to amend it for by the Deéd produced he hath an Estate for life and the Reversion in Fee Burgis versus Burgis In Chancery A Man having a long Lease settled it in Trust upon himself for life the Remainder to his Wife for life the Remainder to the first Son of their two bodies the Remainder to the second Son and so to the tenth Son And if they should have no Son or Sons then the Remainder to such Daughter and Daughters of their bodies c. The man and his wife died and left only a Daughter who preferred her Bill against the Trustees for the executing of this Remainder to her The question is whether this Remainder be a good Remainder or whether it be void And the Lord Keeper Finch held it was a void Remainder because it doth depend upon so many and such remote Contingencies for otherwise it would be a perpetuity And he said he would allow one Contingency to be good viz. that to the first Son though the first Son was not in esse at the time of his decease And he said he did deny my Lord Cokes Opinion in Leon. Lovells case which saith that in case of a Lease settled to one and the heirs males of his body when he dies the Estate is determined for he said it shall go to his Executors And he said there was the same case with this in this Court Backhurst versus Bellingham And he said that the Common Law did complain that this Court did encroach upon them whereas they are beholding to this Court for their rules in Equity as Formerly when Ecclesiastical persons made Leases a misnosmer would avoid them but Elsmere in his time would notwithstanding the misnosmer make them good And he cited a case in Dyer and Matthew Mannings case Leon. Lovell and Lampetts case and Child and Bailies case Another case in Chancery One mortgaged Lands then confest a Iudgment and died The Mortgagée buys of the heir the Equity of Redemption for 200 l. The Bill was preferred by the Creditor by Iudgment against the Mortgagée and Heir either to be let in by paying the Mortgage money or else that the 200 l. received by the heir might be Assets And the Court said that the Mortgagees Estate should not be stirred But it was left by my Lord to be made a case whether the two hundred pounds should be Assets in the hands of the heir Mosedell the Marshal of the K. B's Case A Trial at Bar An Action of Debt brought against Mosedell for the escape of one Reynolds The Plaintiff said he could prove that he was at London three long Vacations Twisd It is hard to put three Escapes upon the Marshal for he may be provided only for one and he cannot give in Evidence a Fresh pursuit but it must be pleaded Hales I always let them give in evidence a Fresh suit upon a Nil debet And Wild said it was generally done So they gave evidence of an Habeas corp ad test ' and that the Prisoner went down too long before-hand and stayed too long after the Assizes were done at Wells in Somerset-shire and that he went back threescore miles beyond Wells before he retorned again for London Hales If an Habeas Corpus be granted to bring a person into
pleaded A special Verdict that the Lands are Copyhold Lands and surrendred to the use of one for eleven years the Remainder for five years to the Daughter the Remainder to the right heirs of the Tenant for eleven years The eleven years expire the Daughter is admitted the five years expire And there being a Son and Daughter by one Venter and a Son by another Venter the Son of the first Venter dies before admittance and the Daughter of the first Venter and her Husband bring Trover for cutting down of Trees And the question was if the admittance of Tenant for years was the admittance of the Son in Remainder Levings I conceive it is and then the Son is seized and the Daughter of the whole blood is his heir and he cited 4 Rep. 23. 3 Cro. 503. Bunny's case Wyld The Estate is bound by the Surrender Hales If a man doth surrender to the use of John Styles till admitted there is no Estate in him but remains in the Surrenderor but he hath a right to have an admittance If a surrender be to J. S. and his heirs his heir is in without admittance if J. S. dies About this hath indeed been diversity of Opinion but the better Opinion hath been according to the Lord Coke's Opinion I do not see any inconvenience why the admission of Tenant for life or years should not be the admittance of all in Remainder for Fines are to be paid notwithstanding by the particular Remainders and so the Books say it shall be no prejudice to the Lord. Twisd I think it is strong that the admission of Lessee for years is the admission of him in Remainder for as in a case of possessio fratris the Estate is bound so that the Sister shall be heir so here the Estate is bound and goes to him in Remainder Hales I shall not prejudice the Lord for if a Fine be assessed for the whole Estate there is an end of the business but if a Fine be assessed only for a particular Estate the Lord ought to have another If a surrender be to the use of A. for life the Remainder to his eldest Son c. or to the use of A. and his heirs and then A. dies the Estate is in the Son without admittance whether he takes by purchase or descent And Iudgment was given accordingly Draper versus Bridwell Rot. 320. ALL the Court held that an Action of Debt would lye upon a Iudgment after a Writ of Error brought Twisden They in the Spiritual Court will give Sentence for Tythes for rakings though they be never so unvoluntarily left which our Law will not allow of Wyld said that Actions personal transitory though the party doth live in Chester yet they may be brought in the Kings Courts Hales Shew a President where a man can wage his Law in an Action brought upon a Prescription for a duty as in an Action of Debt for Toll by Prescription you cannot wage your Law Pybus versus Mitford Postea THe Chief Iustice delivered his Opinion Wyld Rainsford and Twisden having first delivered theirs Hales I think Iudgment ought to be given for the Defendant whether the Son take by descent or purchase I shall divide the case 1 Whether the Son doth take by descent 2 Admitting he doth not whether he can take by purchase We must make a great difference betweén Conveyances of Estates by way of use and at Common Law A man cannot convey to himself an Estate by a Conveyance at Common Law but by way of Vse he may But now in our case here doth doth retorn by operation of Law an Estate to Michael for his life which is conjoyned with the Limitation to his heirs The reason is because a Limitation to the heirs of his body is in effect to himself this is perfectly according to the intention of the parties Objection The use being never out of Michael he hath the old use and so it must be a Contingent use to the heirs of his body But I say we are not here to raise a new Estate in the Covenantor but to qualifie the Estate in Fee in himself for the old Estate is to be made an Estate for life to serve the Limitation Further Objection It shall be the old Estate in Fee as if a man deviseth his Lands to his heirs the heir is in of the old Estate But I answer if he qualifie the Estate the Son must take it so as in Hutton fo So in this case is a new qualification Roll 789. 15 Jac. If a man makes a Feoffment to the use of the heirs of the body of the Feoffor the Feoffor hath an Estate Tail in him Pannel versus Fenne Moor 349. Englefield and Englefield 2 I conceive if it were not possible to take by descent this would be a Contingent use to the heirs of the body Objection It is limited to the heir when no heir in being Why I say it would have come to the heir at Common Law if no express Limitation had been and it cannot be intended that he did mean an heir at Common Law because he did specially limit it Fitz. tit Entayle 23. An Assise for the Serjeant at Mace's place in the House of Commons The Plaintiff had his Patent read The Court asked if they could prove Seisin They answered that they had recovered in an Action upon the case for the mean profits and had Execution Court For ought we know that will amount to a seisin Twisden Vpon your grant since you could not get seisin you should have gone into Chancery and they would have compelled him to give you seisin Hales A man may bring an Action upon the case for the profits of an Office though he never had seisin So the Record was read of his Recovery in an Action upon the case for the profits Hales This is but a seisin in Law not a seisin in Fact The Counsel for the Plaintiff much urged that the Recovery and Execution had of the profits was a sufficient seisin to entitle them to an Assise It was objected that the Plaintiff was never invested into the Office Hales said That an investiture did not make an Officer when he is created by Patent as this is but he is an Officer presently But if he were created an Herald at Arms as in Segars case he must be invested before he can be an Officer a person is an Officer before he is sworn Hales You are the Pernor of the profits and they have recovered them is not this a Seisin against you They shall find it specially but they chose rather to be Non-suit because of the delay by a special Verdict And the Court told them they could not withdraw a Iuror in an Assise for then the Assise would be depending The Roll of the Action sur le case fuit 19 Car. 2. Mich. Rot. 557. Term. Trin. 15 Car. II. 1663. Judge Hide 's Argument in the Exchequer-Chamber Manby versus Scott A Feme Covert departs
upon that reason the words themselves prove the contrary for the difference taken by all these books is between the buying and contract of the wife without the knowledge or consent of her husband and a buying or contract had by the wife with allowance or command of the husband In the first case the buying or contract is void in the other the allowance or command makes it good as the contract or bargain of the husband Besides weigh the inconveniencies which would follow if the Law were otherwise Iudges in their Iudgments ought to have a great regard to the generality of the cases of the Kings Subjects and to the inconveniencies which may ensue thereon by the one way or the other 1 Rep. 52. Altenwoods case Iudges in giving their resolutions in cases depending before them are to judge of inconveniencies as things illegal and an argument ab Inconventi is very strong to prove that it is against Law Plo. Com. 279. 379. then examine the inconveniencies which must ensue if the Law were according to my Brother Twisdens and Tyrrells Opinions If the contract or bargain of the wife made without the allowance or consent of the husband shall bind him upon pretence of necessary Apparel it will be in the power of the wife who by the Law of God and of the Land is put under the power of the husband and is bound to live in subjection unto him to rule over her husband and undo him maugre his head and it shall not be in the power of the husband to prevent it The wife shall be her own Carver and judge of the fitness of her Apparel of the time when 't is necessary for her to have new Cloathes and as often as she pleaseth without asking the advice or allowance of her husband And is such power suitable to the Iudgment of Almighty God inflicted upon woman for being first in the Transgression Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee Will wives depend on the kindness and favours of their husbands or be observant towards them as they ought to be if such a power be put into their hands Secondly Admit that in truth the wife wants necessary Apparel Woollen and Lining thereupon she goes into Pater-Noster-Row to a Mercer and takes up Stuff and makes a contract for necessary Clothes thence goes up into Cheapside and takes up Lining there in like manner and also goes into a third Street and fits her self with Ribbonds and other necessaries suitable to her occasions and her husbands degree This done she goes away disposeth of the Commodities to furnish her self with money to go abroad to Hide-Park to score at Gleeke or the like Next morning this good woman goes abroad into some other part of London makes her necessity and want of Apparel known and takes more Wares upon trust as she had done the day before after the same manner she goes to a third and fourth place and makes new Contracts for fresh Wares none of these Tradesmen knowing or imagining she was formerly furnished by the other and each of them seeing and believing her to have great need of the Commodities sold her shall not the husband be chargeable and lyable to pay every one of these if the contract of the Wife doth bind him Certainly every one of these hath as just cause to sue the husband as the other and he is as lyable to the Action of the last as the first or second if the wives contract shall bind him and where this will end no man can divine or foresee As for my Brother Tyrrells saying we may not alter the Law because an inconvenience may follow thereon that is true but we ought to foresée and provide against such inconveniencies as may arise before we adjudge or declare the Law in a particular case in question whether the Law be so or not And that is the case here It is objected that the husband is bound of common right to provide for and maintain his wife and the Law having disabled the wife to bind her self by her contract therefore the burden shall rest upon the husband who by Law is bound to maintain her and he shall do it nolens volens generally the antecedent is most true for she is bone of his bone flesh of his flesh and no man did ever hate his own flesh so far as not to preserve it But apply this general proposition to our particular case and then see what Logick there is in the argument I am bound to maintain and provide for my wife therefore my wife departing from me against my will shall be her own Carver and take up what Apparel she pleaseth upon trust without my privity or allowance and I shall be bound to pay for it this is our case for there is not a word throughout the whole Verdict that the wife did want necessary Apparel that she ever acquainted her husband with any such matter that she ever desired the husband to supply her with money to buy it or otherwise to provide for her or that the husband did deny refuse or neglect to do it Besides although it be true that the husband is bound to maintain his wife yet that is with this limitation viz. so long as she keeps the station wherein the Law hath plac'd her so long as she continues a help meet unto him for if a woman of her own head without the allowance or Iudgment of the Church which hath united them in the holy State of Matrimony which only can separate that or dissolve this Vnion depart from her husband against his will be the pretence what it will she doth thereby put her self out of the husbands protection so that during this unlawful separation she is no part of her husbands care charge or family The King is the Head of the Common-wealth his Office is and he is bound of right to protect and preserve his Subjects in their Persons Goods and Estates And on that ground every Loyal Subject is said to be within the Kings Protection Plo. 315. Case of Mynes F. N. Br. 232. But a man may put himself out of the Kings Protection by his Offence as by forsaking his Allegiance to the King and owning or setting up any Forreign Iurisdiction and then every man may do unto him as to the Kings Enemy and he shall have no remedy or Recovery by the Kings Laws or Writs 27 E. 3. case the first The husband is head of the wife as fully as the King is Head of the Common-wealth and the wife by the Law is put sub potestate viri and under his protection although he hath not potestatem vitae necis over her as the King hath over his Subjects When the wife departs from her husband against his will she forsakes and deserts his Government she erects and sets up a new Iurisdiction and assumes to govern her self besides at least if not against the Law of God and of the Land
receive the bodies of James Earl of Salisbury Anthony Earl of Shaftsbury and Philip Lord Wharton Members of this House and keep them in safe custody within the said Tower during his Majesties pleasure and the pleasure of this House for their high Contempt committed against this House And this shall be a sufficient Warrant on that behalf To the Constable c. John Browne Cler ' Parl ' The Earl of Shaftsbury's Counsel prayed that the Retorn might be Filed and it was so And Friday following appointed for the debating of the sufficiency of the Retorn and in the mean time directions were given to his Counsel to attend the Iudges and the Attorny-General with their Exceptions to the Retorn and my Lord was remanded till that day And it was said that though the Retorn was Field the Court could remand or commit him to the Marshal at their Election And on Friday the Earl was brought into Court again and his Counsel argued the insufficiency of the Retorn Williams said That this cause was of great consequence in regard the King was touched in his Prerogative The Subject in his Liberty and this Court in its Iurisdiction The cause of his Commitment which is retorned is not sufficient for the general allegation of high Contempts is too uncertain for the Court cannot judge of the Contempt if it doth not appear in what act it is Secondly It is not shewed where the Contempt was committed and in favour of Liverty it shall be intended they were committed out of the House of Peers Thirdly The time is uncertain so that peradventure it was before the last Act of general Pardon 1 Roll 192 193. and 219. Russells case Fourthly It doth not appear whether this Commitment were on a Conviction or an Accusation only It cannot be denied but that the Retorn of such Commitment by any other Court would be too general and uncertain Moore 839. Astwick was bailed on a Retorn Quod commissus fuit per mandatum Ni. Bacon Mil. Domini Custodis magni Sigilli Angliae virtute cujusdam Contempt ' in Curia Cancellariae fact ' and in that book it appears that divers other persons were bailed on such general Retorns and the cases have been lately affirmed in Bushells case repeated by the Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan where it is expresly said that on such Commitment and Retorns being too general and uncertain the Court cannot believe in an implicite manner that in truth the Commitment was for causes particular and sufficient Vaughans Rep. 14. accord 2 Inst 52 53 55. and 1 Roll 218. And the Commitment of the Iurors was for acquitting Pen and Mead contra plenam manifestam Evidentiam and it was resolved to be too general for the Evidence ought to appear as certain to the Iudge of the Retorn as it appeared before the Iudge authorized to Commit Russells case 137. Now this Commitment being by the House of Peers will make no difference for in all cases where a matter comes in Iudgment before this Court let the question be of what nature it will the Court is obliged to declare the Law and that without distinction whether the question began in Parliament or no. In the case of Sir George Binion in C. B. there was a long debate whether an Original might be Filed against a Member of Parliament during the time of priviledge and it was urged that it being during the Sessions of Parliament the determination of the question did belong to the Parliament But it was resolved an Original might be Filed and Bridgman then being Chief Iustice said That the Court was obliged to declare the Law in all cases that come in Iudgment before them Hill 24 E. 4. Rot. 4. 7. 10. in Scacc ' in Debt by Rivers versus Cousin The Defendant pleads he was a Servant to a Member of Parliament and ideo capi seu arrest ' non debet and the Plaintiff prays Iudgment and quia videtur Baronibus quod tale habetur privilegium quod magnates c. et eorum familiares capi seu arrestari non debent Sed nullum habetur privilegium quod non debent implacitari Ideo respondeat oustr ' So in Treymiards case a question of priviledge was determined in this Court Dyer 60. In the 14 E. 3. in the case of Sir John and Sir Geoffrey Staunton which was cited in the case of the Earl of Clarendon and is entred in the Lords Iournal an Action of Waste depended between them in the Common-Pleas and the Court was divided and the Record was certified into the House of Parliament and they gave direction that the Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff Afterwards in a Writ of Error brought in this Court that Iudgment was reversed notwithstanding the Objection That it was given by Order of the House of Lords for the Court was obliged to proceed according to the Law in a matter which was before them in point of Iudgment The construction of all Acts of Parliament is given to the Courts at Westminster And accordingly they have adjudged of the Validity of Acts of Parliament They have searched the Rolls of Parliament Hob. 109. Lord Hudsons case They have determined whether the Iournals be a Record Hob. 110. When a point comes before them in Iudgment they are not foreclosed by any Act of the Lords If it appears that an Act of Parliament was made by the King and Lords without the Commons that is Felo de se and the Courts of Westminster do adjudge it void 4 H. 7. 18. Hob. 111. and accordingly they ought to do If this Retorn contains in it that which is fatal to it self it must stand or fall thereby It hath been a question often resolved in this Court when a Writ of Error in Parliament shall be a Supersedeas And this Court hath determined what shall be said to be a Session of Parliament 1 Roll 29. and if the Law were otherwise there would be a failour of Iustice If the Parliament were Dissolved there can be no question but the Prisoner should be discharged on a Habeas Corpas and yet then the Court must examine the cause of his Commitment and by consequence a matter Parliamentary And the Court may now have cognisance of the matter as clearly as when the Parliament is Dissolved The party would be without remedy for his Liberty if he could not find it here for it is not sufficient for him to procure the Lords to determine their pleasure for his Imprisonment for before his enlargement he must obtain the pleasure of the King to be determined and that ought to be in this Court and therefore the Prisoner ought first to resort hither Let us suppose for it doth not appear on the Retorn and the Court ought not to enquire of any matter out of it that a supposed contempt was a thing done out of the House it would be hard for this Court to remand him Suppose he were committed to a Forreign prison during the
pleasure of the Lords no doubt that would have been an illegal Commitment against Magna Charta and the Petition of Right There the Commitment had been expresly illegal and it may be this Commitment is no less For if it had been expresly shewn and he be remanded he is committed by this Court who are to answer for his Imprisonment But secondly The duration of the Imprisonment during the pleasure of the King and of the House is illegal and uncertain for since it ought to determine in two Courts it can have no certain period A Commitment until he shall be discharged by the Courts of Kings-Bench and Common-Pleas is illegal for the Prisoner cannot apply himself in such manner as to obtain a discharge If a man be committed till further Order he is bailable presently for that imports till he shall be delivered by due course of Law and if this Commitment have not that sense it is illegal for the pleasure of the King is that which shall be determined according to Law in his Courts as where the Statute of Westm ' 1. cap. 15. declares that he is not replevisable who is taken by command of the King it ought to extend to an extrajudicial command not in his Courts of Iustice to which all matters of Iudicature are delegated and distributed 2 Inst 186 187. Wallop to the same purpose he cited Bushells case Vaughan's Rep. 137. that the general Retorn for high Contempts was not sufficient and the Court that made the Commitment in this case makes no difference for otherwise one may be imprisoned by the House of Peers unjustly for a matter relievable here and yet shall be out of all relief by such a Retorn for upon a supposition that this Court ought not to meddle where the person is committed by the Peers then any person at any time and for any cause is to be subject to perpetual Imprisonment at the pleasure of the Lords But the Law is otherwise for the House of Lords is the supream Court yet their Iurisdiction is limited by the Common and Statute Law and their excesses are examinable in this Court for there is great difference betwéen the errors and excesses of a Court betwéen an erroneous proceéding and a proceeding without Iurisdiction which is void and a meer nullity 4 H. 7. 18. In the Parliament the King would have one Attaint of Treason and lose his Lands and the Lords assented but nothing was said of the Commons wherefore all the Iustices held that it was no Act and he was restored to his Land and without doubt in the same case if the party had been imprisoned the Iustices must have made the like resolution that he ought to have been discharged It is a Sollecism that a man shall be imprisoned by a limited Iurisdiction and it shall not be examinable whether the cause were within their Iurisdiction or no. If the Lords without the Commons should grant a Tax and one that refused to pay it should be imprisoned the Tax is void but by a general Commitment the party shall be remediless So if the Lords shall award a Capias for Treason or Felony By these instances it appears that their Iurisdiction was restrained by the Common Law and it is likewise restrained by divers Acts of Parliament 1 H. 4. cap. 14. No Appeals shall be made or any way pursued in Parliament And when a Statute is made a power is implicitely given to this Court by the fundamental constitution which makes the Iudges Expositors of Acts of Parliament And peradventure if all this case appeared upon the Retorn this might be a case in which they were restrained by the Statute 4 H. 8. cap. 8. That all Suits Accusements Condemnations Punishments Corrections c. at any time from henceforth to be put or had upon any Member for any Bill speaking or reasoning of any matters concerning the Parliament to be communed or treated of shall be utterly void and of none effect Now it doth not appear but this is a correction or punishment imposed upon the Earl contrary to the Statute There is no question made now of the power of the Lords but it is only urged that it is necessary for them to declare by virtue of what power they proceed otherwise the Liberty of every Englishman shall be subject to the Lords whereof they may deprive any of them against an Act of Parliament but no usage can justifie such a proceeding Ellismeres case of the Post-nati 19. The Duke of Suffolk was impeached by the Commons of High Treason and Misdemeanors the Lords were in doubt whether they would proceed on such general Impeachment to imprison the Duke And the advice of the Iudges being demanded and their resolutions given in the negative the Lords were satisfied This case is mentioned with design to shew the respect given to the Iudges and that the Iudges have determined the highest matters in Parliament At a conference between the Lords and Commons 3 Aprilis Car. 1. concerning the Rights and Priviledges of the Subject It was declared and agreed that no Freeman ought to be restrained or committed by command of the King or Privy-Council or any other in which the House of Lords are included unless some cause of the Commitment Restraint or Deteynor be set forth for which by Law he ought to be committed c. Now if the King who is the Head of the Parliament or his Privy Council which is the Court of State ought therefore to proceed in a legal manner this solemn resolution ought to end all Debates of this matter It is true 1 Roll 129. in Russells case Coke is of Opinion that the Privy-Council may commit without shewing cause but in his more mature age he was of another Opinion And accordingly the Law is declared in the Petition of Right and no inconvenience will ensue to the Lords by making their Warrants more certain Smith argued to the same purpose and said That a Iudge cannot make a Iudgment unless the Fact appears to him on a Habeas Corpus the Iudge can only take notice of the Fact retorned It is lawful for any Subject that finds himself agrieved by any Sentence or Iudgment to Petition the King in an humble manner for Redress And where the Subject is restrained of his liberty the proper place for him to apply himself to is this Court which hath the supreme power as to this purpose over all other Courts and an Habeas Corpus issuing here the King ought to have an accompt of his Subjects Roll tit Habeas Corp. 69. Wetherlies case And also the Commitment was by the Lords yet if it be illegal this Court is obliged to discharge the Prisoner as well as if he had been illegally imprisoned by any other Court The House of Peers is an high Court but the Kings-Bench hath ever been entrusted with the Liberty of the Subject and if it were otherwise in case of Imprisonment by the Peers the power of the King were
of ordinary Iurisdiction If this Commitment had been by any inferiour Court it could not have been maintained But the Commitment is by a Court tht is not under the comptroll of this Court and that Court is in Law sitting at this time and so the expressing of the Contempt particularly is matter which continues in the deliberation of the Court 'T is true this Court ought to determine what the Law is in every case that comes before them and in this case the question is only whether this Court can judge of a Contempt committed in Parliament during the same Session of Parliament and discharge one committed for such Contempt When a question arises in an Action depending in this Court the Court may determine it but now the question is whether the Lords have capacity to determine their own priviledges and whether this Court can comptroll their determination and discharge during the Session a Peer committed for Contempt The Iudges have often demanded what the Law is and how a Statute should be expounded of the Lords in Parliament as in the Statute of Amendments 40 E. 3. 84. 6. 8. Co. 157 158. a fortiori the Court ought to demand their Opinion when a doubt arises on an Order made by the House of Lords now sitting As to the duration of the Imprisonment doubtless the pleasure of the King is to be determined in the same Court where Iudgment was given As also to the determination of the Session the Opinion of Coke is good Law and the addition of Proviso's in many Acts of Parliament is only in majorem cautelam Jones Attorney General to the same effect As to the uncertainty of the Commitment it is to be considered that this case differs from all other cases in two circumstances First the person that is a Member of the House by which he is committed I take it upon me to say that the case would be different if the person committed were not a Peer Secondly The Court that doth commit which is a superiour Court to this Court and therefore if the Contempt had been particularly shewn of what Iudgment soever this Court should have been as to that Contempt yet they could not have discharged the Earl and thereby take upon them a Iurisdiction over the House of Peers The Iudges in no age have taken upon them the Iudgment of what is Lex consuetudo Parliamenti but here the attempt is to engage the Iudges to give their Opinion in a matter whereof they might have refused to have given it if it had been demanded in Parliament This is true if an Action be brought where priviledge is pleaded the Court ought to judge of it as an incident to the Suit whereof the Court was possessed but that will be no warrant for this Court to assume a Iudgment of an original matter arising in Parliament And that which is said of the Iudges power to expound Statutes cannot be denied but it is not applicable in this case By the same reason that this Commitment is questioned every Commitment of the House of Commons may be likewise questioned in this Court It is objected That there will be a failer of Iustice if the Court should not discharge the Earl but the contrary is true for if he be discharged there would be a manifest failer of Iustice for Offences of Parliament cannot be punished any where but in Parliament and therefore the Earl would be delivered from all manner of punishment for his Offence if he be discharged For the Court cannot take Bail but where they have a Iurisdiction of the matter and so delivered out of the hands of the Lords who only have power to punish him It is objected That the Contempt is not said to be committed in the House of Peers but it may well be intended to be committed there for it appears he is a Member of that House and that the Contempt was against the House And besides there are Contempts whereof they have cognizance though they are committed out of the House It is objected That it is possible this Contempt was committed before the general pardon but surely such Injustice should not be supposed in the supream Court and it may well be supposed to be committed during the Session in which the Commitment to Prison was It would be great difficulty for the Lords to make their Commitments so exact and particular when they are imployed in the various affairs of the Realm and it hath been adjudged on a Retorn out of the Chancery of a Commitment for a Contempt against a Decreé that it was good and the Decrée was not shewn The limitation of the Imprisonment is well for if the King or the House determine their pleasure he shall be discharged for then it is not the pleasure of both that he should be detained and the addition of these words during the pleasure is no more than was before imply'd by the Law for if these words had been omitted yet the King might have pardoned the Contempt if he would have expressed his pleasure under the Broad Seal If Iudgment be given in this Court that one should be imprisoned during the Kings pleasure his pleasure ought to be determined by Pardon and not by any act of this Court. So that the King would have no prejudice by the Imprisonment of a great Minister because he could discharge him by a Pardon the double limitation is for the benefit of the Prisoner who ought not to complain of the duration of the Imprisonment since he hath neglected to make application for his discharge in the ordinary way I confess by the determination of the Session the Orders made the same Session are discharged but I shall not affirm whether this present Order be discharged or no because it is a Iudgment but this is not the present case for the Session continues notwithstanding the Royal Assent given to several Bills according to the Opinion of Cooke and of all the Iudges Hutton 61 62. Every Proviso in an Act of Parliament is not a determination what the Law was before for they are often added for the satisfaction of those that are ignorant of the Law Winington Solicitor General to the same purpose In the great case of Mr. Selden 5 Car. 1. the Warrant was for notable Contempts committed against us and our Government and stirring up Sedition and though that be almost as general as in our case yet no objection was made in that cause in any of the arguments Rushworths Collections 18 19. in the Appendix But I agree that this Retorn could not have béen maintained if it were of an inferiour Court but during the Session this Court can take no cognizance of the matter And the inconveniency would be great if the Law were otherwise taken for this Court might adjudge one way and the House of Peers another way which doubtless would not be for the advantage or liberty of the Subject for the avoiding of this mischief it was agreed by
persons who were all capable that there was no difference betwixt that case and this Ellis said that in Floyd Gregories case reported in Jones it was made a point and that Jones in his argument denied the case of Hunt Singleton he said that himself and Sir Rowland Wainscott reported it and that nothing was said of that point but that my Lord Coke followed the Report of Serjeant Bridgeman who was three or four years their puisne and that he mistook the case Milword Ingram THe Plaintiff declares in an Action of the case upon a quantum meruit for 40 shillings and upon an Indebitat Assumpsit for 40 shillings likewise The Defendant acknowledged the promises but further says that the Plaintiff and he accounted together for divers sums of money and that upon the foot of the Account the Defendant was found to be endebted to the Plaintiff in 3 shillings and that the Plaintiff in consideration that the Defendant promised to pay him those 3 shillings discharged him of all demands The Plaintiff demurred The Court gave Iudgment against the demurrer 1. They held that if two men being mutually endebted to each other do account together and the one is found in arrear so much and there be an express agréement to pay the sum found to be in arrear and each to stand discharged of all other demands that this is a good discharge in Law and the parties cannot resort to the original Contracts But North Ch. Just said if there were but one Debt betwixt them entring into an account for that would not determine the Contract 2. They held also that any promise might well be discharged by paroll but not after it is broken for then it is a Debt Jones Wait. SHrewsbury Cotton are Towns adjoining Sir Samuel Jones is Tenant in Tail of Lands in both Towns Shrewsbury Cotton are both within the Liberties of the Town of Shrewsbury Sir Samuel Jones suffers a Common Recovery of all his Lands in both Vills but the Praecipe was of two Messuages and Closes thereunto belonging these were in Shrewsbury and of c. mentioning those in Cotton lying and being in the Ville of Shrewsbury in the Liberties thereof And whether by this Recovery the Lands lying in Cotton which is a distinct Ville of it self not named in the Recovery pass or not was the question Serjeant Jones argued against the Recovery He cited Cr. Jac. 575. in Monk Butler's case Cr. Car. 269 270. 276. he said the Writ of Covenant upon which a Fine is levied is a personal Action but a Common Recovery is a real Action and the Land it self demanded in the Praecipe There is no President he said of such a Recovery He cited a case Hill 22 23 Car. 2. Rot. 223. Hutton 106. Marche's Reports one Johnson Baker's case which he said was the case in point and resolved for him But the Court were all of Opinion that the Lands in Cotton passed And gave Iudgment accordingly Ellis said if the Recovery were erroneous at least they ought to allo 〈…〉 t till it were reversed Lepping Kedgewin AN Action in the nature of a Conspiracy was brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in which the Declaration was insufficient The Defendant pleaded an ill plea but Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff upon the insufficiency of the Declaration Which ought to have been entred Quod Defendens eat inde sine die but by mistake or out of design it was entred Quia placitum praedictum in forma praedicta superius placitat ' materiaque in eodem contenta bonum sufficiens in lege existit c. ideo consideratum est per Cur ' quod Quer ' nil capiat per billam The Plaintiff brings a new Action and declares aright The Defendant pleads the Iudgment in the former Action and recites the Record verbatim as it was To which the Plaintiff demurred And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff nisi causa c. North Chief Justice There is no question but that if a man mistakes his Declaration and the Defendant demurs the Plaintiff may set it right in a second Action But here it is objected that the Iudgment is given upon the Defendants plea. Suppose a Declaration be faulty and the Defendant take no advantage of it but pleads a plea in bar and the Plaintiff takes issue and the right of the matter is found for the Defendant I hold that in this case the Plaintiff shall never bring his Action about again for he is estopped by the Verdict Or suppose such a Plaintiff demur to the plea in bar there by his demurrer he confesseth the fact if well pleaded and this estops him as much as a Verdict would But if the plea were not good then there is no Estoppel And we must take notice of the Defendants plea for upon the matter as that falls out to be good or otherwise the second Action will be maintainable or not The other Iudges agreed with him in omnibus Atkinson Rawson THe Plaintiff declares against the Defendant as Executor The Defendant pleads that the Testator made his Will and that he the Defendant suscepto super se onere Testamenti praedict c. did pay divers sums of money due upon specialties and that there was a Debt owing by the Testator to the Defendants Wife and that he retained so much of the Testators Goods as to satisfie that Debt and that he had no other Assets The Plaintiff demurred because for ought appears the Defendant is an Executor de son tort and then he cannot retain for his own debt The Plaintiffs naming him in his Declaration Executor of the Testament of c. will not make for him for that he does of necessity he cannot declare against him any other way and of that Opinion was all the Court viz. that he ought to entitle himself to the Executorship that it may appear to the Court that he is such a person as may retain And accordingly Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Term. Hill 27 28 Car. II. in Com. Banco Smith's Case A Man dies leaving Issue by two several Venters viz. by the first three Sons and by the second two Daughters One of the Sons dies intestate the elder of the two surviving Brothers takes out Administration and Sir Lionel Jenkins Iudge of the Prerogative Court would compell the Administrator to make distribution to the Sisters of the half-blood He prayed a Prohibition but it was denied upon advice by all the Iudges for that the Sisters of the half-blood being a kin to the Intestate and not in remotiori gradu then the Brother of the whole blood must be accounted in equal degree Anonymus AN Action was brought against four men viz. two Attornies and two Solicitors for being Attornies and Solicitors in a cause against the Plaintiff in an inferiour Court falso malitiose knowing that there was no cause of Action against him and
But the Law in many cases takes notice of Parishes in civil affairs and Custom having by degrees introduced it we may allow of it in a Recovery as well as in a Fine Scroggs accordant If an Infant levy a Fine when he becomes of full age he shall be bound by the Deed that leads the Vses of the Fine as well as by the Fine it self because the Law looks upon both as one assurance So the Court was of Opinion that the Lands did pass It was then suggested that Iudgment ought not to be given notwithstanding for that the Plaintiff was dead But they said they would not stay Iudgment for that as this case was For between the Lessor of the Plaintiff and the Defendant there was another cause depending and tryed at the same Assizes when this issue was tryed and by agreément between the parties the Verdict in that cause was not drawn up but agreed that it should ensue the determination of this Verdict and the title to go accordingly Now the submission to this Rule was an implicite agreement not to take advantage of such occurrences as the death of the Plaintiff in an Ejectione firmae whom we know to be no wise concerned in point of interest and many times but an imaginary person It was said also to have Iudgment that there lived in the County where the Lands in question are a man of the same name with him that was made Plaintiff This the Court said was sufficient and that were there any of that name in rerum natura they would intend that he was the Plaintiff Cur̄ We take notice judicially that the Lessor of the Plaintiff is the person interested and therefore we punish the Plaintiff if he release the Action or release the damages Accordingly Iudgment was given Anonymus DEbt upon an Obligation was brought against the Heir of the Obligor hanging which Action another Action was brought against the same Heir upon another Obligation of his Ancestor Iudgment is given for the Plaintiffs in both Actions but the Plaintiff in the second Action obtains Iudgment first And which should be first satisfied was the question Barrel He shall be first satisfied that brought the first Action North. It is very clear That he for whom the first Iudgment was given shall be first satisfied For the Land is not bound till Iudgment be given But if the Heir after the first Action brought had aliened the Land which he had by descent and the Plaintiff in the second Action commenced after such alienation had obtained Iudgment and afterward the Plaintiff in the first Action had Iudgment likewise in that case the Plaintiff in the first Action should be satisfied and he in the second Action not at all What if the Sheriff return in such a case that the Defendant has Lands by descent which indeed are of his own purchase North. If the Sheriffs return cannot be traversed at least the party shall be relieved in an Ejectione firmae Dominus Rex versus Thorneborough Studly THe King brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of _____ and Thorneborough and Studly and declares That Queen Elizabeth was seised in see of the Advowson of Redriff in the County of Surrey and presented J. S. that the Quéen died and the Advowson descended to King James who died seized c. and so brings down the Advowson by descent to the King that now is Thorneborough the Patron pleads a Plea in Bar upon which the King demurs Studly the Incumbent pleads confessing Queen Elizabeths seisin in feé in right of her Crown but says that she in the second year of her Reign granted the Advowson to one Bosbill who granted to Ludwell who granted to Danson who granted to Hurlestone who granted to Thorneborough who presented the Defendant Studly and traverseth absque hoc that Queen Elizabeth died seized The Defendants Council produced the Letters Patents of secundo Reginae to Bosbill and his Heirs The King's Council give in evidence a Presentation made by Queen Elizabeth by usurpation anno 34 Regni sui of one Rider by which Presentation the Advowson was vested again in the Crown The Presentation was read in Court wherein the Queen recited that the Church was void and that it appertained to her to present North Chief Justice Is not the Queen deceived in this Presentation for she recites that it belongs to her to present which is not true If the Queen had intended to make an usurpation and her Clerk had been instituted she had gained the Fee-simple but here she recites that she had right Maynard When the King recites a particular Title and has no such Title his Presentation is void but not when his recital is general as it is here And this difference was agreed to in the Kings Bench in the Case of one Erasmus Dryden The Defendants Council shewed a Iudgment in a Quare Impedit against the same Rider at the suit of one Wingate in Queen Elizabeths time whereupon the Plaintiff had a writ to the Bishop and Rider was ousted Wingate claimed under the Letters Patents of the Second of the Queen viz. by a Grant of one Adie to himself to which Adie one Ludwell granted it anno 33 Eliz. Baldwin It appears by the Record of this Iudgment that a writ to the Bishop was awarded but no final Iudgment is given which ought to be after the three points of the writ enquired North. What is it that you call the final Iudgment there are two Iudgments in a Quare Impedit one that the Plaintiff shall have a writ to the Bishop and that is the final Iudgment that goes to the right betwixt the parties And the Iudgment at the Common Law There in another Iudgment to be given for Damages since the Stat. of West 2. cap. 5. after the points of the writ are enquired of Which Iudgment is not to be given but at the instance of the party Pemberton This Wingate that recovered was a stranger and had no title to have a Quare Impedit Now I take this difference where the King has a good Title no recovery against his Clerk shall affect the King's Title he shall not be prejudiced by a Recovery to which he is no party If the King have a defeasible Title as in our case by Vsurpation there if the rightful Patron recover against the King's Incumbent the King's Title shall be bound though he be not a party for his Title having no other Foundation than a Presentation when that is once avoided the Kings Title falls together with it But though the Kings Title be only by Vsurpation yet a Recovery against his Clerk by a stranger that has nothing to do with it shall not predudice the King covin may be betwixt them and the King be tried Now Wingate had no Right for he claimed by Grant from one Adie to whom Ludwell granted ann 33 Eliz. But we can prove this Grant by Ludwell to have been void for in the 29th of the
Queen he had made a Prior Grant to one Danson of which Grant we here produce the Inrolment This Grant to Danson was an effectual Grant for anno 11 Jacobi a Presentation was made by J. R. Th. Danson which proves that this Grant took effect and the Defendant himself deduceth the Title of his own Patron under that Grant Barrel Wingate is not to be accounted a stranger for he makes Title by the Letters Letters Patents of 2 Eliz. so that he encounters the Queen with her own Grant and his Title under that Grant was allowed by the Court who gave Iudgment accordingly There was no faint Pleader in the Case as appears by the Record that has been read And covin shall not be presumed if it be not alledged We deduce our Title under the Grant made to Danson 29 Eliz. in our plea but that is only by way of inducement to our traverse Cur. By that Iudgment temp Regin Eliz. the Quéens Title was avoided We must not presume that Wingate had a Title Ex diuturnitate temporis omnia presumuntur solemniter esse acta That Quare Impedit was brought when the matter was fresh Without doubt Danson would have asserted his Title against Wingate if he had had any The Defendant did not do prudently in conveying a Title to his Patron under the Grant made to Danson but issue being taken upon the Quéens dying seized he shall not be concluded to give in Evidence any other Title to maintain the Issue Vpon which Evidence the Iury found for the Defendant that Queen Elizabeth did not die seized North said He was clearly of Opinion That the Kings Title by Vsurpation should be avoided by a Recovery against his Clerk though the Recoverer were a meer stranger The Company of Stationers against Seymour THe Company brought an Action of Debt against Seymour for printing Gadbury's Almanacks without their leave Vpon a special Verdict found the question was Whether the Letters Patents whereby the Company of Stationers had granted to them the sole printing of Almanacks were good or not The Iury found the Stat. of 13 14 Car. 2. concerning Printing They found a Patent made by King James of the same Priviledge to the Company in which a former Patent of Queen Elizabeths was recited and they found the Letters Patents of the King that now is Then they found that the Defendant had printed an Almanack which they found in his verbis figuris and that the said Almanack had all the essential parts of the Almanack that is printed before the Book of Common Prayer but that it has some other additions such as are usual in common Almanacks c. Pemberton The King may by Law grant the sole-printing of Almanacks The Art of Printing is altogether of another consideration in the eye of the Law than other Trades and Mysteries are the Press is a late Invention But the Exorbitancies and Licentiousness thereof has ever since it was first found out been under the care and restraint of the Magistrate For great Mischiefs and Disorder would ensue to the Common-wealth if it were under no Regulation and it has therefore always been thought fit to be under the Inspection and Controul of the Government And the Stat. 14. Car. 2. recites that it is a matter of publique Care In England it has from time to time been under the Kings own Regulation so that no Book could lawfully be printed without an Imprimatur granted by some that derive authority from him to Licence Books But the question here is not Whether the King may by Law grant the sole-Printing of all Books but of any and of what sort of Books the sole-printing of Law-Books is not now in question that seémed to be a point of some difficulty because of the large extent of such a Patent and the uncertainty of determining what should be accounted a Law-Book and what not And yet such a Patent has been allowed to be good by a Iudgment in the House of Péers When Sir Orlando Bridgeman was Chief Justice in this Court there was a question raised concerning the validity of a Grant of the sole-printing of any particular Book with a Prohibition to all others to print the same how far it should stand good against them that claim a Property in the Copy paramount to the Kings Grant and Opinions were divided upon the Point But the Defendant in our Case makes no Title to the Copy only he pretends a nullity in our Patent The Book which this Defendant has printed has no certain Author and then according to the Rule of our Law the King has the property and by consequence may grant his Property to the Company Cur. There is no difference in any material part betwixt this Almanack and that that is put in the Rubrick of the Common-Prayer Now the Almanack that is before the Common-Prayer proceeds from a publick Constitution it was first setled by the Nicene Council is established by the Canons of the Church and is under the Government of the Archbishop of Canterbury So that Almanacks may be accounted Prerogative Copies Those particular Almanacks that are made yearly are but applications of the general Rules there laid down for the moveable Feasts for ever to every particular year And without doubt this may be granted by the King This is a stronger Case than that of Law-Books which has been mentioned The Lords in in the Resolution of that Case relyed upon this That Printing was a new Invention and therefore every man could not by the Common Law have a liberty of printing Law-Books And since Printing has been invented and is become a common Trade so much of it as has been kept inclosed never was made common but matters of State and things that concern the Government were never left to any mans liberty to print that would And particularly the sole Printing of Law-Books has been formerly granted in other Reigns Though Printing be a new Invention yet the use and benefit of it is only for men to publish their Works with more ease than they could before Men had some other way to publish their Thoughts before Printing came in and forasmuch as Printing has always been under the Care of the Government since it was first set on foot we may well presume that the former way was so too Queen Elizabeth King James and King Charles the First granted such Patents as these and the Law has a great respect to common usage We ought to be guided in our Opinions by the Iudgment of the House Peérs which is express in the point the ultimate resort of Law and Iustice being to them There is no particular Author of an Almanack and then by the Rule of our Law the King has the Property in the Copy Those additions of Prognostications and other things that are common in Almanacks do not alter the Case no more than if a man should claim a property in another mans Copy by reason of some inconsiderable
Smith versus Smith ASsumpsit The Plaintiff declared whereas himself and the Defendant were Executors of the last Will and Testament of J. S. and whereas the Defendant had received so much of the money which was the Testators a moiety whereof belonged to the Plaintiff and whereas the Plaintiff Pro recuperatione inde Sectasset the Defendant that he the said Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff abstineret a Secta praedicta prosequenda monstraret Quoddam computum did promise him 100 l. and avers that he did forbear c. quod ostentavit quoddam Computum praedictum After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Jones for the Defendant as followeth Though I do not see how that which one Executor claims against another is recoverable at all unless in Equity yet I shall insist only on this that here is no good consideration alledged for it is only alledged in general that the Plaintiff Sectasset It is not said so much as that it was legali modo in a legal way whereas it ought to be set forth in what Court it was c. that so the Court might know whether it were in a Court which had Iurisdiction therein or no and so are all the Presidents in Actions concerning forbearance to sue In point of Evidence the first thing to be shewn in such a case as this is that there was a Suit c. Saunders for the Plaintiff That being the prime thing necessary to be proved since the Verdict is found for us must be intended to have been proved But however if this consideration be idle and void yet the other maintains the Action and so the Court agreed viz. that one was enough It was agreed that if the Plaintiff averred only that he had shewed Quoddam Computum that unless the consideration had been to shew any account it had been naught for quoddam is aliud Dy. 70. nu 38 39. 1 H. 7. 9. but it being Quoddam computum praedict ' it was well enough Computum praedictum refers it to the particular account discoursed of between them It was agreed that it had been best to have said Monstravit in the averment that it might agree with the allegation of the consideration But yet the word ostentavit though most commonly by a Metonimy it signifies to boast yet signifieth also to shew or to shew often as appears by all the Dictionaries and therefore it is well enough Take Iudgment Sir Francis Duncombe's Case IT was held If a Writ of Error abate in Parliament or the like and another Writ of Error be brought in the same Court it is no Supersedeas But if the first Writ of Error be in Cam̄ Scacc ' c. and then a Writ be brought in Parliament c. it is a Supersedeas by the Opinion of all the Iudges against my Lord Cooke vide Heydon versus Godsalve 2 Cr. 342. Browne versus London INdeb ' Assumpsit for fifty three pounds due to the Plaintiff upon a Bill of Exchange drawn upon the Defendant and accepted by him according to the custom of the Merchants c. After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that though an Action upon the Case does well lie in such case upon the Merchants yet an Indeb ' Assumpsit may not be brought thereupon Winnington I think it doth well lye Debt lies against a Sheriff upon levying and receiving of money upon an Execution Hob. 206. Now this is upon a Bill of Exchange accepted and also upon the Defendants having effects of the drawer in his hands having read the value for so it must be intended because otherwise this general Verdict could not be found Rainesford This is the very same with Milton's Case lately in Scacc ' where it was adjudged that an Indeb ' Assumpsit would not lye In this case he added that the Verdict would not help it for though my Lord Chief Baron said it were well if the Law were otherwise yet he and we all agreed that a Bill of Exchange accepted c. was indeed a good ground for a special Action upon the case but that it did not make a Debt first because the acceptance is but conditional on both sides If the money be not received it returns back upon the drawer of the Bill He remains liable still and this is but collateral Secondly because the word Onerabilis doth not imply Debt Thirdly Because the case is primae Impressionis there was no President for it Then Offley who was of Council pro Defendente in the case at bar said that he was of Council for the Plaintiff in the Exchequer case and that therein direction was given to search Presidents and that they did search in this Court and in Guildhall and that there was a Certificate from the Attorneys and Prothonotaries there that there was no President of such an Action Adjornatur Twisden I remember an Action upon the Case was brought for that the Defendant had taken away his Goods and hidden them in such secret places that the Plaintiff could not come at them to take them in Execution and adjudged it would not lye Watkins versus Edwards ACtion of Covenant brought by an Infant per Guardian ' suum for that the Plaintiff being bound Apprentice to the Defendant by Indenture c. the Defendant did not keep maintain educate and teach him in his Trade of a Draper as he ought but turned him away The Defendant pleads that he was a Citizen and Freeman of Bristol and that at the General Sessions of the Peace there held there was an Order that he should be discharged of the Plaintiff for his disorderly living and beating his Master and Mistress and that this Order was inrolled by the Clarke of the Peace as it ought to be c. To which the Plaintiff demurred It was said for the Plantiff that the Statute 5 El. cap. 4. doth not give the Iustices c. any power to discharge a Master of his Apprentice in case the fault be in the Apprentice but only to minister due Correction and Punishment to him Cur̄ That hath been over-ruled here The Iustices c. have the same power of discharging upon complaint of the Master as upon complaint of the Apprentice Else that Master would be in a most ill case that were troubled with a bad Apprentice for he could by no means get rid of him Secondly it was urged on the Plaintiffs behalf that he had not for ought that appears any notice or summons to come and make his defence V. 11 Co. 99. Baggs case And this very Statute speaks of the appearance of the party and the hearing the matter before the Iustices c. Saunders pro Defendente In this case the Iustices are Iudges and it being pleaded that such a Iudgment was given that is enough and it shall be intended all was regular Twisden Rainesford That which we doubt is whether the Defendant ought not
I doubt whether the Defendant could have demurred But certainly now the Iury have found all this it can never be intended as they would have it as to the Case that has beén cited between Kirby and Hansaker I say it is not so clearly alledged there as here It is not said there that the Lesseé was possessed and that the Recoveror entred into and upon his Possessions and ejected him 2. These words Contra formam c. are not in that Case 3. In that Case the Court of Kings Bench was of Opinion That the Verdict had made it good 4. The Roll of that Case is not to be found here is a man will make Oath that he hath searched four years before and after the time when that Case is supposed to have been and cannot find it Rainsford and Moreton were at first of Opinion That the Verdict had helped it For saith Rainsford If Stowell had Title under the Plaintiff it could not have been found that there was a breach of Covenant But afterwards they said that Kirby and Hansaker's Case came so close to it that it was not to be avoided and they were unwilling to make new Presidents Twisden That Book is so express'd that it is not an ordinary authority it is not to be waved But I was of the same Opinion before that Book was cited For here it is possible Stowell might have a Lease from Wootton since the Fine Now the warranty doth not extend to Puisne Titles The Defendant should have said that Stowell had Priorem Titulum c. when a good Title is not set forth in the Declaration to entitle the Plaintiff to his Action it shall never be helped There was an Action upon the Stat. of Monopolies for that the Defendant entred I suppose by pretext of some Monopoly-Commission c. detinuit certain goods But it was not said they were his the Plaintiffs and though we had a Verdict yet we could never have Iudgment In 3 Car. there was an Action brought upon a Promise to give so much with a Child quantum daret to any other Child and it was alledged that dedit so much and because that that it might be before the time of the promise it was held naught after Verdict It may be the Roll of Kirby versus Hansaker is not to be found no more than the Roll of Middleton versus Clesman reported Yelv. 65. But certainly Justice Crook and Yelverton were men of that Integrity they would never have reported such Cases unless there had been such There are many losses miscarriages and mistakes of this kind Pray where will you find the Roll of the Decreé for Titles in London yet I have heard the Iudges say They verily believe it is upon a wrong Roll. Nil Capiat per Bill Rex versus Neville INdictment for erecting a Cottage for habitation contra Stat. quasht because it was not said That any inhabited it For else it is no offence per Rainsford Moreton qui soli aderant Jemy versus Norrice A Writ of Errour was brought of a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas in an Action upon a quantum meruit for Wares sold First One of them is unum par Chirothecarum But it is not said of what sort Twisden It is good enough however so it has been held de Coriis without saying Bovinis c. de Libris without saying what Books they were Secondly Another is parcella fili which it was said was uncertain unless it had been made certain by an Anglice For though it was agréed it had been good in an Indeb assumpsit yet in this Case there must vs a certainty of the debt Such a general word cannot be good no more than in a Trover Twisden If an Indeb assumpsit should be brought for 20 l. for Wares sold and no Evidence should be given of an agreement for the certain price I should direct it to be found especially But parcella fili séems to be as uncertain as paires of Hangings Cur. It is doubtful But however affirmetur nisi c. Foxwist al. versus Tremayneaut Trin. 21 Rot. 1512. V. Super. FOr the Plaintiff The two parties who are Infants may well sue by Attorney as they do The Authorities are clear 2 Cr. 441. 1 Ro. 288. Weld versus Rumney in 1650. Styles 318. We beg leave to mention especially what you Mr. Justice Twisden said there though indeéd we do not know nor can be very confident that it is reported right Twisden I do protest not one word of it true they went about But 3 Cr. 541. V. 5 Co. 29. 6 Co. 67. 6. and especially 378. is express in our Point In Rot. 288. num 2. Indeed there is a Quaere made because an Infant might by this means be amerced But that reason is a mistake for an Infant shall not be amerced Dyer 338. 1 Inst 127. a. 1 Ro. 214. Moreton I take the Law to be that where an Infant sues with others in auter droit as here he shall sue by Attorney for all of them together represent the Testator I ground my self upon the Authorities which have been cited and Yelv. 130. Also it is for the Infants advantage to sue by Attorney But if he be a Defendant he may appear by Guardian Popham 112. I think the parties may all joyn in this suit though perhaps in Hatton versus Maskew they could not For in that Case it appeared that the wife only who was Plaintiff was Executrix So he concluded that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiffs Rainsford accordant This Case is stronger than where a single person is made Executor or Administrator For though Ro. 288. num 2. makes a Quaere of that yet Num. 3. which is our Case he agrees clearly with the Countess of Rutlands Case in 3 Cr. 377. 8. That the Infant as well as the other Executors shall sue by Attorney The Reasons objected on the contrary are That an Infant cannot make an Attorney and that he may be prejudiced hereby I answer That the Executors of full age have influence upon the Infants and they are entrusted to order and manage the whole business V. 1 Leon 74. And therefore Administration durante minoritate shall not be granted so in this Case he shall have priviledge to sue by Attorney because he is accompanied with those which are of full age I conclude I have not heard of any Authority against my Opinion and how we can go over all the Authorities cited for it I do not know Twisden contra This is an Action upon the Case for that the Defendant was indebted for damages clear received to the Testator's Vse And indeed I do not sée otherwise how it would lie Two questions have been made First Whether all the Executors may or must joyn I confess I have heard nothing against this viz. but that they may joyn But I cannot so easily as my Brothers slubber over all the Authorities cited viz. Hatton versus
Maskew which I confess is a full authority for this that they need not joyn The Case was thus The Testator recovers a Iudgment and dies making his Will thus Also I devise the residue of my Estate to my two Daughters and my Wife whom I make my Executrix I confess I cannot tell why but the Spiritual Court did judge them all both the two Daughters as well as the Wife to be Executrices and therefore we the Iudges must take them to be so The Wife alone proves the Will with a reservata potestate to the Daughters when they should come in But this makes nothing at all in this Case I think this is according to their usual form The Wife alone sues a Scire facias upon this Iudgment and therein sets forth this whole matter viz. that there were two other Executrices which were under seventeen c. It was adjudged for the Plaintiff and affirmed in a Writ of Errour in Cam. Scacc̄ that the Scire facias was well brought by her alone But first I cannot see how a Writ of Errour should lie in that Case in Cam. Scacc̄ For it is not a Cause within 27 Eliz. 2. What reason is there for Iudgment a reason may be given that before an Executor comes to seventeen he is no Executor But I say he is quoad esse though not quoad Excecutionem A Wife Administratrix under seventeen shall joyn with her Husband in an Action and why shall not the Infants as well in our Case Yelv. 130. is express that the Infant must joyn and be named It is clear that no Administration durante minore aetate can be committed in this Case For all the Executors make but one person and therefore why may not all joyn 2. Admitting they may joyn whether the Infants may sue by Attorney I hold that in no Case an Infant shall sue or be sued either in his own or auter droit by Attorney There are but four ways by which any man can sue In propria persona per Attornatum per Guardianum and per Prochein amy 1 Ro. 747. aut 340. 400. post 747. An Infant cannot sue in propria persona That was adjudged in Dawkes versus Peyton It was an excellent Case and there were many notable Points in it First It was Resolved That a Writ of Errour might be brought in this Court upon an Errour in Fact in the Petty Bagg 2. That the Entry being general venit such a one it shall he intended to be in propia persona 3. That it was Error for the Infant in that Case to appear otherwise than by a Guardian 4. That the Errour was not helped by the Statute of Jeoffails In a Case between Colt Sherwood Mich. 1649. an Infant Administrator sued and appeared per Guardianum and it appeared upon the Record that he was above seventeen years of age I was of Council in it and we insisted it was Errour but it was adjudged That he appeared as he ought to appear and that he ought not to appear by Attorney And the Reasons given were First Because an Infant cannot make an Attorney by reason of his inability Secondly Because by this means an Infant might be amerced pro falso Clamore For when he appears by Attorney non constat unless it happen to be specially set forth that he is an Infant and so he is amerced at all adventures and to relieve himself against this he has no remedy but by a Writ of Errour For Errour in Fact cannot be assignd ore tenus And it were well worth the Cost to bring a Writ of Errour to take off an amercement But it is said That the Infants may appear by Attorney in this Case because they are coupled and joyned in company with those of full age I think that makes no difference for that reason would make such appearance good in case that they were all Defendants But it is agreed That if an Infant be Defendant with others who are of full age he cannot appear by Attorney The reason is the same in both Cases If an Infant and two men of full age joyn in a Feoffment and make a Letter of Attorney c. this is not good nor can in any sort take away the imbecility which the Law makes in an Infant I conclude I think the Plaintiffs ought to joyn but the Infants ought to appear by Guardian But since my two Brothers are of another mind as to the last Point there must be Iudgment that the Defendant respondeat ouster Nota Coleman argued for the Defendant his Argument which ought to have been inserted above was to this effect First These five cannot joyn had there been but one Executor and he under seventeen years the Administrator durant̄ minor̄ c. ought to have brought the Action 5 Co. 29. a. But since there are several Executors and some of them of full age there can be no Administration durant ' minor̄ Those of full age must Administer for themselves and the Infants to But the course is that Executors of full age prove the Will and the other that is under age shall not come in till his age of seventeen years But now the question is How this Action should have beén brought I say according to the President of Hatton versus Maskew which was in Cam. Scacc̄ Mich. 15 Car. 2. Rot. 703. wherein the Executor who was of full age brougt the Scire fac̄ but set forth that there were other two Executors who were under age and therefore they which were of full age pray Iudgment It was resolved the Scire fac̄ was well brought and they agreed That the Cases in Yelverton 130. was good Law because in that Case it was not set forth specially in the Declaration that there was another Executor under age So that they Resolved That the Executor of full age could not bring the Action without naming the others 2. However the Infants ought to sue by Guardian and where Rolls and other Books say that where some are of age and some under they may all sue by Artorney It is to be understood of such as are indeed under 21 but above 17. Respondeas ouster After this the Suit was Compounded Term. Pasch 22 Car. II. Regis The great Case in Cancellaria between Charles Fry and Ann his Wife against George Porter Resolved That there is no Relief in Equity against the Forfeiture of Land limited over by Devise in Marrying without consent c. Many particulars concerning Equity THe Case was Montjoy Earl of Newport was seized of an house called Newport-house c. in the County of Middlesex and had three Sons who were then living and two Daughters Isabel married to the Earl of Banbury with her Fathers consent who had issue A. the Plaintiff and Ann married to Mr. Porter without her Fathers Consent who had issue D. both these Daughters dyed The Earl of Newport made his Will in this manner I give and bequeath to my dear wife