no case where the party useth but the means of the Law by the Kings Writ without any Corruption or Covin of the party he shall be amerced only pro falso clamore and no Action lieth against him because he hath not used but the means of the Law. Which see 2 R. 3. 9. by all the Iustices But yet in an Appeal because it toucheth the life of a Man the Defendant shall have his damages against the Plaintiff but not in any other Action which is a vexation by suit if no Corporation or Covin be in the party who prosecutes such suit See such matter justifiable in Conspiracy 35 H. 6. 13 14. Afterwards the principal Case was adjourned CXCI. Parker and Howard's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 102. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff and Defendant be now joyntly seised of the Office of the Register of the Court of Admiralty If the Defendant shall permit the Plaintiff to exercise the said Office and take the profits of it wholly to his own use during his life without let or interruption done by him That then c. The Defendant pleaded That the Custom of the Realm of England is That the Lord Admiral for the time being might grant the said Office and that such Grant should be good but for the life of the Grantor And further shewed 1 Len. 103. That the Lord Clynton Lord Admiral granted the said Office to the Plaintiff and the Defendant and died And that the Lord Howard was appointed Lord Admiral And that he 27 Eliz. granted the said Office to one Wade who put him out and interrupted him before which time the Defendant suffered the Plaintiff to enjoy the said Office and to take the profits of it Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Cook argued for the Plaintiff That the Defendant's Plea was not good for he hath not entituled the Lord Admiral to grant the Office For he saith That the Custom of the Realm of England is which he hath pleaded in such manner as no Issue can be taken upon it for it is pleaded Quod usitatum est quod Admirals pro tempore existens Non potest Concedere Officium praedict nisi pro termino vitae suae and that cannot be for it cannot be tryed for the Venire facias cannot be Of the Realm of England Also if it be Through the whole Realm of England then the same is the Common Law and not Consuetudo Which see Br. Custom 39. And see 4 5 Mar. Dyer 152 153. An express case of this Office And there he prescribes in Consuetudine in Anglia c. And also that such Grant is good but during the life of the Admiral who granted it Also he doth not answer to any time of the Grant of the Admiral Howard For if he were lawfully put out by Wade yet the Defendant against his own Obligation cannot put us out or interrupt us As L. 5 E. 4. 115. In a Quare Impedit against an Abbot and the Incumbent who make default upon the distress upon which a Writ to the Bishop was awarded for the Plaintiff Vpon which the Bishop retorned That the Incumbent resigned of which the Bishop gave notice And afterwards Lapse encurred and the Bishop collated the said former Incumbent and then that Writ came to him Now although the Incumbent be in by a new title yet he is bound by the Iudgment So here although the Defendant had another title and the former title of the Plaintiff be determined yet against his own Deed and Obligation he shall not put out the Plaintiff And the Court was clear That the Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff But afterwards the Cause was Compounded by the Order of the Lord Chancellor CXCII Mannings Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was agreed by the Iustices in this Case That where an Enfant Executor sold the Goods of his Testator at less undervalue than they were worth And afterwards brought an Action of Detinue against the Vendee upon it in retardatione executionis Testamenti That this sale of the Enfant Executor was good and should bind him notwithstanding his Nonage CXCIII Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest Son in tail and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs not having at the time of the Feoffment any Son Afterwards he suffered a Common Recovery had Issue a Son who died in the life of his Father having Issue a Son and afterwards he himself dieth It was holden in this Case That the Son and Heir of the Son should not avoid this Recovery by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For there was not any remainder in him at the time of the Recovery had but the remainder then was in abeyance for then the Son was not born And the words of the said Statute are That such Recovery shall be void against such person to whom the Reversion or Remainder shall then appertain i. e. at the time of the Recovery And it was said That if Lands be given to E. for life the Remainder to B. in tail the Remainder to C. in fee B. dieth his Wife with Child with a Son A Recovery is had against E. with the assent of C. and afterwards the Son is born he shall not be helped by this Statute for that the Remainder was not in esse at the time of the Recovery But it was holden in the principal Case That the Heir might avoid this Recovery by the Common Law For the Recompence could not extend to such a Remainder which was not in esse CXCIV The Countess of Sussex and Wroth's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was moved in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant If the Disseisee Licence J.S. to put his Cattle into the Land whereof he was disseised If it were a good Licence And If by the Execution of the said Licence the Freehold should be revested in the Disseisee so as if the Disseisor distrain the Cattel of J.S. for Damage-feasant and in a Replevin avow the Plaintiff may plead That the Freehold was in the Disseisee who so Licensed him Periam Iustice The Licence is void For at the time of the grant of it the Disseisee had but a Right before he had recontinued the Land by re-entry Windham If the Disseisee make a Lease for years of the Land whereof he is Disseised it is a void Lease Anderson If the Disseisee command one to enter into the Land and he doth accordingly the same is good The Case was adjourned CXCV. Payn 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Len. 205. A Writ of Error was brought by Payn Treasurer of the Records in the Kings-Bench in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Court of the Exchequer for the Queen upon an Assignment of a
and his diet for himself his servants and horses Vpon which the Debt in demand grew but the said Young was not at any price in certain with the Defendant nor was there ever any agreement made betwixt them for the same It was said by Anderson Chief Iustice That upon that matter an Action of Debt did not lie And therefore afterwards the Iury gave a Verdict for the Defendant CCXI. Heidon and Ibgrave's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 148. A Writ of Right was brought by Heidon against Ibgrave and he demanded the third part of 40 Acres of Land in the County of Hertford and they were at Issue upon the meer Right Vpon which the Grand Assise appeared And first the 4 Knights were specially sworn to say upon their Oath Whether the Tenant hath better right to hold the Land than the Demandant to demand it And afterwards the rest of the Iurors were sworn generally as in other Actions And there was some doubt made Whether the Demandant or the Tenant should first begin to give Evidence And at the last it was Ruled by the Court That the Tenant should begin because he is in the affirmative And it was said by Periam Iustice That so it was late adjudged in the Case betwixt Noell and Watts And upon the Evidence the Case was That King Hen. the 8th by his Letters Patents gave to the Demandant the Mannor of New-Hall and all the Lands in the Tenure and Occupation of John Whitton before demised to Johnson and in the Parish of Watford And the truth was That the said 40 Acres whereof now the third part was in demand were in the Occupation of the said John Whitton but were never demised to Johnson nor in the Parish of Watford And by the clear Opinion of the Court the said 40 Acres did not pass for the circumstances of the Deed are not true scil the Demise to Johnson and the being in the Parish of Watford but both were false But if the said Land had had an especial name in the Letters Patents then it had been well enough notwithstanding the misprision in the rest And by Anderson If upon the particular it had appeared that the Demandant had paid his Mony for the said 40 Acres peradventure they had passed CCXII. The Dean of Gloucester's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Dean and Chapter of Gloucester brough a Writ of Partition against the Bishop of Gloucester upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Partition And it was moved That upon the words of the Statute that the Action did not lie in this Case for the Statute doth not extend but to Estates in Ioynt-Tenancy or in Common of Lands whereof such Ioynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common are seised in their own right And also it is further said That every such Ioynt-Tenant or Tenant in Common and their Heirs shall have Aid to deraign the warranty without speaking of the word Successors And by Periam and Windham Iustices The Writ doth not lie But Anderson seemed to be of a contrary Opinion CCXIII. Hare and Meller's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Philip Meller and declared Ante 138. That the said Defendant had exhibited to the Queen a scandalous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the said Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Forswearing and Cosenage And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. It was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any cause of Action for the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort to her to make their complaints But if a Subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter comprised in it to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is a good cause of Action And so was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter did recover And as to the words themselves It seemeth to the Court That they are not Actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff had used Perjury Forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means the Plaintiff not knowing it and in such case the Plaintiff hath recovered by Forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he could not recover for he could not be sworn in his own Cause And Stanhops Case was remembred by the Court which was That Edward Stanhop of Grays-Inn brought an Action upon the Case against one who had Reported That the said Edward Stanhop had gained his Living by swearing and forswearing And by the Opinion of the Court The Action did not lie for those words do not set forth any actual forswearing in the person of the Plaintiff but it might be in an Action depending between the Plaintiff and a stranger that another stranger produced as a Witness had made a false Oath without any procurement or practice of the Plaintiff in which Case it might be that the Plaintiff had gained by such swearing CCXIV. Cheverton's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Cheverton brought a Quare Impedit and Counted That he was seised of the moyety of the Church of D. that is to say To present qualibet prima vice and that J.S. is seised of the other moyety that is to say To present qualibet secunda vice c. And Exception was taken to the Count Because it was not shewed how the special Interest did begin scil by Prescription Composition or otherwise for it is clearly against common Right and therefore that ought to be shewed See Dyer 13 Eliz. 229. CCXV Edmond's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case against Edmonds the Case was That the Defendant being within age requested the Plaintiff to be bounden for him to another for the payment of 30 l. which he was to borrow for his own use to which the Plaintiff agreed and was bounden ut supra Afterwards the Plaintiff was sued for the said Debt and paid it And afterwards when the Defendant came of full age the Plaintiff put him in mind of the matter aforesaid and prayed him that he might not be damnified so to pay 30 l. it being the Defendant's Debt Whereupon the Defendant promised to pay the Debt again to the Plaintiff Vpon which promise the Action was brought And it was holden by the Court That although here was no present consideration upon which the Assumpsit could arise yet the Court was clear That upon the whole matter the Action did lie and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXVI Farrington and Fleetwood.'s Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer BEtween Farrington and Fleetwood the Case was upon the Stat. of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries 2
that the Queens Attorny said That it is true that Thomas Robinson was possessed but it is further said That Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides and therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary But the Opinion of Manwood Chief Baron was That if the parties do admit a thing per nient dedire the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed there the Iury shall be bound by it And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant CCLXXIII Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt by A. against B. upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded tender of the Mony according to the Condition upon which the parties were at Issue And after the Defendant pleaded That after the Darrein Continuance the Debt now in demand was Attached in the Defendants hands according to the Custom of London for the debt of C. to whom the Plaintiff was endebted It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was insufficient for it is altogether contrary to the first Plea. And also the Court held That in an Action for the debt depending here in this Court the debt cannot be attached and the Court would not suffer a Demurrer to be joyned upon it but over-ruled the Case without any Argument For it was said by Wray Chief Iustice That it was against the Iurisdiction of the Court and the Priviledge of it CCLXXIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden by the Court That if a Copyholder in Fee dieth seised and the Lord admits a stranger to the Land who entreth that he is but a Tenant at Will and not a Disseisor to the Copyholder who hath the Land by descent because he cometh in by the assent of the Lord c. CCLXXV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought de uno Cubiculo and Exception was taken to it But the Exception was disallowed The Declaration was special viz Leas unius Cubiculi per nomen unius Cubiculi being in such a House in the middle story of the said House And the Declaration was holden good enough and the word Cubiculum is a more apt word than the word Camera And such was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice And it was said That Ejectione firmae brought de una rooma had been adjudged good in this Court. CCLXXVI Johnson and Bellamy's Case Rot. 824. Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae It was holden by Special Verdict 1 Cro. 122. That W. Graunt was seised of certain Lands and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life And further he willed That when Rich. his Brother should come to the age of 25 years that he should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten W. Graunt died having Issue of his body who was his Heir Rich. before he attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. sic ut partes finis nihil habuerunt And If this Fine should bar the Estate in tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the Case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged Mich. 29 Eliz. Where the Case was Tenant in tail discontinued to E. and afterwards levied a Fine to B. That although that partes finis nihil habuerunt yet the said Fine did bind the Estate tail But the Serjeants at the Bar argued That there was a difference between the Case cited and the Case at Bar For in the Case cited the Fine was pleaded in Bar but here it was not pleaded but found by Special Verdict To which it was said by the Court That the same is not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or Conclusion but by the Statute binds and extincts the entail and the right of it And Fines are as sufficient to bind the right of the entail when they are found by Special Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar. And Periam Iustice said A Collateral Warranty found by Special Verdict is of as great force as pleaded in Bar. And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate tail by that Fine was utterly barred and extinct CCLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent at Michaelmas and further Leased the same to the Executors of the Lessee until Michaelmas after the death of the Lessee It was affirmed by Cook That in that Case it was adjudged That the word Until shall be construed to extend to the Term unto the end of the Feast of St. Michael and so the Rent then due payable by the Executors for without such Construction no Rent should be then due because the Term ended before Michaelmas CCLXXVIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was bounden to stand to the Award of two Arbitrators who awarded That the party should pay to a stranger or his Assigns 200 l. before such a day The stranger before the day died B. took Letters of Administration The Question was If the Obligee should pay the Mony to the Administrator or if the Obligation was discharged It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is an Assignee And by Gawdy If the word Assigns had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator Which Cook granted CCLXXIX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Defendant in Debt being ready at the Bar to wage his Law was examined by the Court upon the points of the Declaration and the cause of the Debt upon which it appeared that the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And accompting together they were agreed That each of them should be quit of the other It was the Opinion of Periam and Anderson Iustices That upon that matter the Defendant could not safely wage his Law For it is but an agreement which cannot be executed but by Release or Acquittance CCLXXX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail Covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levied a Fine with proclamations and died It was moved by Fenner If any Estate passed to the Son by that Covenant for it is not any discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the Estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson Iustice The Estate passeth until c. And he cited the Case of one Pitts where it was adjudged That if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee and a Collateral Ancestor releaseth with warranty and dieth
sue in what Court he will in any of the Kings Courts of Record And in this Case the Queen is quodam modo a party For she is to have the moyety And so this cause is not meerly betwixt party and party c. CCLXXXV Willoughby's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 117. WIlliam Willoughby and two other were Endicted That where the Parson of the Church of D. and all his predecessors have used to have Common in such a place The said Defendants Willoughby and others had enclosed the same and that enclosure was upon their own Land. It was moved That upon this matter they ought not to have been endicted but the party grieved was put to his Action As where a presentment is made of a Disseisin See 27 Ass 20. And it was the Case of one Marden 29 Eliz. upon the stopping of a High-Way upon his own Land and if it were upon other Land it were not material for it is but an Impeachment to take Common which cannot be Vi et armis c. Also this Endictment is Recorded and Certified as found before Iustices of Assize and Gaol-Delivery and they cannot take such presentment And although the Iustices of Assize and Gaol-Delivery were in rei veritate also Iustices of Peace yet the Endictment being recorded and certified to be taken before them in quality of Iustices of Peace shall not help it for the Court shall not respect any Authority but that which appears upon the Record And for these Causes the parties were discharged CCLXXXVI Gates and Hollywell's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man having Issue two Sons devised That his eldest Son with his Executors should take the profits of the Lands until his younger Son should come to the age of 22 years and then the younger Son should have the Lands to him and his Heirs of his body It was the clear Opinion of all the Iustices That the eldest Son should have a Feesimple in the Lands until the younger Son came to the said age of 22 years CCLXXXVII Cony and Beveridge's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 146. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Case was That the Plaintiff Leased to the Defendant certain Lands in the County of Cambridge rendring rent And afterwards the Defendant became bounden to the Plaintiff in an Obligation for the payment of the said Rent upon which Bond the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the County of Northampton To which the Defendant pleaded payment of the Rent without shewing the place of payment and upon that they were at Issue And it was found by Nisi prius in the County of Northampton for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That the Issue is mis-tryed for here the payment of the Rent being pleaded without shewing the place of payment it shall be intended that the Rent was paid upon the Land which is in the County of Cambridge and there the Issue ought to be tryed See 44 E. 3. 42. And it was the Opinion of Anderson Chief Iustice That no Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for the Cause aforesaid But Rhodes and Windam Iustices were of a contrary Opinion For it doth not appear That the Issue is mis-tryed because that no place of payment is pleaded and it may be for any thing that is shewed That the Rent was not paid in the County of Northampton CCLXXXVIII The Blacksmith's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Blacksmith of South Mimmes in the County of Middlesex took an Obligation of another Blacksmith of the same Town upon Condition that he should not exercise the Trade or Art of a Blacksmith within the same Town nor within a certain precinct of the same And upon that Obligation the Obligee brought an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas depending which Suit the Obligor complained to the Iustices of Peace of the County against the Obligee upon which the matter being found against him by Examination the Iustices committed the Obligee to Prison and now upon the whole matter Puckering Serjeant prayed a Habeas Corpus for the said Obligee to the Sheriff of Middlesex and hat it And Fleetwood Recorder of London being at the Bar the Court openly admonished him of that matter For by the Law Iustices of Peace have not Conusans of such Offences nor can entermeddle with them for their power is limited by the Commission and the Statutes And the Recorder relyed much upon the Opinion of Hull in 2 H. 5. 5. But it was said by the Court Although that this Court be a high Court to punish such Offences appearing before them of Record yet it doth not follow That the Iustices of Peace may also do so But as to the Obligation it self the Court was clear of Opinion That the same was void and against the Law. CCLXXXIX Russell and Broker's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 209. IN Trespass for cutting down of 4 Oaks The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. And that he is seised of a Messuage in D. and that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. habere Consueverant rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad Libitum suum Capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in Quolibet tempore anni unless in Fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is in the Forrest of D. c. And that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. habere Consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de Boscis c. per Liberationem Forestarii aut ejus Deputati prout Boscus pati potuit non ad exigentiam petentis And upon that Replication the Defendant demurred in Law. And it was the clear Opinion of the Court That Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff For if he would have ousted the Defendant of his Prescription by the Law of the Forrest he ought to have shewed the Law of the Forrest in such Case Lex forestae talis est For the Law of the Forrest is not the Common Law of the Land and we are not bounden to take notice of it but it ought to be pleaded Or else the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Prescription of the Defendant For here are two Prescriptions one pleaded by the Defendant by way of Bar The other set forth by the Plaintiff in his Replication without any traverse of that which is set forth in the Bar which cannot be good But if the Plaintiff had shewed in his Replication Lex forestae talis est then the Prescription of the Defendant had been answered without any more for none can prescribe against a Statute Exception was taken to the Bar because the Defendant hath justified the cutting down of Oaks without alledging That there was not any Vnderwoods But that Exception was not allowed for he hath his Choice ad libitum suum Another Exception was taken
THE THIRD PART OF THE REPORTS Of Several Excellent CASES OF LAW Argued and Adjudged in the COURTS of LAW AT WESTMINSTER In the Time of the late QUEEN ELIZABETH From the First to the Five and Thirtieth Year of her Reign Collected by a Learned Professor of the LAW WILLIAM LEONARD Esquire Then of the Honourable Society of GRAYS-INN Not before Imprinted And now Published By William Hughes of Grays-Inn Esq With Alphabetical TABLES of the Names of the CASES and of the Matters contained in the BOOK LONDON Printed by the Assigns of Richard and Edward Atkins Esquires For Henry Twyford Thomas Basset William Rawlins and John Place 1686. TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Can do no less than acquaint thee That the First and Second Part of the REPORTS of that Learned Lawyer William Leonard of Grays-Inn Esquire were obtained from me and Printed by the over-forwardness of those persons that received it from my hand who published it with a Design to prejudice the Learned Author and my self by false Intimating in the Epistle to the Reader prefixed before the Second Part That the First and Second Part was All of our Learned Authors Works that I thought fit to publish That I may Extricate my self out of their intended Abuse and undeceive thee I do hereby assure thee That although I do Collect the First and Second Part yet do I wholly disown the Epistle aforementioned and also aver it to be a false and scandalous Assertion That it is so I refer thee to the View of this Third Part The which is in no wise Inferior to the First and Second Part But on the contrary I may with Modesty say as to the Worth and Usefulness of it That it may Challenge the Precedence of the Other Two the which I intended as one that Feasteth his Guests preserveth the Daintiest Dishes until the last My Intention ever was if my other occasions would give me leave To publish such further CASES as were Collected by him not before Imprinted that might add something to the Study and Benefit of the Ingenuous Reader Wherefore I having lately Collected out of his Manuscript which only is in my hands some other Cases out of many which lay scattering therein not before made Publick I have reduced them into this Third Part which I commend to thy Reading and leave to thy favourable Construction And if these Cases now Printed off in this Third Part as the former Cases have done shall find good Acceptance of thee and be useful to thee I shall willingly if God give me life and it be desired put an End to this Work. In the prosecution of the which I shall have due regard as I hitherto have had in this Third Part as well as in the Two former Parts that thou shalt be presented with nothihg but what is Really useful and not to be had in other Works of the like nature Now for as much as no Action or Thing done under Heaven can be free from Error in a greater or lesser proportion The which as well as other Arts Printing too too frequently demonstrateth yet the Errors of this Third Part are so few and Inconsiderable that it maketh me the more Confident to desire thy favourable Corection Therefore I leave it to thee From my Study in Grays-Inn 24 of October 1662. William Huhges The Names of the Learned Lawyers Serjeants at Law and Judges of the several Courts at Westminster who Argued the Cases and were Judges of the said several Courts where the Cases were Argued Viz. A. ANderson Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Anger Altham afterwards one of the Barons of the Exchequer Atkinson Ayliffe Justice of the Kings Bench. B. Beaumount Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Bromley Lord Chancellor of England Barkley C. Cook after Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Clench one of the Judges of the Kings Bench. Cooper Serjeant at Law. Clark Baron of the Exchequer D. Daniel Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Drew Serjeant at Law. Dyer Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. E. Egerton Solicitor of the Queen after Lord Chancellor F. Fleetwood Serjeant at Law Recorder of London Fuller Fennor Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. G. Gawdy Judge of the Kings Bench. Golding Serjeant at Law. Glanvile Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Gent Baron of the Exchequer Godfrey H. Haughton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Hammon Serjeant at Law. Harris Serjeant at Law. Heal Serjeant at Law. Hobart K. Kingsmil Judge of the Kings Bench. L. Laiton M. Mead Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Morgan Manwood Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Mounson Justice of the Common Pleas. O. Owen Serjeant at Law after Baron of the Exchequer P. Popham Attorny-General of the Queen after Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. Periam Judge of the Common Pleas. Pepper Attorny of the Court of Wards Plowden Puckering the Queens Serjeant at Law. R. Rhodes Judge of the Common Pleas. S. Snag Serjeant at Law. Shute Judge of the Kings Bench. Shuttleworth Serjeant at Law. T. Tanfield Serjeant at Law after Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Topham W. Wray Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. Windham Judge of the Common Pleas. Walmesley Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Y. Yelverton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. A Table of the Names of the CASES in the Thrid Part of LEONARD'S Reports P. stands for Page C. for Case A. ANdrews and Glovers Case Trin. 4 Eliz. Page 7. Case 19 Abrahal and Nurses Case Hill. 19 Eliz. C. B. p. 63. C. 94 Absolon and Andertons Case Mich. 26 Eliz. B. R. p. 84. C. 124 Amner and Luddingtons Case Mich. 26 Eliz. B. R. p. 89. C. 128 Annisley and Johnsons Case Mich. 27 Eliz. C.B. p. 114. C. 164 Archbold and Borrells Case Mich. 28 Eliz. B. R. p. 139. C. 190 Lord Andersons Case Mich. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 149. C. 198 Allen and Hills Case Mich. 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 152. C. 204 Abbots Case Pasch 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 206. C. 266 Anderson and Heywards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 221. C. 294 George Ap-Rices Case Trin. 32 Eliz. Exchequer p. 241. C. 336. B. BArrentines Case Mich. 8 Eliz. C. B. Page 12. C 28 Oliver Breers Case 11 Eliz. Cur. Ward p. 25. C. 52 Banks and Thwaites Case Mich. 21 Eliz. B. R. p. 73. C. 113 Barker and Taylors Case Mich. 21 Eliz. C. B. p. 78. C. 117 Bunny and Bunny's Case Hill. 26 Eliz. C. B. p. 90. C. 129 Brett and Peregrines Case Pasch 26 El. p. 105. C. 155 Brian and Cawsens Case Trin. 27 Eliz. C. B. p. 115. C. 165 Baspoles Case Mich. 27 Eliz. B. R. p. 118. C. 167 Branthwaits Case Mich. 27 Eliz. B R. p. 118. C. 168 Bingham and Squires Case Hill. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 151. C. 201 Beadles Case Mich. 30 Eliz. B.
See the Case 14 Eliz. in Dyer L. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Tottenham and Bedingfields Case Owen Rep. 35 83. IN an Accompt by Tottenham against Bedingfield who pleaded That he never was his Bailiff to render accompt the Case was That the Plaintiff was possessed of a Parsonage for Term of years and the Defendant not having any Interest nor claiming any Title in them took the Tythes being set forth and severed from the 9 parts and carried them away and sold them Vpon which the Plaintiff brought an Action of Accompt And by Manwood Iustice the Action doth not lie for here is not any privity for wrongs are always done without privity And yet I do agree That if one doth receive my Rents I may implead him in a Writ of Accompt and then by the bringing of my Action there is privity and although he hath received my Rent yet he hath not done any wrong to me for that it is not my Mony until it be paid unto me or unto another for my use and by my Commandment and therefore notwithstanding such his Receipt I may resort to the Tenant of the Land who ought to pay unto me the said Rent and compel him to pay it to me again and so in such case where no wrong is done unto me Hob. 32â— I may make a privity by my consent to have a Writ of Accompt But if one disseiseth me of my Land and taketh the profits thereof upon that no Action of Accompt lieth for it is meerly a wrong And in the principal case so soon as the Tythes were severed by the Parishioners there they were presently in the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant by the taking of them was a wrong doer and no Action of Accompt for the same lieth against him And upon the like reason was the Case of Monox of London lately adjudged which was That one devised Land to another 1 Len. 266. and died and the Devisee entred and held the Land devised for the space of 20 years and afterwards for a certain cause the Devise was adjudged void and for that he to whom the Land descended brought an Action of Accompt against the Devisee And it was adjudged That the Action did not lie Harper contrary For here the Plaintiff may charge the Defendant as his Proctor and it shall be no Plea for the Defendant to say That he was not his Proctor no more than in an Accompt against one who holdeth as Gardian in Socage it is no plea for him to say that he is not Prochein Amy to the Plaintiff Dyer The Action doth not lie If an Accompt be brought against one as Receiver he ought to be charged with the Receipt of the Mony and an Accompt doth not lie where the party pretends to be Owner as against an Abater or Disseisor but if one claimeth as Bailiff he shall be charged and so it is of Gardian in Socage Latch 8. And it was agreed That if a Disseisor assign another to receive the Rents that the Disseisee cannot have an Accompt against such a Receivor LI. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte That this Case was ruled in the Court of Wards That where Tenant of the King of Lands holden by Knights Service in chief made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died his eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest Son comes of full age that the younger Son should sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate and value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversioner For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffee is in truth a Reversion for the Fee simple was never out of him because there is not any consideration as to that nor any Vse expressed And because Livery shall not be sued by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but he shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession and if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part the whole value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two parts the moiety of the value of a year as of a Reversion LII Oliver Breers Case 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards OLiver Breer who was Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of A. his eldest Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of the said A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the second Son of the said A. c. and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was holden by the Council of the Court of Wards That he should pay for his first Primer Seisin a third part as in possession and two parts as a reversion See the Case before LIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte 1 Roll. 626 This Case was moved to the Iustices in the Court of the Kings Bench A Man had Issue two Daughters by divers Women and being seised of Lands in Fee he made his Will and by the same Devised That his Wife should have the moyety of his Lands for years and that his eldest Daughter at the day of her Marriage should enter into the other moyety his eldest Daughter married and died without Issue And the Question was Whether her Vncle should have that moyety or the fourth part of the whole Land. Catline conceived and said That when the Devise which was made to the eldest Daughter that she might enter after certain years is not the Inheritance in her presently and the other words void So he said here That it is not a purchase in the eldest Daughter but both the Daughters should enter in Common as one Heir to their Father until the Marriage and then the Inheritance which was once settled in them should not be removed Southcote Iustice said There are no words of Limitation of any Estate that the Daughter should have after the Marriage and therefore the Devise was void and if he had limited that the Daughter after Marriage should have it for life the Fee-simple is vested in her before and then she cannot have it for life And he said That if a Lease be made to the eldest Daughter for years by the Father and afterwards
willed that his Son should have all his Mannors and Lands and should pay his Debts and should give certain sums of Monies for the Marriage Portions of his Daughters And the Question which was moved to the Court was Whether the first part of his Will That is to say That Hurlock and the others should have his Lands c. were void or not by the later words of his Will Dyer Iustice said That the last words of the Will did well expound the meaning of the first words and that the Will should be performed as it might be And afterwards Harper said That upon this matter Hurlock and the others had had a Decree in the Court of Wards to have the whole Lands during the years and not two parts of the Lands only Dyer Iustice said That the Will of Sir Tho. Umpton which was made mean between the Statutes of 32 H. 8. and 34 H. 8. and which is excepted by the same Statute that it should not be construed in other form than according to the first Statute was Of all his Lands And upon a Demurrer argued It was adjudged That the Will was good of two parts although that by the Will it was not divided For where a Man hath a Warrant to do a thing and he doth it and more so as he exceeds his Warrant yet it is good for that part for which it is warranted and void for the rest As if a Man makes a Warrant of Attorny to make Livery and Seisin of the Mannor of Dale and he makes Livery of the Mannors of Dale and Sale it is good for the Mannor of Dale and void for the Mannor of Sale. The Case was in a Writ of Partition And afterwards the Record was removed by a Writ of Error supposing that this Court had Erred and the Iudgment was affirmed by three of the Iustices of the Kings Bench. But because there was a Discontinuance in the Record which was erronious for that the first Iudgment was reversed but not for any other cause And such was the meaning and intent of the Statute of 32 H. 8. before the making of the Statute of 34 H. 8. of Explanation of Wills. And therefore here in the principal Case it was holden That the Will was good for two parts both to the Wife and also to Hurlock and the others And it was holden That by the Intent of the Will that the Son was to pay such sums of Monies a Hurlock was to have paid so as the Will was not for the advantage of the Heir but to be construed according to the meaning of Philpot That if Hurlock could not have the Lands c. that then the Son should have them but with such charge as aforesaid and it was no Intent to subvert the first part of the Will if the same might stand with the Law. And so it was adjudged LVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this A Man makes a Lease for 30 years More Rep. 94 Post 55. Winch. Rep. 5. and bargains and sells the Woods in and upon the Premisses to the Lessee and that he might carry them off the Lands during the time of 30 years The Lessee cut down all the Woods and afterwards other Wood grew up from the Stocks and the Lessee cut them also within the Term and the Lessor brought an Action of Waste for cutting of the new Wood. And it was moved by Meade Hob. Rep. 132. Serjeant If the Action of Waste would lie or not Harper Iustice Is the Bargain de bosco subbosco growing in and upon the Premisses Meade No but all his Woods in and upon the Premisses Harper The Grant is in the present tense in praesenti so as he cannot have that which shall grow there after And if he would grant all his Woods which should grow in time to come the Grant should not be good because it is not of a thing in esse And if a Man will grant all his Wood growing upon Black-Acre and there be then no Wood he cannot have any thing although that afterwards Woods grow there and if his meaning had been That he should have the Wood which should there after grow he would have expressed the same in another form Mounson If a Man grants all his Hay growing upon his Land Hob. 132. shall he have that which is growing there after No truly And if he grant all the Wooll which is growing upon his Sheep shall he have more than that which groweth this year Meade No truly But if he had granted all the Wooll growing upon the Sheep for 20 years then the same is like to our case for he hath granted that he may carry the Wooll during the 30 years Harper The same is but a Liberty to fell the Trees which where growing at the time of the Sale and to carry them when he pleaseth and not to give other Trees or Wood which should there after grow LVIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace Serjeant moved this Case to the Court That an Assise was brought of the Office of Registership in the County of Devon And he shewed How that the Bishop of Exeter granted the Office and shewed the name of the Bishop And that after William Alley Bishop there granted the same Office after the death of the first Grantee to the Plaintiff And further he shewed That the Bishop might grant the Office ad Idoneam personam And because he doth not say in his Plaint That the person to whom it was granted is idonea persona I conceive that the Plaint is not good for if there be no such person which can exercise the Office he shall not have it For that is a Condition which is annexed to the Office that he be a fit person who shall take it And the Prothonotaries of this place ought to have skill in that which appertaineth to their Office For if such an Office should be given to a Courtier who hath not skill in that which appertaineth to the Office nor knowledge how to execute he shall not have it Also he said That he hath not shewed that the first Bishop is dead or that he hath resigned or whether that he be deprived and therefore it shall be intended that he continueth unless the contrary be shewed And then the Grant made by Alley to the Plaintiff cannot be good And for these causes and for others he prayed to know the Opinion of the Court. Dyer Iustice The matter is not before us and wherefore should we give our Opinions to serve the fancy of every person and to resolve the doubts of every Court But if the matter laid come before by Adjournment for difficulty because the Iustices of Assise are of divers Opinions or that they doubted of any thing upon such difficulty and adjournment we use to shew our Opinions and to take some pains to search our Books to Resolve the doubts but when we have not any thing before us
Wife the Executrix should be charged for the not Reparations as well in the time of her Husband as in her own time And if she do make the Reparation depending the Suit yet thereby the Suit shall not abate but it shall be a good cause to qualifie the damages according to that which may be supposed that the party is damnified for the not repairing from the time of the purchase of the Reversion unto the time of the bringing of the Action And it was said by Manwood That by the Recovery of the damages that the Lessee should be excused for ever after for making of Reparations so as if he suffer the Houses for want of Reparations to decay that no Action shall thereupon after be brought for the same but that the Covenant is extinct LXXIII Easter Term. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace moved the Court that in the Kings Bench this case was argued upon a Demurrer there A Feoffment was made by one Coxley who took back an Estate for life the remainder to him who should be his Heir at the time of his death and to the Heirs males of his body begotten And afterwards the Tenant for life after the Statute of 32 H. 8. suffered a Recovery to be had against him that that Recovery was good as it was at the Common Law Because the Statute doth not speak but that it shall not be a bar to him who hath the Reversion at the time of the Recovery but this remainder was in Abeyance until the death of the Tenant for life and that in the same Court it was adjudged accordingly in an Ejectione firmae and because the same was a discontinuance the Plaintiff had here brought his Formedon in the Remainder and therefore Lovelace prayed That they might proceed without delays because the Plaintiffs Title appeareth without Essoigns and feigned delays Which Dyer Iustice conceived to be a reasonable request and that it should be well so to do because as he said This Court is debased and lessened and the Kings Bench doth encrease with such Actions which should be sued here for the speed which is there And he said That the delays here were a discredit to the Court so as all Actions almost which do concern the Realty are determined in the Kings Bench in Writs of Ejectione firmae where the Iudgment is Quod recuperet terminum and by that they are put into possession and by such means no Action is in effect brought here but such Actions as cannot be brought there as Formedons Writs of Dower c. to the Slander of the Court and to the Detriment and Loss of the Serjeants at the Bar. And Lovelace shewed That divers mean Feoffments were made c. LXXIV Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte This Case was in Court An Heir Female was in Ward of a common person who tendred to her a marriage viz. his younger Son and she agreed to the Tender and the Guardian died The Heir married the younger Son according to the Tender The Executors of the Guardian brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii supposing the Tender by the Lord to be void by his death But the Court was of a contrary Opinion because the Tender of their Testator was executed LXXV Riches Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ELizabeth Rich brought a Writ of Dower against J.S. who pleaded and Iudgment given for the Defendant and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed And she brought a new Writ of Dower and the Tenant pleaded That he always was ready and yet is c. Against which the Demandant pleaded the first Record to estop the Tenant To which the Tenant pleaded Nul tiel Record It was the Opinion of the Court That here the Demandant cannot conclude the Tenant by that Replication to plead Nul tiel Record For the Iudgment is reversed and so no Record and it cannot be certified a Record But if the Tenant had taken Issue upon the plea of the Tenant absque hoc that he was ready the same might well have been given in Evidence against the Tenant Note That the Case was That the Demandant after the death of her Husband entred into the Land in Demand and continued the possession of it 5 years and afterwards the Heir entred upon which she brought Dower It was agreed in that Case That the Tenant needed not to plead Tout temps prist after his re-entry for the time the Demandant had occupied the same is a sufficient recompence for the Damages LXXVI Vavasors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NIcholas Ellis seised in Fee of the Mannor of Woodhall Leased the same to William Vavasor and E. his Wife for the life of the Wife the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives the remainder to his right Heirs The Husband died the Wife held the Land and did Waste in a Park parcel of the Mannor It was moved to the Court If the Writ of Waste should suppose that the Wife held ex dimissione Nicholai Ellis or ex dimissione of her Husband It was the Opinion of the Court That upon this matter the Writ should be general viz. that she held de haereditate J.S. haeredis c. without saying any more either ex dimissione hujus vel illius For she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Vses and therefore the Writ shall be ex haereditate It was also the Opinion of the Iustices That the Wife here is not remitted but that she should be in according to the Term of the Feoffment Note in this Case The Waste was assigned in destroying the Deer in the Park And Meade Serjeant conceived That Waste could not be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant had destroyed all the Deer And of that Opinion also was Dyer Manwood said If the Lessee of a Dove-house destroyed all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is Waste And if a Keeper destroy so many of the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is Waste although he doth not destroy them all See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Waste 97. If there be sufficient left in a Park Pond c. it is enough LXXVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought against Executors They were at Issue Vpon nothing in their hands It was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That a stranger was bound to the Testator in 100 l. for performance of covenants which were broken For which the Executors brought Debt upon the Obligation depending which Suit both parties submitted themselves to the Arbitrament of A. and B. who awarded That the Obligor should pay to the Executors 70 l. in full satisfaction c. and that the Executors should release c. which was done accordingly And it was agreed by the Court That by the Release it
confirms it is a void Confirmation And 7 E. 6. Br. Grants 154. A Man possessed of a Lease for 40 years grants so many of the said years which shall be to come at the time of his death it is a void Grant for the incertainty Afterwards Shuttleworth moved another point viz. The Plaintiff hath declared of a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. The Defendant shews in Evidence a Lease for years to him made 14 Januarii the same year which is 13 days after the Trespass whereof the Plaintiff hath declared and it shall not be intended that the Plaintiff had another Title than that which he hath alledged and forasmuch as he hath not disclosed in himself any Title Tempore transgressionis the Plaintiff should punish him in respect of his first possession without any other Title And although it may be Objected That where the Defendant hath given in Evidence That Williamson leased to the Defendant that is not sufficient and the words subsequent 14 Januarii are void as a nugation and matter of surplusage Truly the Law is contrary for rather those words ante Transgressionem shall be void because too general and shall give way to the subsequent words after the videlicet because they are special and certain As the Case late adjudged The Archbishop of Canterbury leased three parcels of Land rendring Rent of 8 l. per annum viz. for one parcel 5 l. for another 50 s. and for the third 40 which amounts to 9 l. 10 s. It was adjudged That the videlicet and the words subsequent concerning the special reservation of the Rent was utterly void because contrary to the premisses which were certain viz. 8 l. and that the Fermor should pay but 8 l. according to the general reservation but in our case the words precedent are general i. e. ante Transgressionem and therefore the words subsequent which are special and certain shall be taken and the general words rejected As in Trespass the Defendant pleads That A. was seised of the Land where and held it of the Defendant and that the said A. 1 die Maii 6 Eliz. aliened the said Land in Mortmain for which he within a year after viz. 4 Maii Anno 7 Eliz. entred now the same is no bar for upon the evidence it appeareth that the Lord hath surceased his time and the words within the year shall not help him for they are too general and therefore at the subsequent words viz. c. Cook on the Defendants part took Exception For it appeareth here upon the Evidence of the Defendant which is confessed by the Demurrer of the Plaintiff That upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot punish the Defendant for this Trespass for he was not an immediate Trespassor to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff hath declared upon a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. And it is given in Evidence on the part of the Defendant and confessed by the Plaintiff c. That 22 Eliz. Cordell Savell levied a Fine to Williamson by force of which the said Williamson entred and was seised and so seised 14 Januarii 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant Now upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot have Trespass but the Defendant for Williamson was the immediate Trespassor to him for he entred 22 Eliz. And at length after deliberation had of the premisses by the Court The Court moved the Plaintiff to discontinue his suit and to bring de novo a new Action in which the matter in Law might come into Iudgment without any other Exception But the Plaintiff would not agree to it Wherefore it was said by Wray Chief Iustice with the consent of his Companions Begin again at your peril for we are all agreed That you cannot have Judgment upon this Action CXXVI Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his younger Son in tail and after to the use of the Heirs of his body in posterum procreand and at the time of the Feoffment he had Issue two Sons and after the Feoffment had Issue a third Son The younger Son died without Issue Vpon a Motion at the Bar it was said by Wray Iustice That after the death without Issue of the second Son the Land should go to the third Son born after the Feoffment for this word in posterum is a forcible word to create a special Inheritance without that it had been a general tail CXXVII Smith and Smith's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LAmber Smith Executor of Tho. Smith brought an Action upon the Case against John Smith That whereas the Testator having divers Children Enfants and lying sick of a mortal sickness being careful to provide for his said Children Enfants The Defendant in Consideration the Testator would commit the Education of his Children and the disposition of his Goods after his death during the minority of his said Children for the Education of the said Children to him promised to the Testator to procure the assurance of certain Customary Lands to one of the Children of the said Testator And declared further That the Testator thereupon Constituted the Defendant Overseer of his Will and Ordained and appointed by his Will That his Goods should be in the disposition of the Defendant and that the Testator died and that by reason of that Will the Goods of the Testator to such a value came to the Defendants hands to his great profit and advantage And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff And upon Exception to the Declaration in Arrest of Iudgment for want of sufficient Consideration It was said dy Wray Chief Iustice That here is not any benefit to the Defendant that should be a Consideration in Law to induce him to make this promise For the Consideration is no other but to have the disposition of the Goods of the Testator pro educatione Liberorum For all the disposition is for the profit of the Children and notwithstanding That such Overseers commonly make gain of such disposition yet the same is against the intendment of the Law which presumes every Man to be true and faithful if the contrary be not shewed and therefore the Law shall intend That the Defendant hath not made any private gain to himself but that he hath disposed of the Goods of the Testator to the use and benefit of his Children according to the Trust reposed in him Which Ayliffe Iustice granted Gawdy Iustice was of the contrary Opinion And afterwards by Award of the Court It was That the Plaintiff Nihil Capiat per Billam CXXVIII Amner and Luddington's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. 2 Len. 92. 8 Co. 96. And the Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased to one Peerepoint for 99 years who devised the same by his Will in this manner viz. I Bequeath to my Wife the
Williams and declared Whereas one J. had affirmed a Plaint of Debt against the Plaintiff in the Queens Court of her Mannor of D. in the County of Cornwall and demanded against him 100 l. And whereas the Defendant now Plaintiff sued a Corpus cum Causa c. and delivered the same to the now Defendant being then Vnder-Steward of the said Court That notwithstanding that the now Defendant proceeded to Iudgment and awarded Execution against the Plaintiff and his Sureties by force of which the Goods of the Plaintiff and of his Sureties were taken in Execution Vpon which Declaration the Defendant demurred in Law because the Iudgment was given in a Court-Baron which could not hold plea above the sum of 40 s. And notwithstanding that Exception and notwithstanding also that the Action was brought against the Vnder-Steward c. The Plaintiff had Iudgment to Recover CXLIV Denton and Goddard's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt was brought against Denton Administrator of the Goods and Chattels of James Newton and the Plaintiff declared upon an Obligation made to the Intestate bearing date the 4th day of April 24 Eliz. The Defendant prayed Oyer of the Deed and Condition and then pleaded to the Action For he said That the aforesaid James Newton ante Confectionem praedicti suppositi scripti scilicet ultimo die Septembris 23 Eliz. apud N. obiit and so Non est factum c. The Iury found That the said Deed was delivered to the Intestate 3 July 23 Eliz. in the life of the Intestate bearing date 24 Aprilis 24 Eliz. before which day the Intestate died And upon the whole matter Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXLV Lichfield and Gage's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 167. IN an Ejectione firmae the parties were at Issue And by Order of the Court the Tryal was stayed And yet the Plaintiff against the Order obtained privily a Nisi Prius Vpon which Gawdy Iustice being informed of it after the Term awarded a Supersedeas to the Iustices of Assise before whom c. And notwithstanding that the Enquest at the Instance of the Plaintiff was taken and found for the Plaintiff All this matter was shewed to the Court in the Kings Bench and there examined and proved And it was Ordered by the Court That the Verdict should not be entred of Record nor any Iudgment upon it And so was it put in execution in a Case between Vernon and Fowler And then the Counsel moved and took Exception to the Supersedeas because it was not subscribed by the hand of Iustice Gawdy But it was not allowed because his Seal was sufficient CXLVI Fuller and Cook 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Roll. 111. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant had informed one Tho. Colby a Iustice of the Peace That the Plaintiff had stollen the Defendants Hoggs By force of which the said Colby ad Querimoniam Defendentis made a Warrant and directed it to the Constable of H. to apprehend the Plaintiff and to bring him before the said Colby By force of which the Plaintiff was Arrested and brought before the said Colby and there was examined upon the said matter and bound over by Recognizance to appear at the next Sessions and there to Answer at which Sessions he appeared And Proclamation was made That if any one would inform against the Plaintiff c. and none came For which the Plaintiff was discharged and so by this matter he was discredited c. And all this matter was found by Special Verdict And thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And in this Case the Court took a difference Where one whose Goods a stollen comes to are Iustice of Peace and shews him the matter and prays that the matter be examined and that such a one is examined upon it here in this case No Action lieth But if such a person in such case will expresly say That such a one hath stollen c. Hob. 192. and procure a Warrant from a Iustice of Peace upon such Surmise to arrest the party upon such matter an Action upon the Case will lie CXLVII The Queen and the Lord Lumley's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was moved in the Exchequer 2 Len. 80. Hob. 304. That Queen Mary seised of the Rectory of D. granted Advocationem Ecclesiae de D. If now by this Grant the Advowson should pass as now disappropriate Or that the Rectory it self should pass as appropriate Or that nothing at all should pass And by Manwood Chief Baron the Advowson shall not pass but remain appropriate as it was before For the Church as it was appropriate by a Iudicial act so without such an Act it cannot be disappropriate And he said That by the Grant of the said Advowson the Rectory did not pass For by the Appropriation the Advowson was gone and it was not in esse and by consequence could not be granted And it is not within the Statute of 4 5 Philip Mary of Confirmations of Grants of the King For the said Statute helps not but misrecital misnaming c. But here there is not such a thing in rerum natura as the Patentee pretends to be passed by the Letters Patents And if it were in the Case of a Common person nothing should pass As it was adjudged in Sands Case 11 Eliz. And he said That at this time a Parsonage might be disappropriated but that ought to be by a Iudicial Act as by Presentment and not by any private Act of the Proprietor And so he said a Church was disappropriated by the Lord Dyer by a Presentment which of late he made to it CXLVIII Cox's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation against Cox the Case was A Parson made a Lease for years and became bounden to the Lessee to perform the Covenants in the Lease The Defendant pleaded That the Lease is void by the Statute of 14 Eliz. because he was absent from his Benefice above the space of 80 days part of which time encurred depending the Action and before the Pea was pleaded It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was good But Exception was taken to the pleading The Defendant saith That the said Church is a Parochial Church cum Cura animarum but doth not say That it was so at the time of the Lease and Obligation made For it may be that at the time of the Lease there was a Vicar and then it was not Cura animarum And afterwards upon that Exception Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXLIX Wroth and Capell's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 4 Len. 197. THe Case was A. was Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. And Exception was taken to the Indictment because no word of Freehold was in it or to prove that the party grieved had any Freehold whereof
John the Father in three parts to be divided And afterwards the Father by his Will devised the Lands holden in Socage unto his said Wife for life with divers Remainders over It was the Opinion of the Court in this Case that the Devise was utterly void by the Statute CLV Brett and Peagrims Case Pasch 26 Eliz. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas he himself and the Defendant submitted themselves to the Award of A.B. and C.D. and whereas the said Arbitrators upon the hearing of the Causes between them did intend and were resolved amongst other matters of their Award to award that two Obligations by which the Plaintiff was severally bounden to the Defendant for the payment of certain sums of Mony to the Defendant should be delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to be cancelled The Defendant promised in Consideration that that Article of the delivery of the said two Obligations should be left out of the Award that he himself would gratis deliver them to the Plaintiff without any Coertion or direction of the Award and further declared that the said Article ad specialem instantiam ipsius Querentis was left out by the said Arbitrators out of their Award and notwithstanding that that the Defendant had not redelivered ut supra c. but had put the same in suit against the Plaintiff In this Case upon the matter ut supra c. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff CLVI Nich. Lee's Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 26. 1 Len. 285. 1 Inst 113. Dyer 177. 219. a. 2 Len. 220. NIch. Lee by his Will devised his Land to W. his second Son And if he do depart this World not having Issue then I Will my Sons-in-Law shall sell my Land. The Devisor at the time of the Devise having six Sons-in-Law died W. had Issue John and died John died without Issue one of the Sons-in-Law of the Devisor died the five surviving Sons-in-Law sold the Land. 1. It was clearly agreed by the whole Court that although the words of the Will be ut supra If W. my Son depart this World not having Issue c. And that W. hath Issue which dieth without Issue there although it cannot be said Literally that William did depart this World not having Issue yet the intent of the Devisor is not to be restrained to the Letter but Construction shall be made that whensoever W. dieth in Law upon the matter without Issue the same Land shall be subject to sale according to the Authority committed by the Devisor to his Sons-in-Law And now upon the matter W. is dead without Issue As in a Formedon in the Reverter or Remainder although the Donee in tail hath Issue yet if afterwards the Estate tail be spent the Writ shall suppose that the Donee died without Issue a fortiori in the case of a Devise such Construction shall be made As to the other point concerning the sale of the Land Wray demanded if the Sons-in-Law were named in the Will The Clerks answered they were not See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 31 and 39 Ass 17. Fitz. title Executors 117. Such a sale is good in case of Executors See also 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. And see 4 and 5 Mar. Dyer Land devised in tail and if the Devisee shall die without Issue that then the Land shall be sold pro optimo valore by his Executors una cum assensu of A. if A. dieth before sale the power of the Executors is determined And afterwards it was clearly resolved by the whole Court that the sale by the manner aforesaid was good and Iudgment given accordingly CLVII Rag and Bowley's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ERror was brought upon a Fine and the Error was assigned in the Proclamations Whereupon issued a Certiorari to the Custos Brevium who certified the Proclamations by which Certificate it appeared that two of the said Proclamations were made in one day upon which the Defendant prayed another Scire facias to the Chirographer in whose Office it appeared that all the Proclamations were well and duly made It was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice in this Case that the Defendant ought to have his preyer for the Chirographer maketh the Proclamations and he is the principal Officer as to them And the Custos Brevium hath but the abstract of the Proclamations and we may in discretion amend them upon the matter appearing But the other Iustices seemed to be of a contrary Opinion for that the Proclamations being once certified by the Custos Brevium who is the principal Officer we ought not afterwards to resort to the Chirographer who is the inferior Officer And afterwards the Clerks of the Common Pleas were examined of the matter aforesaid by the Iustices of the Kings Bench and they answered according to that which was said by Wray Chief Iustice Wherefore it was awarded by the Court that a new Certiorari be directed to the Chirographer who Certified the Proclamations to be well and duly made And thereupon the Court awarded that the Proclamations in the Office of the Custos Brevium should be amended according to the Proclamations in the Custody and the Office of the Chirographer Note In the same Case before the Writ brought a stranger had brought a Writ of Error against the same Defendant upon the same Fine upon which the transcript of the Fine and Proclamations are removed in Banco and after the Plaintiff is Non-suit Now another who hath Cause may have a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet CLVIII Taverner and Cromwell's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence unto a Iury 3 Cro. 353. containing difficulty and matter in Law it was found viz. that the Bishop of Norwich 10 H. 8. was seised of the Mannor of Northelman in the right of his Bishoprick and at his Court holden within the same Mannor granted parcel of the Demesnes of the said Mannor to one Taverner and his Heirs where of the said Land in truth there was not any Demise by Copy before And so the said Land continued in Copy until 23 H. 8. at which time Taverner committed a forfeiture which being presented the Bishop seised the Land as forfeited and granted the same again by Copy to Taverner in Fee And so from thence it continued in Copy until 8 Eliz. which Interval between 23 H. 8. and 8 Eliz. amounted to 47 years It was the Opinion of the whole Court in this Case that the Continuance for 50 years is requisite to fasten a Customary Condition upon the Land against the Lord. It was also agreed by the Court that although the Original Commencement and that Customary Interest did commence 10 H. 8. ut supra from which time unto 8 Eliz. 60 years passed yet the seisure for a forfeiture which happened 23 H. 8. interrupted utterly the Continuance from the time which might by the Law have perfected the Customary Interest So
for the variance is in a thing which is matter of surplusage and so much the rather because the said A. had not another House in D. c. CLXXXVI Lucas and Picroft's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was That an Assise of Novel Disseisin was brought in the County of Northampton of two Acres of Lands 2 Len. 41. and as to one Acre the Tenant pleaded a plea tryable in a Forreign County Vpon which the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and from thence into the forreign County Where by Nisi prius It was found for the Plaintiff and now in the Common Pleas Snag Serjeant prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff and cited the Book 16 H. 7. 12. Where an Assise is adjourned into the Common Pleas for difficulty of the Verdict they there may give Iudgment But all the Court held the contrary For here is another Acre of which the Title is yet to be tryed before the Iustices of Assise before the tryal of which no Iudgment shall be given for the Acre of which the Title is found And the Assise is properly depending before the Iustices of Assise before whom the Plaintiff may discontinue his Assise And it is not like to the Cases of 6 E. 4. and 8 Ass 15. Where in an Assise a Release was pleaded dated in a forreign County which was denyed Wherefore the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and there found by Enquest not the Deed of the Plaintiff's Now if the Plaintiff will release his Damages he shall have Iudgment of the Freehold presently But in our Case parcel of the Land put in View remains not tryed which the Plaintiff cannot release as he may his Damages 2 Len. 199. and therefore the Court remanded the Verdict to the Iustices of Assise CLXXXVII Hare and Mellers Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 163. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Phillip Mellers and declared That the Defendant had exhibited unto the Queen a slanderous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Cosening And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. In this Case it was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any Cause of Action For the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort unto her ad faciendam Querimoniam But if a subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter therein comprehended to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is good cause of Action And that was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter recovered And as to the words themselves It was the Opinion of the Court That they are not actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff hath used perjury forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means not known to the Plaintiff And in such case it is true That the Plaintiff hath recovered by forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he cannot recover for he cannot be sworn in his own Cause It was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLXXXVIII Moore and the Bishop of Norwich's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit by Moor against the Bishop of Norwich c. It was found for the Plaintiff and thereupon issued forth a Writ to the Bishop which was not retorned Vpon which an Alias issued forth Vpon which the Bishop retorned That after Iudgment given in the Quare Impedit the same Incumbent against whom the Action was brought was Presented Instituted and Inducted into the same Church and so the Church is full c. And if that was a good retorn It was oftentimes debated Windham cited the Case L. 5 E. 4. 115 116. A Quare Impedit against Parson Patron and Ordinary and pendant the Writ the Parson resigned and the Ordinary gave notice of it to the Patron and afterwards by Lapse the Ordinary presented the same Incumbent who resigned And afterwards the Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit had Iudgment to recovers And it was holden Because the same Incumbent is now in by a new title scil by Lapse and the same person against whom the recovery was had and that appeared to the Court he should be removed See 9 Eliz. Dyer 260. and 21 Eliz. Dyer 364. And it was said by the Lord Anderson What person soever is presented and admitted after the Action brought unless it be that the title of the Patron be paramount the title of the Plaintiff upon such Recovery he shall be removed And so in the principal case It was adjudged That the Retorn of the Bishop was not good Wherefore he was fined 10 l. and a Sicut alias awarded upon pain of 100 l. CLXXXIX Parret and Doctor Matthews Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Praemunire was brought and prosecuted by the Queens Attorny General and Parret 1 Len. 292. against Doctor Matthews Dean of Christ-Church in Oxford and others for that they procured the said Parret to be sued in the City of Oxford before the Commissary there in an Action of Trespass by Libel according to the Ecclesiastical Law In which Suit Parret pleaded his Freehold and so to the Iurisdiction of the Court and yet they proceeded there and Parret was Condemned and Imprisoned And afterward the said Suit depending the Queens Attorny withdrew his Suit for the Queen It was now moved to the Court If notwithstanding that the party Informer might proceed in his suit there See 7 E. 4. 2. the King shall have Praemunire and the party grieved his Action See Br. Praemunire 13. for by Brook None can have Praemunire but the King. Cook There is a President in the Book of Entries 427. In a Praemunire the words are Ad respondendum tam Domino Regi quam R F. and that upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. And see ibid. 429. tam Domino Regi de Contemptu praedict quam dicto A.B. de Damnis But it was holden by the whole Court That if the Queens Attorny will not ulterius prosequi the party grieved cannot maintain that Suit For the principal matter in the Praemunire is the Conviction and the putting of the party out of the Kings protection and the damages are but accessary and then the Principal being Released the damages are gone And it was also holden That the Presidents in the Book of Entries are not to be regarded For there is not any Iudgment upon any of the pleadings there CXC Archeboll and Borrell's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARcheboll brought an Action upon the Case against Borrell and declared That the Defendant had procured one L. to bring an Appeal of the death of J.S. against
Also the words Of the Mannor of Fremmington and Hundred are put amongst others which are Mannors in truth By which he conceived That the Devisor did not intend to pass but one Mannor and no other Herediatments by this Mannor of Fremmington There is a Rule in Law That in the Construction of a Will a thing implyed shall not control a thing expressed But here If by implication the Rent shall pass then the Mannor of Camfield is not passed which was the intent of the Testator to pass and that by express words See 16 Eliz. Dyer 330. Clatches Case No Implication of any Estate in remainder can serve when a special Guift and Limitation is made by the Devisor himself See also 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman's Case But in our Case here there are not sufficient words to warrant any Implication for neither in truth nor in common reputation was it taken for a Mannor 27 H. 6. 2. Green-Acre may pass by the name of a Mannor although it be but one Acre of Land because it is known by the name of a Mannor See acc 22 H. 6. 39. And see Where before the Statute of Uses A Man had recoverors to his use and he willeth by his Will That his Feoffees sell his Lands they might sell And he said That if a Man seised of a Mannor parcel in Demesne and parcel in Service and he granteth the Demesnes to one and his Heirs and afterwards deviseth his Mannor peradventure the Services shall pass but this Rent hath not any resemblance to a Mannor Gawdy This Rent shall pass by the name aforesaid Favourable Construction is always given in Wills according to the meaning of the Devisor and no part of his Will shall be holden void if by any means it may take effect Then it here appeareth that his intent was That upon these words something should pass to the Devisee concerning the Mannor of Fremmington for otherwise the words Of the Mannor of Fremmington are void and frivolous which shall not be in a Will if any reasonable Construction may be made For it is found expresly by the Iury That neither at the time of the Will made nor at the time of the death of the Testator the Devisor had any thing in the said Mannor of Fremmington but the said Rent of 130 l. per annum And it may well be taken That the Devisor being ignorant what thing a Mannor is thought that this Rent was a Mannor because that she had Rents and Services out of the said Mannor For in Construction of a Will the words shall serve the intent And therefore if a Man Deviseth That his Lands shall be sold for the payment of his Debts his Executors shall sell them for the intent of the Devisor names the sellers sufficiently And See Plowden 20 Eliz. 524. L. after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Executors shall be seised to the use of A. and his Assigns in Fee whereas then there was no Feoffees to use the same was holden a good devise of the Land to A. But the Iustices conceived That the Devisor was ignorant of the operation of the Statute in that case and therefore his ignorance was supplyed See Br. Devises 48. 29 H. 8. A. had Feoffees to his use and afterwards after the Statute of 27 H. 8. and 32 H. 8. he willed That his Feoffees should make an Estate to B. and his Heirs It was holden by Baldwin Shelley and Mountague Iustices That it was a good Devise And see 26 H. 6. Fitz. tit Feoffments Faits 12. A Carue of Land may pass by the name of a Mannor therefore a fortiori a Rent for Rents and Services have more affinity and more resemble a Mannor than a Carue of Land. And it cannot be intended that the meaning of the Testator was to grant the Mannor it self in which he had not any thing especially by his Will for Covin Collusion or indirect dealing cannot be presumed in a Will. Also The Marchioness for 4 years together before her death had the Rent and Services of the said Mannor and she well knew that she her self had not any thing in the said Mannor but the said Rent and Services and therefore it shall be intended that the same was her Mannor of Fremmington A. seised of a Capital Messuage and great Demesnes lying to it Leased the same for years rendring Rent and afterwards devised to another all her Farm in such a place And it was Ruled in that Case That by that Devise the Rent and the Reversion passed See the Case between Wrottesley and Adams Plow 19. 1 Eliz. by Anthony Brown and Dyer Periam Iustice conceived That this Rent might be divided well enough But by Anderson It is but a Rent-Seck Periam It is distrainable of Common right Anderson doubted of it But all the Iustices agreed That the Rent might be divided but there should not be two Tenures The Lord Mountjoy being advised that this Rent did not pass but descended to the Heir being the full third part of the Lands entred into the Residue and made a Lease of the Mannor of Camfield unto the Plaintiff upon which the Ejectione firmae is brought And afterwards the Plaintiff seeing the Opinion of the Court to be against him and for the Devise of the Rent for the reasons aforesaid Discontinued his Suit c. CCXIX. Williams and Drew's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Widow of Williams who was Speaker of the Parliament brought Dower against Williams and Drew upon the Grande Cape Williams made default And now came Drew and surmised to the Court That he is not Tenant of the Land But further he saith That the Husband of the Demandant Leased the said Lands to him for 50 years and that this Action is brought by Covin to make him lose his Term and prayed to be received And the Opinion of the whole Court was That although he was party to the Writ yet he should be received and that by the Statute of Gloucester for he is in equal mischief And the Court was also clear of Opinion That upon the default of Williams the Demandant should not have Iudgment for a moyety for that the Cause of the receipt trenched to the whole And by all the Iustices but Rhodes If Iudgment had been given upon the deault of both i. e. Williams and Drew yet the Term of Drew should stand but Drew should be put out of possession and put to his Action And Anderson conceived That the Resceit upon that Statute did not lie unless that Covin be alledged betwixt the Demandant and the Tenant to make him to lose his Term and that Covin is traversable Which all the other Iustices denyed for the Covin ought to be averred but ought not to be traversed And also they all but Anderson were clear of Opinion That in this Case of Receipt the party shall not plead upon his Receipt as upon the Statute of Westminster but he shall be received
his Brother and upon that matter he was endicted and exception was taken to the Endictment because it is not shewed in what thing he had disclosed their Counsel 2. It is said in Trinity Term 29 Eliz. he disclosed but it is not said what day of the month it was done 3. The Endictment is that he being sworn coram Justiciariis Dominae Reginae c. and it is not shewed in what Court he was sworn but generally at Westminster The Iustices were all of Opinion that it was a lewd part and that he should be fined for it but he was discharged from the Endictment CCLXVIII The Town of Green in Sussex's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Town of Green in Sussex was amerced for the escape of a Felon and that Amercement was grounded upon an Inquisition taken before the Coroner by whom the Escape was found and it was moved for the Town that there is not any such Escape found for which the Town ought to be amerced For it is found that he who escaped 10 Die Januarij 30 Eliz. circa horam quartam post meridiem with a Pitchfork mortally struck one A. which A. of the said stroak died 8 hours in the Evening of the same day and that then the other escaped For which Escape being done in the night the Town by the Law ought not to be amerced for it is not Felony until the party dieth Which see 11 H. 4. and in Cole's Case 13 Eliz. Plow Com. 401. And therefore the Town nor any other was charged with the offendor before the party wag dead Wray It should be a hard thing that the Town should be amerced upon this matter for although the Town in discretion might have stayed the party yet it is not bounden to do it c. CCLXIX Bland and Riccard's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 225. THe Case was that process of Attachment issued out of the Chancery against the Defendant by force of which he was taken by the Plaintiff being Vnder Sheriff who took Bond of him upon which Bond Debt was brought the Bond being for his appearance at the day contained in the Attachment It was the clear Opinion of the whole Court That the Bond was void for that the Defendant was not bailable upon the Attachment See the Case of Dive and Manningham 4 E. 6. Plowden 61 62. CCLXX. Fetherstone and Huttchinson's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That whereas one Hill had recovered in an Action of Debt against J.S. 10 l. upon which a Capias was awarded against J.S. that by force thereof he was Arrested and being under Arrest the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would suffer the said J.S. to go at large circa negotia sua and to go to his own House and also in consideration of 2 d. paid to the Defendant he promised to pay to the Plaintiff the said 10 l. It was holden by the Court a void promise within the Statute of 23 H. 6. For the consideration to let a Prisoner go at large is not lawful or good and if part of the Consideration be not good the whole is naught and so it was adjudged CCLXXI. Stretton and Brown's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN a false Imprisonment brought the Defendant justified because at the time he was Constable of D. and appointed the Plaintiff to watch and he refused by reason of which he set him in the Stocks upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law because the Defendant had not alledged that the Plaintiff was an Inhabitant within the Town For the Constable cannot compel strangers which pass to watch And it was moved If for such a Cause the Constable might set one in the Stocks for it was said he ought to complain of his refusal to a Iustice of the Peace Also the Constable cannot appoint any to watch at his pleasure but only in his turn for otherwise the Constable might upon a private revenge vex his Neighbors See 22 E 4. 35. Wray Chief Iustice The Defendant ought to shew That the Plaintiff was Inhabitant in the Town and that it was his Turn to Watch and if such Inhabitant refuse to Watch in his Turn the Constable may set him in the Stocks CCLXXII Paramour and Tho. Robinson's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Case was George Robinson Lessee for years of the Mannor of Drayton-Basset the Reversion to the King devised his Term to his Wife as long as she should keep her self a Widow the remainder over if she married and died and made his Wife and William his Son his Executors the said William being within age And therefore Administration was committed to the Wife alone and she only proved the Will And afterwards the Wife granted all her Interest to the said William and died Cook Nothing passeth by the Grant for William had the Term before for every Executor hath an entire Interest Popham Contrary for at the time of that Grant the Son was within age and had not administred nor proved the Will therefore in effect the Wife was sole Executrix Egerton Sollicitor If during the sole Executorship of the Wife one committeth a Trespass upon the Land the Wife alone shall have the Action of Trespass without naming her Co-executor Which Cook denyed And he cited the Case 16 H. 7. 4. If two Executors be and one of them only is possessed of the Goods of the Testator and a stranger takes them out of his possession to whom the other Executor doth release and afterwards the Executor out of whose possession the Goods were taken brings an Action of Trespass against the Trespassor who pleads the Release of the other Executor It was holden a good Plea for the possession of the one was the possession of the other The Case was further That Tho. Robinson the Defendant in pleading had shewed That George Robinson was possessed and devised the same to his Wife who granted the same to William who devised the same to the Defendant On the other side it was shewed That Tho. Robinson the Defendant granted the said Term to Paramour the Plaintiff upon which they were at Issue And the Question now was If Tho. against his own pleading might give in Evidence That Thomas did not grant For if the gift by the Wife to William was void and he had the Term as Executor Then he could not Devise it And it was shewed also That Thomas granted it by Indenture to Paramour And now If against that Indenture he might give in Evidence such special matter was the doubt And If the party shall be concluded if the Iury shall be concluded ad dicendum veritatem And by Popham and Egerton As well the Iurors as the parties are concluded by the confession of the parties in the Record For here Thomas confesseth That William devised to him virtute cujus 2 Co. 4. he was possessed To
King and a Common Person was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant Dyer Iustice I conceive That it is a good Purchase in Law as well in the Case of the King as in the Case of a Common Person And see to that purpose 39 E. 3. and in this Case If the King had granted the Land to John Holt without naming him Son the same had been a good Purchase But if the King had called him John the Son of Thomas without giving him a sirname there such a Purchase should not be good if he were a Bastard because he hath not Nomen Cognitum as where he hath a sirname and a Man cannot purchase by the Name of John only and then if he be called John the Son of Thomas when he is not his Son it cannot be good And such Case hath here lately been adjudged Where the Lord Powis gave certain Lands to Thomas Gray his Son by him begotten upon the Body of Jane Orwell and in truth the said Thomas was a Bastard of the said Lord Powis and the name of Jane was not Orwell but the Daughter of one Punt and the Mother of Jane who was first married to Punt betwixt whom Jane was begotten married with one Orwell and yet notwithstanding that wrong Name and that the said Thomas Gray was not the Son of the Lord Powis born of Jane Orwell but of one Jane Punt yet it was a good Purchase and Gift to Thomas Gray because it was his known Name Manwood As I take it the Letters Patents are Ex certa scientia ex mero motu and then the Kings Grant shall not be taken in such plight as the Grant of a Common Person void for incertainty because that the King takes notice of the Person of what degree he is and in the Kings Case where he takes knowledge by the words Ex certa scientia there all matter of uncertainty shall be avoided and made good but not matter which is not true And for uncertainty he said Where a thing may be taken two ways there without the words Ex certa scientia c. the best shall be taken for the King and strongest against the Patentee But by Dyer by the words Ex certa scientia c. that incertainty is saved and shall be taken strong for the Patentee and if it can any ways be taken for him then the Patent shall not be void and then when in the principal Case there is the word Son and the word Son may be taken two ways either for a base Son or a true Son there by the words Ex certa scientia the King taketh upon him to know in what manner he is Son and a base Son is a Son Quodam modo so as the Letters Patents shall not be false But where the King in his Letters Patents recites a thing which is false that shall not make the Patent good although the words be Ex certa scientia et mero motu LXX Mich. 15. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was agreed by the Court That if a Man in a Replevin pleadeth and they are at Issue and the Iury is charged and gone from the Bar and returns to give their verdict and the Plaintiff be non-suit their retorn irreplevisable shall not be awarded as in case if a verdict had been given But the party may have a Writ of second Deliverance as well as if he had been nonsuit before declaration or appearance LXXI Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Husband levied a Fine of his Land and died and his Wife within the 5 years after the death of her Husband brought her Writ of Dower but did not pursue her Writ until 6 years were past and then she would have revived her Suit. And Meade Serjeant demanded the Opinion of the Iustices If the Wife should be barred of her Dower or not And by Manwood Iustice it was moved again If they at the Bar did agree That if a Fine be levied by the Husband and the Wife doth not make her claim within the 5 years if for that she shall be barred And he conceived That she should not be barred For he said That he who hath Title to the Land at the time of the Fine levied if he doth not sue within 5 years after his Title accrued should be barred But where the Title accrues after the Fine there he who hath Title shall not be barred by the 5 years but he may come 30 years after and make his Title and Claim But in the principal case he said That if the Fine had been levied after the death of the Husband there the Wife should be barred if she did not pursue her Right and Claim within 5 years And he agreed That if the 5 years be a Bar here that then by the Wives suffering of her Writ of Dower to be discontinued till after the 5 years were past that she should be barred because vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt Leges Harper said That the Discontinuance should be no Bar unto her For he said That if a gift be made to one in tail the Remainder over and Tenant in tail dieth without Issue and he in the Remainder brings a Formedon in the Remainder within 5 years and discontinueth it yet it is no Bar but that after the 5 years ended he may revive his Suit Which Manwood denyed And then Dyer came into the Court and the Case was moved to him And he said That the not prosecuting of the Action by the Wife should be a Bar unto her and that the Marriage which was before the Fine was the cause of Dower although she could not come to be endowed until after the death of her Husband And he said That the Wife could make no other to have her Dower but only by bringing of her Writ of Dower and therefore if she did surcease her time until the 5 years were past that her new claim by her new Writ would not revive the Ancient Claim and that therefore she should be barred For she could not enter into the Land to defeat the Fine And he said That as to the principal Case That it was adjudged Anno 4 H. 8. And it was also said by the Court That an Assignment of Dower made to the Wife in the Court of Wards was no sufficient claim of the Wife because she cannot have a Writ of Dower there and there by this surceasing of her demand of her Dower for the 5 years at the Common Law that she should be barred LXXII Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for years and the Lessee Covenanted to make Reparations The Lessor granted the Reversion to another and the Lessee for years made his Wife his Executrix and died It was holden in this Case by the Court That the Grantee of the Reversion should not recover damages but from the time of the Grant and not for any time before But yet the
Bench. WIlliam Absolon Master of the Savoy and the Chaplains there brought Debt against Anderton The Case was That the said Master and Chaplains leased Lands to the Defendant for certain years and afterwards he accepted of them an Indenture of Bargain and Sale to him and his Heirs by express words of Bargain and Sale without other words And one of the Masters of the Chancery within the 6 months came unto them into their Chapter-house and before him they acknowledged the said Indenture to be their Deed and prayed that it be enrolled which was done accordingly It was moved If that acknowledgment and Enrollment were good or not or if the Master and the Chaplains ought to have appointed one by their Warrant to be their Attorny to acknowledge the said Deed And it was also moved 1 Len. 184. If there needed any Enrollment at all of it because Anderton had then an Interest in the Land for years in which case it is to be considered If the words Barganizavi Vendidi shall be of such effect as the words Dedi Concessi And it was said by the Court That a Warrant of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed were a strange thing And it was agreed That the Indenture being once Inrolled it was not material by what means it was Inrolled but was good being done CXXV Savell and Badcocks Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SAvell brought an Action of Trespass against Badcock and declared That Edw. Savell was seised of the Mannor of D. and leased the same for years to Henry Savell who died having made the Plaintiff his Executor who entred and was possessed until the first day of January at which time the Trespass was done The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And it was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That the said Ed. Savell was seised and leased to the said Henry Savell for years who so possessed reciting the said Lease Demised the said Mannor to Sir William Cordell Master of the Rolls to have to him immediately after the decease of the said Henry for so many years of the said Term which at the time of his death should be unexpired if Dorothy the Wife of the said Henry should so long live Henry died Sir William Cordell entred Dorothy died within the Term the Plaintiff the Executor of Henry entred and was possessed until the first day of Januarii 23 Eliz. at which day the Trespass was done On the Defendants part it was given in Evidence That after the Grant to Sir William Cordell the said Henry and Edward joyned in a fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to a stranger who granted and rendred the Land to the said Henry and his Heirs who devised the same to the said Dorothy his Wife for life the remainder to Cordell Savell in tail the remainder over and died Dorothy entred and died Cordell Savell 22 Eliz. conveyed the Mannor by Fine to one Williamson who entred and afterwards and before the Trespass aforesaid viz. 14 January 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant for years by force of which the Defendant entred And upon this Evidence there was a Demurrer in Law. And it was argued by Shuttleworth who was made Serjeant the last Term. And he said That the Demise made by Henry Savell is not in the inconveniency of the maxim that Henry by the said Grant should reserve a lesser Estate to himself than he had before For here by this Grant no present interest passeth by Sir William Cordell but the effect of the Grant rests upon a Contingency scil if he himself dieth within the Term c. until which time the whole interest of the Term doth remain in the said Henry Savell subject to the Contingency aforesaid and amounts to so much as if the said Henry had granted the same to Sir William Cordell if he himself should die within the Term in which Case it is a limitation when the said Grant shall take effect As if I grant unto you my Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name the same is a good Grant to take effect upon the naming of J.S. Then the Case being so When Henry Savell the Lessee and Edward Savell the Lessor joyn in a Fine ut supra now the possibility of the remnant of the Term which upon the death of Henry Savell and Dorothy his Wife within the Term might accrue to the Executors of the said Henry Savell is not extinct by the Fine but doth remain Quodam modo in Henry Savell to vest in his Executors if it should happen And here is not any conclusion by the Fine in this Case for Henry at the time of the Fine had not in him any Interest which is now claimed and so cannot be bound by the Fine For the Interest in respect of which the Plaintiff hath cause of Action begineth after the death of Henry who levied the Fine and first accrueth to his Executors and so shall not be touched by the Fine and therefore if such a Lessee for years granteth his Term to J.S. Proviso That if J.S. dieth within the Term that he himself shall have it again and afterwards the Grantor joyns with his Lessor in a Fine and afterwards within the Term J.S. dieth now the Grantor notwithstanding the Fine shall have the residue of the Term Then when the Conusee by the Fine regrants the Land to Henry in Fee that possibility to have after the death of the Donor cannot be drowned in the Fee simple for the reason aforesaid And then when Henry deviseth the same to his Wife that possibility doth pass to Dorothy because it was never in the Devisor and then when Dorothy dieth within the Term the Residue of the said Term shall accrue to the Plaintiff as Executor of Henry Cook contrary And he held The Grant to Sir William Cordell is utterly void And he agreed That Grants although in themselves they be uncertain yet if they may be reduced to certain they are good but here is no expectance of any certainty in the life of Henry for the Term limited to Sir William Cordell is not to begin till the death of Henry and is to end upon the death of Dorothy so as here is not any certain beginning nor certain end and here this Grant cannot be reduced to any Certainty during the life of the Grantor and so for that cause is void See Plow Com. 6 Eliz. Say and Fullers Case 273. by Weston Iustice If A. makes a Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name if J.S. in the life of A. name a certain number of years then the Lease is good but if the Lease had been for so many years as my Executors shall name that can never be made good in my life And upon that reason it is That an Attornment ought to be made in the life of the Grantor or else no Reversion shall pass So 33 E. 3. Entry 79. A Bishop aliens and after his death the Dean Chapter
Plaintiff ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet And the Plaintiff declares That reparavit generally without saying 2 Cro. 404. That ad requisitionem Davidis reparavit And that is not the Reparation intended in the Consideration i. e. reparatio ad requisitionem c. but a Reparation of his own head and at his pleasure And for this Cause the Iudgment was stayed CXXXII Wrennam and Bullman's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 52. 1 Len. 282. WRennam brought an Action upon the Statute of 1 2 Phil. Mar. against Bullman for unlawful impounding of Distresses and was Nonsuit It was moved by Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Defendant should have Costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. And it was Adjudged That he should not And that appears clearly upon the words of the Statute c. for this Action is not conceived upon any matter which is comprised within the said Statute and also the Statute upon which this Action is grounded was made after the said Statute of 23 H. 8. which gives Costs and therefore the said Statute of 23 H. 8. and the remedy of it cannot extend to any action done by 1 2 Phil. Mary And Rhodes Iustice said It was so adjudged in 8 Eliz. CXXXIII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 161. Dyer 291. IN a Formedon of a Mannor The Tenant pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine with J.S. The Demandant averred the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ supposed and upon that it was found and tryed for the Demandant Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this Because where Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to have abated without any Averment by the Demandant against it and the Averment had been received against Law c. Shuttleworth At the Common-Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Deed the Writ should have abated without any Averment but that was remedied by the Statute of 34 E. 1. But Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine doth remain as it was at the Common Law For he hath satis supplicii because by his Plea if it be false he hath by way of Conclusion given the moyety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy And the Law shall never intend that he would so sleightly depart with his Land for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant confesseth himself to be a Villein of a stranger the Writ shall abate without any Averment Free and of Free estate for the Law intends that the Tenant will not inthral himself without cause Wray to the same purpose But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he who levied the Fine was his Disseisor upon whom he hath before entred And if Tenant in Feesimple be impleaded and he saith That he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayeth in Aid of A. the Demandant shall not take Averment That the Tenant at the time of the Writ brought was seised in Fee. Note In this Formedon Ioynt-Tenancy was pleaded but as to parcel And it was holden by Wray and Southcote That the whole Writ should abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants And so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the Land in demand if the thing in demand be an entire thing the Writ shall abate in all In this Writ the Demandant ought to have averred in his Writ an especial foreprise of the Land parcel of the Land in demand whereof the Ioynt-Tenancy by the Fine is pleaded For this dismembring of the Mannor and distraction of the Land of which the Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded is paravail and under the gift whereof the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Mannor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with a foreprise But if A. giveth unto B. a Mannor except 10 Acres in tail there if after upon any Discontinuance the issue in tail is to have a Formedon in such case there needs not any foreprise for the said 10 Acres for they were severed from the Mannor upon the gift But if Lands in demand be several as 20 Acres except 2 Acres this foreprise is not good See Temps E. 1. Fitz. Brief 866. Praecipe c. unam bovatam terrae forprise one Sellion and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Sellion is but a parcel of Land uncertain as to the quantity in some places an Acre in some more in some less Another Point was Because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this Averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ supposeth And the Question was If the Court notwithstanding the Admittance of the Tenant ought without Exception of the party Ex Officio to abate the Writ And it was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice That it should For it is a positive Law As if a Woman bring an Appeal of Murder upon the death of her Brother and the Defendant doth admit it without a Challenge or Exception yet the Court ought to abate the Appeal 10 E. 4. 7. See the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus c. And if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the Common Custom of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named Common Hostler yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex Officio See 11 H. 4. and 38 H. 6. 42. CXXXIV Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his said Wife for her life It was holden in that Case That the Wife was remitted And it is not like Amy Townsends Case Plow Com. 1 2 Phil. and Mar. 111. For in the said Case the Entry of the Wife was not lawful for she was Tenant in tail which Estate was discontinued by the Feoffment of her Husband And Periam Iustice cited a Case Sidenham's Case Bacon seised in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife They both surrendred and took back the Lands to them and a third person And it was holden That the Wife was not presently remitted but after the death of her Husband she might disagree to the Estate CXXXV Harper and Berrisford's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Partition The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ because the Writ is Quare-cum A. teneat c. pro indiviso c 4 mille acras whereas it should be Quatuor Mille acrarum And many Grammarians were cited all which agreed That it was good both ways viz. Mille Acras or Mille Acrarum And Rhodes Iustice said That Cowper in Thesauro suo Linguae Latinae saith Quod Mille fere jungitur Genitivo Ergo non semper Wherefore Anderson with the assent of the other Iustices Ruled
created by this Will but the Feesimple setled in them when they came at their lawful age and had Issue so as the residue of the Devise was void and Iudgment was given accordingly CLXVI Griffith and Agard's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Disceit by Griffith against Agard and his Wife 1 Len. 290. For that a Fine was levied of a Messuage being Ancient Demesne by which it became Frank-Fee and the Fine was levied in the life of A. Griffith Grandfather of the Plaintiff Exception was taken to the Writ because it is brought by the Plaintiff as Cosen and Heir of A. G. his Grandfather And in the beginning of the Writ the words are Si Henricus Griffith fecerit te securum without saying Cousen and heir of A. G. fecerit te securum But the Exception was not allowed For afterwards in the Writ these words are Cujus haeres ipse est See the Register 238. that it is sufficient if there be in the body of the Writ these words Cujus haeres ipse est Another Exception was taken to the Declaration in that it is alledged that the Lands were De antiquo Dominico Dominae Reginae Angliae wereas it ought to have been De antiquo Dominico Dominae Coronae suae c. The Opinion of the Court was That it was good both ways See Book Entries 100. antiquo Dominco Coronae 58. de antiquo Dominico Domini Regis CLXVII Bashpool's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 101. Stiles Rep. 148. THe Case was The Father was seised of Lands in Fee and bound himself in an Obligation and devised his Lands unto his Wife until his Son should come to the age of 21 years the Remainder to his Son in Fee and died and no other Land descended or came to the Son from the Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in this case might elect to waive the Devise and to take the Land by Descent See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But it was the Opinion of Gawdy and Shute Iustices That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent and so bounden with the Debt CLXVIII Branthwait's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt brought by J. D. against Branthwait upon an obligation the Condition of which was That whereas J. F. claimed to have a Lease for years of the Mannor of D. made and granted to him by one W. D. If the said Branthwait keep without damage the Plaintiff from all claim and Interest to be challenged by the said J. F. de tempore in tempus during the years c. and also deliver the said Lease to the Plantiff that then c. The Defendant pleaded That the said J. F. had not any such Lease and that after the making of the said Obligation untill the Action brought the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis praedictae Exception was taken to the same because where the words of the Condition are Keep without damage the Plaintiff from all Claim and Interest And he hath pleaded That the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis c. But the Exception was disallowed by the Court For if he were not damnified ratione dimissionis then he was not damnified by reason of any Claim or Interest Another Exception was taken Because he could not now say there was no such Lease For it is recited in the Obligation That J. F. claimed to have a Lease and therefore by this recital he is estopped c. And see where a Recital is an Estoppel 8 R. 2. Fitz. 2 Len. 11. tit Estoppel 283. 39 E. 3. 3. Fitz. Estoppel 112. 46 E. 3. 12. It was holden by the Court That it was a good Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXIX Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt upon an Obligation The words of the Obligation were I am content to give to W. 10 l. at Michaelmas and 10 l. at our Lady day It was holden by the Court That it was a good Obligation And it did amount to as much as I promise to pay c. It was also holden by the Court That an Action of Covenant lay upon it as well as an Action of Debt at the Election of the Plantiff And it was holden That although the Action is for 40 l. and the Declaration is 20 l. and 20 l. at two several days yet it is good enough and the Declaration is well pursuant to it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXX The Queen and Kettell's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii against Kettell and Counted of a Tenure in Chief The Defendant pleaded That pendant the Writ the Queen had granted to one Edmund Kettel Custodiam Maritagium of the said Defendant with whom he had Compounded It was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for the Letters Patents were void because the Queen was deceived in her Grant for it appeareth by the Count that the Defendant before the Grant of the Queen was of full age And by the Letters Patents the Queen intended that he was within age and by the same granted Custodiam c. CLXXI. Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Land by his Will Devised 1 Len. 31. That his Executors should sell the Lands and died the Executors levied a Fine thereof to one F. taking Mony for it of F. The Question was If in title made by the Conusee to the said Lands by the Fine It be a good Plea against the same to say Quod partes Finis nihil habuerunt Anderson conceived That it was But by Windham and Periam upon Not guilty the Conusee may help himself by giving in Evidence the special matter in which Case the Conusee shall be adjudged in not by the Fine but by the Devise And Windham said That if A. Devise That his Executors shall sell a Reversion of certain Lands of â—hich he dieth seised and they sell the same without Deed the same is well enough for the Vendee is in by the Devise 1 Iust 113. a. and not by the Conveyance of the Executors Quod vide 17 H. 6. 23. And by Periam The Conusee may help himself in pleading As he who is in by the Feoffment or Grant of Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3. CLXXII Lee and Loveday's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail leased for 60 years and afterwards levied a Fine to Lee and Loveday sur Conusans de Droit come ceo c. and their Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Lord of the Mannor of whom the Land was holden brought a Writ of Disceit and upon that a Scire facias against the Conusees supposing the Land to be Ancient Demesne The Defendants made default by which the Fine was annulled and now the Issue in tail entred upon the Lessee for years and he brought an Ejectione firme
to all Quietness seeking all means to disquiet his Neighbors and hath used himself as a Lawless person and having Process to serve upon one in the Parish viz. the Parson did keep the Process and would not serve it but on the Sabbath day in the time of Divine Service not having regard to her Majesties Laws or the Quiet of his Neighbours Vpon which Bill the Iustices to whom it was exhibited awarded Process against the Plaintiff to find Sureties for his good behaviour It was the Opinion of the Iustices That upon this matter an Action would not lie CLXXVII Mason's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. MAson Leased certain Lands to one R. for years and afterwards leased the same Lands to one Tinter for years Tinter Covenanted with the Defendant That if the said R. should sue the said Mason by reason of the later Lease that then he would discharge or keep harmless without damage the said Mason and also would pay to him all the Charges which he should sustain by reason of any suit to be brought against the said R. in respect of the said former Lease And Mason by the same Indenture Covenanted with Tinter That the said Land demised should continue to the said Tinter discharged of former Charges Bargains and Incumbrances And now upon the second Covenant Tinter brought an Action of Covenant and shewed That the said R. had sued him in an Action of Ejectione Firme upon the said first Lease and had recovered against him c. And Mason pleaded in Bar the said second Covenant intending that by that later Covenant the Plaintiff had notice of the said former Lease made unto R. so as the first Lease shall be excepted out of the Covenants of former Grants for otherwise there should be circuity of Action But the Opinion of the whole Court was to the contrary For the Covenant of Mason shall go to the discharge of the Land but the Covenant of Tinter only to the possession CLXXVIII Knight and Beeches Case Pasch 27 Eliz. Rott 1127. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 173. Coke 5. Rep. 55. 1 Len. 12. 2 Len. 134. WIlliam Knight brought Ejectione Firme against William Beech. The Case was That the Prior of St. Johns of Jerusalem 29. H. 8. with the assent of his Covent leased by Indenture divers Houses in Clarken-well in the County of Middlesex for fifty years to one Cordel rendring Rent 5 l. 10 s. and 11 d. at four Feasts of the year usual in the City of London viz. for such a Messuage called The High-House 14 s. for another House 3 s. 11 d. for another House xx s. c. Et si contingat dictum annualem redditum 5 l. 10 s. 11 d. a retro fore in parte vel in toto ultra aut post aliquem terminum solutionis in quo solvi deberet per spatium trium mensium c. quod tunc ad omnia tempora deinceps ad libitum c. liceret dicto Priori Successoribus suis omni tali personae personis quam vel quas dictus Prior Successores sui nominarent appunctuarent sine scripto in omnia dicta tenementa totaliter re-entrare c. And afterwards 32 H. 8. the said Hospital of St. Johns was dissolved and the possessions of it granted to the said King and afterwards the said King 36 H. 8. gave the said House upon which the said Rent of 20 s. was reserved to one Audley c. in Fee And afterwards the now Queen being seised of the residue a Commission issued out of the Exchequer bearing Date 8 Maii 23 Eliz. Ad inquirendum Utrum the Defendant to whom the Interest of the said term did appertain perimple visset performasset omnes Provisiones fact reservat in super praedict Indenturam necne Office was found before the Grant and after 25 August following the said Queen by her Letters Patents gave the said House called The High-House to Fortescue the Lessor of the Plaintiff and afterwards Tres Mich. the Commission was retorned by which it was found all as aforesaid Et quod Termini Festi Solutionis in London are Michaelmas Christmas Annunciation and Mid-summer and that at the Feast of Michaelmas such Rent was behind for the space of three Months c. It was argued in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant on the part of the Plaintiff That here are several Rents for the entire Sum by the viz. is distributed into several Portions which make several Rents and to that purpose he cited Winter's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 308. A Lease for years is made of the Mannors of A.B. and C. rendring for the Mannor of A. xx s. and for the Mannor of B. x s. and for the Mannor of D. x s. with a Condition for the Non-payment of the said Rents or any of them or any part or parcel of them within one Month c. then a Re-entry Here are several Rents And he conceived That a Condition in the Case of the King might be apportioned For a Rent-charge and a Condition are in the King in better Condition than in a Subject for the thing may distrain for a Rent-charge in all the Lands of him who is seised of the Land out of which such a Rent is issuing and if a Rent-seck be due to the King he may distrain for the same and the King shall never demand his Rent which he hath reserved with Clause of Re-entry and it appeareth in the Register That if before the Statute of Westm 3. the King purchaseth parcel of the Land holden of him the Rent shall be apportioned which was not in the Case of a Common person and there are in the Exchequer divers Presidents to that effect scil If A. be bounden in a Recognizance to B. and afterwards enfeoffeth the King of part of his Land and C. of the other part If B. be afterwards attainted of Treason so as the said Recognizance accrueth to the King that now notwithstanding that he hath part of the Land lyable to the Recognizance he shall have Execution of the residue And see F. N. B. 266. If after the Recognizance acknowledged the Conusor enfeoffeth of certain parcels of his Lands several persons and of the Residue enfeoffeth the King that Land which is assured to the King is discharged of the Execution but the residue shall be charged So that the possession of the King doth alter the Nature of the Rent Condition and Execution Fenner Serjant Contrary And he said That this Grant before Office retorned was not good for without Office the King cannot enter multo minus his Patentee and that the King by the Grant hath interrupted the Relation of the Office As if a Man by Indenture bargaineth and selleth his Lands and afterwards makes Livery to the Bargainee and afterwards the Deed is enrolled Now the party shall not be said to be in by the Bargain and Sale but by the Livery for the Livery hath interrupted the
the now Plaintiff To which Endictment the now Plaintiff peaded Not guilty and upon that he was acquitted The Defendant pleaded That the now Plaintiff was endicted of the said death in the County of S. scil of the stroak and of the death of the dead in the same County To which the Plaintiff by Replication said That the said J.S. was struck in the said County of S. but died in the County of D. so as this Indictment found in the County of S. is void by the Common Law and by the Statute of 2 E. 6. the party ought to be Indicted in the County where the party died and not where the stroke was given And upon that Replication the Defendant demurred in Law. Broughton The Plaintiff ought to be barred 1. The Plaintiff was not lawfully accquitted for the proceedings are not by due process For upon the Writ of Appeal no Pledges are retorned Which see 11 H. 4. 160. Then if the Appeal was not duly sued the Plaintiff was not duly acquitted and then Conspiracy or Action upon the Case doth not lie For such suit doth not lie but where if the Plaintiff had been found guilty he should have Iudgment of life and member Which shall not be upon an insufficient Appeal 9 H. 5. 2. 2. Because it is not shewed in the Declaration If the Defendant did flie or not 3. The Declaration wants these words Falso Malitiose as they are in the Writ of Conspiracy And also it is not shewed If the Plaintiff in the Appeal be sufficient or not For if he be sufficient the Abettors shall not be enquired See Westm 2. And as to the Action it self he conceived That it doth not lie by Bill but by Originial Writ against those who are found Abettors See 2 E. 2. Fitz. Action upon the Statute 28. such suit by Writ But see 25 Eliz. It was holden Such suit doth not lie by Writ And see Book of Entries 43 44. Flemming to the contrary It needs not to be shewed That the Plaintiff found Pledges ad prosequendum For without that the Writ is good enough and although that the Writ be not well executed yet it is good For our Action is not grounded upon the Record of Appeal but at the Common Law and the Record is but Conveyance to our Action And also there needs not in the Declaration falso malitiose for they are implyed in the words Abettavit procuravit And he conceived That this Action is at the Common Law and not only upon the Statute of Westm 2. Which see Stamford 172. And see 3 E. 3. Fitz. Conspiracy 13. Conspiracy lieth upon an Endictment of Trespass as well as upon an Endictment of Felony for the Law hath provided remedy in every Case where a Man is damnified As 43 E. 3. 20. A Writ of Disceit was brought for that the Defendant by Fraud and Collusion had procured J.S. to brign a Formedon against the Plaintiff of such a Mannor by reason whereof the Plaintiff was put to great charges and holden maintainable And the Statute of West 2. is in the affirmative and therefore it doth not abridge the Common Law but the subject may take the advantage of the Common Law if he pleaseth For it may be that the Course according to the Common-Law will more avail him than that upon the Statute For upon the Statute Law If the Abettors have not any thing the party is without remedy but by the Common Law the party grieved shall have excution upon the body 13 E. 2. Conspiracy holden maintainable against one who procured one to sue an Appeal against the Plaintiff See Fitz. Conspiracy 25. Fitzh Na. Br. 98. If A. procures B. to sue an Action against me to vex and molest me an Action of Disceit lieth And as to the matter of the Endictment I conceive that it is not any bar For the Endictment is meerly void because it was found in the County where the stroke was and not in the County where the party strucken died where of right it ought to be and that by the Statute of 2 E. 6. Then if the Endictment be insufficient it is as no Endictment and then the Plea cannot excuse the Defendant Which see 20 E. 4. 6. If the Endictment be not sufficient the Appellee shall wage Battail and the Abettors shall be acquitted Vide inde 19 E. 3. Coron 444. 26 H. 8. 2. And by the Common Law the Plaintiff might at his pleasure bring an Appeal where the Plaintiff was strucken or where he died but in such case the tryal shall be by both Counties And 3 H. 7. 12. Appeal was brought in the County where the party was stricken And 44 H. 7. 18. the Appeal was brought in the County where the party died and there it is said That in an Appeal the Plaintiff may declare as if the thing were done in both Counties but the Endictment ought to be in one County only And 43 E. 3. 18. A Man strucken in one County and dieth in another County the Appeal shall be brought in the County where he died In an Action upon the Case brought in the County of Essex the Plaintiff Declared That the Defendant held certain Lands by reason of which he ought to repair a Wall in the County of Essex juxta le Thames and that the Plaintiff had Land in the County of Middlesex adjoyning to the said Wall and for want of repairing the said Wall his Land in the County of Middlesex was drowned and the Writ was allowed being brought in the County of Essex See 6 H 7. 10. Clench I conceive this Action doth not lie by the Common Law For no Writ of Conspiracy was at the Common Law before the Statute And vide F. N. B. 114. F. If the Plaintiff in an Appeal be Nonsuit Conspiracy lieth but contrary if he be acquitted for he shall have his remedy against the Abettors c. Plowden This Action lieth at the Common Law and an Endictment is no Plea in this Action and it is not grounded upon the Statute as a Conspiracy is and so it well lieth although the Abettors be not Enquired Gawdy Serjeant This is an Action by the Common Law For in all cases where one procures damages to another so as the party is put to charges an Action lieth a fortiori where the procurement extends to the danger of life And see F. N. B. 116. F. Men conspire to have a false Office found of my Lands which Office is found by such procurement Conspiracy lieth And the Statute of 2 E. 6. doth not alter the Law before for it is in the affirmative See the Statute Cap. 24. Gawdy Iustice Conceived That the Endictment did not excuse the Defendants in this Action but against those who are sworn to give Evidence for the King and not others For they may well procure an Appeal malitiously notwithstanding the Endictment Walmesley Serjeant conceived That the Action doth not lie at the Common Law For in
of the said Lands A. brought an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded That before the day of payment the Plaintiff put the said B. out of his Farm It was moved by Godfrey That the same is no plea For this is a Collateral sum and not for Rent issuing out of the Land Also the Defendant is a stranger to the Contract for the Farm. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary For the Defendant hath Covenanted That the Lessee shall pay for the said Farm and Occupation 40 l. so as it is as a Conditional Covenant and here is Quid pro quo and here the Consideration upon which the Covenant is conceived scil the Farm and the Occupation of it is taken away by the Act of the Plaintiff himself and therefore the plea is good and the Action will not lie CCVII. The Archbishop of York and Morton's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Archbishop of York recovered in an Assise of Novel Disseisio against one Morton before the Iustices of Assise 1 Len. 55. upon which Iudgment Morton brought a Writ of Error retornable before the Iustices of the Common Pleas And after many Motions at the Bar it was adjudged That a Writ of Error upon such Iudgment doth not lie in the said Court. Which see 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. See also N. B. 22. e. That upon Erroneous Iudgment given in the King Bench in Ireland Error shall be in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. And Fenner who was of Counsel with the Archbishop demanded of the Court How and in what manner the Record shall be sent back to the Iustices of Assise so as the said Archbishop might have Execution To which the Court answered That the surest way is to have a Certiorari out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by a Mittimus to the Iustices of Assise But Fenner made a doubt to take such Course for such remanding Then Anderson Chief Iustice said Sue Execution out of the said Record for in as much as the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall also be removed and sent back by Writ And so it was done CCVIII The Queen and Hurleston's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 194. THe Queen brought a Scire facias against Hurleston to Repeal a Patent made to him of the Constableship of Chester and Iudgment was given for the Queen And now Hurleston brought a Writ of Error against the Queen in the Kings Bench. And it was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the Writ did not lie for the manner for that he ought first to have sued to the Queen by Petition See 22 E. 3. 3. 23 E. 3. Fitz. Error 9. If the King recover by an Erronious Iudgment a Writ of Error cannot be granted upon such a Recovery sine gratia Regis speciali And he said That in Chester they have Courts of Common Pleas Kings Bench Exchequer and Chancery And that if Iudgment Erronious be given in the Chancery at Westminster It cannot be reversed but by Parliament and so it is of an Erronious Iudgment given in the Chancery at Chester Also he said They have a Custom in London That within one month they may reverse their own Iudgment See 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. Erronious Iudgment given in the 5 Ports cannot be reversed in the King Bench but it is reversable in the Court of the Guardian of the 5 Ports Clench Here both the parties claim by the Queen therefore there needeth no Petition for valeat quantum valere poterit it is no prejudice to the Queen Cook There needs no Petition here for the Attorny General hath subscribed our Writ of Error Egerton Sollicitor General It was the Case of Eliz. Mordant who was to reverse a Fine levied during her Nonage and the proceedings were stayed because she had not sued to the Qeen by Petition See the Case of 24 E. 3. 35. the Case of William de Ingularby who sued to reverse a Iudgment given against him in a Writ of Conspiracy in the Eyre of Derby and there it was said by Thorp Iustice That he must first sue to the King by Petition Wray An Outlawry may be reversed by bringing a Writ of Error without suing Petition to the King. CCIX. Beckwith's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 19. ROger Beckwich by Indenture Tripartite between him of the first part William Vavasour Frances Slingsby and Elizabeth Sister of Roger of the second part George Harvey and Frances Wife of the said George the said Frances being another of the Sisters of the said Roger of the third part Covenant with the aforesaid William Vavasour and Frances Vavasour his Daughter and with the aforesaid George and Frances cum quolibet qualibet eorum That the said Roger at the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture was lawfully and solely seised of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in the County of York discharged of all Incumbrances Francis Vavasour took to Wife Frances Slingsby And Note That by the same Indenture Roger Beckwith Conveyed the said Rectory to the said Francis Vavasour Francis Slingsby and Frances his Wife brought an Action of Covenant against the said Roger Beckwith and assigned the Breach in this That the said Roger was not seised of the said Rectory And Note That the Plaintiff declared of an Indenture bearing date at the Castle of York And upon the breach of the Covenant they were at Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and damages assessed and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff And Note That the Venire facias was de Vicineto Castri de York And upon that Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer upon the new Statute and Error was assigned because all the Covenanters ought to have joyned in the Action of Covenant notwithstanding those words cum quolibet cum qualibet which words do not make the Covenant to be several And for that cause the Iudgment was Reversed Another Error was assigned because the Issue is not well and duly tryed For the Issue is upon the seisin of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in which case the Venire facias ought to have been de Vicineto de Aldingfleet And of that Opinion was Manwood and Anderson Iustices CCX Young and Ashburnsham's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Debt brought by the Administrators of Young against Ashburnham The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Enquest was taken by default And upon the Evidence given for the Plaintiff the Case appeared to be this That the said Young was an Innholder in a great Town in the County of Sussex where the Sessions used to be holden And that the Defendant was a Gentleman of Quality in the Country there And he in going to the Sessions used to lodge in the house of the said Young and there took his lodging
laid in a person in such sort as it may be laid and therefore in this Case forasmuch as the seisin cannot be shewed by the hands of the Inhabitants it ought to be layed in the Lord. See 4 H. 6. 29. Br. Avowry 71. In a Recordare the Defendant avowed because the King is seised of the Castle of C. in jure Ducatus sui Cornub. to which he had 20 s. Rent out of the Town of D. Solvend annuatim at Michaelmas of which Rent the King and all the Dukes of Cornwal aforesaid had been seised time out of memory c. by the hands of the Inhabitants of the same Town c. and the same was holden a good Avowry For although that seisin ought to be laid in some person certain by his hands yet in that case it is good enough For the seisin by one of the Inhabitants is the seisin of them all And in the principal Case by Periam and Walmesley It was agreed That the seisin here was well enough confessed For when the Plaintiff hath taken Issue That they have used to distrain all other matters are holden confessed because that the Plaintiff hath not saved them to him by protestation Which Rhodes granted Another Exception was taken to the Avowry because that the Leet by it is supposed to be holden in July therefore void which see Magna Charta 35. But it was holden by Anderson Windham and Rhodes That by reason of this Prescription the Court is well holden in July notwithstanding the said Statute of Magna Charta and it might be holden at what day he pleased For his Liberty and Election is not restrained by the said Statute and such is the common experience And note the words of the same Statute Ita quod quilibet habeat Libertates suas quas habuit vel habere consuevit tempore Regis H. avi nostri c. vel quod postea perquisivit c. And Rhodes conceived That the said Statute is to be intended of Turns only and not of Leets Which see 24 H. 8. Br. Leet 23. in the end of the Case But by Periam A Leet cannot be holden but according to the said Statute for to that purpose was the said Statute made But if a Leet hath been time out of mind c. holden at any other day than that which is limited by the Statute it is a good prescription and it is saved by the Statute The Prescription is That he and all c. have used to hold a Leet once in a year and hath not shewed when the said year begins for it may be that a Leet hath been holden there in this year before July and then this is a void Leet and so no Leet-Fee due and of that Opinion was Periam viz. That the Avowant ought to have shewed the beginning and end of the year viz. That he held the said Leet pro uno anno finito such a day for it may be he hath holden two Leets in one year But it was said by the other Iustices That that shall come on the other side for prima facie it shall be intended that it hath been but once holden in the same year until the contrary be shewed And Note by Anderson and Rhodes If the King grants to one a Leet to hold semel quolibet anno without saying At the Liberty of the Grantee the Grant is good and the Grantee may hold it at what day he pleaseth CCXXXII Putnam and Cook 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 129.193 1 Cro. 52. IN Ejectione Firmae It was found That one Hawkins was seised of 3 Messuages in Bury in Fee and had Issue Robert his Son and Christien and Joan Daughters And Devised all his said Messuages to his Wife for life the remainder of one of the said Messuages to his Son Robert and his Heirs the remainder of another of his said Messuages to his Daughter Christien and her Heirs the remainder of the third to Joan and her Heirs And further willed That if any of his said Issues died without Issue of his body that then the other surviving should have totam illam partem c. between them equally to be divided The Devisor died The Wife of the Devisor died Joan died having Issue Robert died without Issue Christien entred into the whole Messuage of Robert and died and her Husband held in as Tenant by the Curtesie Cook The surviving Child shall have the whole and the Issue of Joan shall have nothing And he conceived That by this Devise they have an Estate in tail for the Fee is not vested in them for that it is incertain which of them shall survive but when one doth survive then he shall have the Fee for these words totam illam partem go to the whole Estate as well as to the whole Land. If I Devise my whole Land to J.S. he hath a Fee. And he conceived That the three had an Estate in tail with a Fee expectant each severally to the House limited to him Golding contrary Each of them hath an Estate tail in the House Devised to him and but an Estate for life expectant upon the death of the other without Issue for there are no words by which it might appear what Estate they shall have by the Survivor c. I grant the Case which Perkins denies but Littleton affirms scil A Devise of Lands to one in perpetuum for there the intent appeareth but where there are not words of Inheritance nor words amounting to so much then it shall be but an Estate for life And as to these words totam illam partem the same is all one as if he had Devised totam illam without partem Also he conceived That where one only survived no estate further vested for there ought to be two to take by the Survivorship for the words are aequaliter inter eos dividend And then if it cannot accrue by Survivor then it shall descend And if it had accrued by Survivor they should thereof have been Tenants in Common and not Ioynt-Tenants by reason of these words aequaliter dividend Clench Iustice The words totam illam partam go to the House and not to the Estate in it Shute to the same intent If both the Daughters had survived they should have Fee in the House of Robert but not by the Will but by descent in Coparcenery Also when two are dead the Son and one Daughter then it cannot be decided therefore the Will as to that is void and then the Common Law shall take place and put the Messuage to the Issue of one Daughter as to the Sister surviving Gawdy Iustice Here is but an Estate for life in the survivor It hath been Objected That then being but an Estate for life that Estate is drowned by the descent of the Feesimple so as now the Estate limited by the Will is void To which it may be answered That although now upon the matter it be void yet ab inition it
was not so for it became void by matter of later time scil by the descent of the Feesimple For if one of the Daughters had died without Issue before the death of Robert so as the House of such Daughter had come to Robert and the other Sister there had been no Coparcener for the Son had all the Fee and the moyety of it is executed and the moyety expectant and the Sister hath the moyety for life and then the Devise is not good Also here are two survivors so as nothing is to be divided and therefore the Law shall say That the House of Robert is descended scil the Fee of it to the Daughter of Christien and Joan. And so Iudgment was given against the Husband who claimed to be Tenant by the Curtesie of the whole Land and Messuage CCXXXIII Large's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 82. IN an Action upon the Case the Case was this A. seised of Lands in Fee Devised the same to his Wife till William his younger Son should come to the age of 22 years the remainder when the said William should come to such age of his Lands in D. to his two Sons Alexander and John the remainder of his Lands in C. to two other of his Sons upon Condition Quod si aliquis dictorum filiorum suorum circumibit vendere terram suam before his said Son William should attain his said age of 22 years imperpetuum perderet eam And before such age two of his Sons Leased their parts which accrued to them by the Will of their Father for 60 years and so from 60 years to 60 years till 240 years were expired It was Argued by Bois That Alexander and John are Ioynt-Tenants and not Tenants in Common notwithstanding the Opinion of Audley 30 H. 8. Br. Devises 29. And he argued also That the said Leases from 60 years to 60 years is not within the Condition of the Devise for it is not a sale from which they only are restrained and so is it of a Ioynture made by any of the Sons to their Wives On the contrary It was argued because this remainder doth not vest presently for it is incertain if it shall vest or not For if William should die before he came to the age aforesaid it was conceived that the remainder was void 34. E. 3. Fitz. Formedon 68. A Man deviseth Land to his Wife for life so that if the said Wife be disturbed that the Land shall remain over in Fee scil to D. here is not any remainder until the Wife be disturbed So a Devise unto a Woman so long as she shall remain sole and that then it shall remain to B. here this remainder shall not begin till the marriage And this Condition of restraint of Alienation is good for he is not altogether restrained but for a time scil until his Son shall come to the age of 22 years As a Feoffment upon Condition That he shall not alien to J.S. See 29 H. 8. Br. Mortmain 39. A Lease made for 100 years and so from 100 years to 100 years until 800 years be expired is Mortmain And see the Statute de Religiosis The words are emere praesumat vendere A Lease for years is within such words emere vendere Also by this Lease the Will is defrauded and where the Statute of Gloucester Cap. 3. Wills That if a Man aliens Tenements which he holdeth by the Law of England with warranty the Son shall not be barred and yet if Tenant by the Curtesie be disseised to whom he releaseth with warranty the same is within the said Statute and yet a Release and an Alienation are not the same because they are in the like mischief and if the Sons might make a Lease for 240 years they might make a Lease for 2000 years So if the Sons had acknowledged a Statute of such a sum as amounted to the value of the Land it had been within the Condition It was holden That where the words are Circumibit vendere terram imperpetuum perdert this word imperpetuum should be referred to perdere and not to vendere Fenner This Lease is not within the word Sell For if the Custom be That an Enfant of the age of 15 years may sell his Land yet by that he cannot devise it Note That afterwards the words of the Condition set down in the Will in English were read viz. Shall go about to sell his part shall for ever lose the same And then it is clear that this word imperpetuum shall be referred in Construction to perdere and not to vendere for this word Shall is inserted betwixt both CCXXXIV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon The Tenant pleaded a Fine with proclamations The Demandant replyed Nul tiel Record And the truth of the Case was That the Record of the Fine which remained with the Chirographer did warrant the Plea but that which remained with the Custos Brevium did not warrant it and both these Records were shewed to the Court. And Rhodes Iustice cited a President 26 Eliz. Where by the advice of all the Iustices of England where such Records differ the Record remaining with the Custos Brevium was amended and made according to the Record remaining with the Chirographer Which Windham concessit And afterwards the said President was shewed in which was set down all the proceedings in the amending of it and the names of all the Iustices by whose direction the Record was amended were set down in it And that the said President was written and the amendment of the said Record recorded by the Commandment and appointment of the said Iustices in perpetuam rei memoriam And the reason which induced the said Iustices to make such Order is here written because they took it That the Note remaining with the Chirographer est principale Recordum CCXXXV Sir Gervase Clifton's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 4 Len. 199. IN a Quo Warranto against Sir Gervase Clifton It was shewed That the said Sir Gervase was seised of a Mannor and of a House in which he claimed to have a Court with View of Frank-Pledge and that he without any Grant or other authority usurpavit Libertates praedictas The Defendant pleaded Quod non usurpavit Libertates praedictas infra Messuagium praedict modo forma And upon that there was a Demurrer in Law For the Defendant ought to have said Non usurpavit Libertates praedictas nec eorum aliquam for he ought to answer singulatim And also he ought to have pleaded as well to the Mannor as to the House For if the Defendant hath holden Court within any place within the Mannor it is sufficient See 33 H. 8. Br. Franc. sans ceo 364. An Information was in the Exchequer That the Defendant had bought Wooll of A.B. contra Statutum The Defendant pleaded That he had not bought of A. and B. The Plea was not allowed but he
shall plead That he had not bought modo forma For if he hath bought of A.B. or J.S. the same is not material nor traversable Which Case Cook denyed to be Law. And he also conceived That the Information upon the Quo Warranto is not sufficient For by the same the Defendant is charged to hold a Court and it is not shewed what Court For it may be a Court of Pipowders Turn c. See 10 E. 4. 15 16. acc Shute Iustice The Quo Warranto contains two things in it self 1. A Claim And 2. An usurpation and here the Defendant hath answered but to the Vsurpation but saith nothing to the Claim And it hath been holden in this Court heretofore That he ought to answer to both And he said That it hath been holden in a Reading upon the Statute of Quo Warranto which is supposed to be the Reading of Iustice Frowick That a Quo Warranto doth not lie upon such Liberties which do not lie in Claim as Felons goods c. which lieth only in point of Charter CCXXXVI Venable's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was 1 Inst 351. a. Hughs Queries 13. A Lease was made to A. and B. for their lives the remainder to Tho. Venables in tail who 3 Eliz. was attainted of Felony 23 Eliz. there was a General Pardon Tho. Venables 24 Eliz. levied a Fine and suffered a Recovery to the use of Harris Serjeant Office is found Harris traversed the Office and thereupon was a Demurrer It was argued by Leake That Traverse did not lie in this Case 4 H. 7. 7 Where the King is entituled by double matter of Record the party shall not be admitted to his Traverse nor to his Monstrans de Droit but is put to his Petition Which see 3 E. 4. 23. in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland Where Tenant of the King is Attainted of Treason and the same is found by Office. See also 11 H. 4. in the Case of the Duke of Norfolk And the same is not helped by the Statute of 2 E. 6. Cap. 8. for the words are Untruly found by Office but here the Office is true By this Attainder Tho. Venables is utterly disabled to do any Act For by Bracton a Person attainted forisfacit Patriam Regnum Haereditatem suam 13 E. 4. One was attainted of Felony And before Office found the King granted over his Lands Also he is not helped by the General Pardon For before the General Pardon he had a special Pardon therefore the General Pardon nihil operatur as to him But by the Iustices the forfeiture doth remain until the General Pardon Harris to the contrary And he put the Case of Sir James Ormond 4 H. 7. 7. Where the King is entituled by matter of Record and the subject confesseth the title of the King and avoids it by as high matter as that is for the King Traverse in that case lieth and if the King be entituled by double matter of Record if the party avoids one of the said Records by another Record he shall be admitted to his Traverse And so here we have the Pardon which is a Record and that shall avoid the Record for the King And here the Pardon hath purged the forfeiture in respect of the Offence And he said That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall not lose his Lands but the profits only for he hath his Interest by the Will of the Donor and it is a Confidence reposed in him and as Walsingham's Case is he cannot grant over his Estate And see in Wroth's Case Annuity granted pro Consilio impendendo cannot be granted over or forfeited for there is a Confidence See Empson's Case Dyer 2. and 29 Ass 60. If the Issue in tail be Outlawed of Felony in the life of his Father and gets his Pardon in the life of his Father after the death of his Father he may enter But by Thorp If the Issue in tail gets his Pardon after the death of his Father then the King shall have the profits of the Lands during the life of the Issue And the Case of Cardinal Pool was debated in the Parliament 27 Eliz. That he being Dean of Exeter was seised of Lands in the right of his Church and was attainted of Treason It was holden he should forfeit the profits of such Lands But admit That by this Attainder the Land be forfeited yet the party hath the Freehold until Office found See Nicholls Case Plow Com. And also the Case of the Dutchy in Plow Com. acc And here the Pardon hath dispensed with the forfeiture A Tenant of the King aliens in Mortmain before Office found the King pardons it it is good The Lord Poynings conveyed all his Lands to Sir Adrian Poynings who was an Alien and after made a Denizen and the King pardoned and released to him all his right in the said Lands without any words of grant and adjudged the same did bind the King And he said he had a good president 14 H. 7. Where a General Pardon before seisure into the hands of the King was allowed good contrary after a seisure without words of Grant. See Br. 29 H. 8. Br. Charter of Pardon 52. If a Man be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Felonies executiones eorundem and Outlawries c. and releases all forfeitures of Lands and Tenements and of Goods and Chattels the same will not serve but for life of Lands if no Office be found but it will not serve for the goods without words of restitution and grant for the King is entituled to them by the Outlawry without office But the King is not entituled to Land until Office be found See Ibid. 33 H. 8. 71. The Heir intrudes and before Office found the King pardons now the Heir is discharged as well of the Issues and profits as of the Intrusion it self But a Pardon given after the Office found is available for the Offence but not for the Issues and profits And he cited the Case of Cole in Plowden where a Pardon was granted mean between the stroak and the death See 35 H. 6. 1. 16 E. 4. 1. 8 Eliz. Dyer 249. Brereton's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 284 285. Egerton Sollicitor contrary This Traverse is not good for he who traverseth hath not made title to himself as he ought upon which the Queen may take Issue for it is in the Election of the Queen to maintain her own title or to traverse the title of the party At the Common Law no Traverse lay but where Livery might be sued but that is helped by the Statute of 34 E. 3. but where the King is entituled by double matter of Record as in our Case he is no Traverse was allowed until 2 E. 6. Cap. 8. And in such Case two things are requisite 1. That the Office be untruly found 2. That the party who is to be admitted to his Traverse have just title or Interest
Land during his life And he conceived That this Estate of Tho. Venables was in the King without Office not to grant for he is restrained by the Statute of 18 H. 8. but it is in him so before Office that he who hath right ought to sue to the King by Petition if he will have the same Yet he conceived That before the said Statute of 18 H. 6. the King might grant it before Office as it appeareth by Thirning 13 H. 4. 278. which was before the Statute So if the Kings Tenant makes a Lease for years the remainder over to another in Fee who dyeth without Heir the said remainder is in the King without Office because a common person in such case cannot enter but a Claim is sufficient and therefore it shall be in the King without Office. As to the Pardon He conceived That it did not extend to this Estate For the same is a Freehold therefore not within the Pardon As if the Kings Tenant be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Offences and all which he may pardon these words will not go or extend to Freehold but only to personal matters and such punishments and pains which do concern Chattels But it may be Objected That in this Pardon title of Quare Impedit and Re-entries for Conditions are excepted and therefore if they had not been excepted they had been released by the Pardon And therefore this Pardon doth extend to Inheritances and Freeholds As to that I say That such Exceptions were not in use in the time of King Ed. 4. and such Inheritances and Freeholds were not taken to be within such Pardons And such Exceptions began 5 Eliz. And he said he had been of Counsel in such Cases where it had been taken That such Pardons did not extend to Freeholds As an Abbot was disseised and during the Disseisin the Abby was dissolved the King made such a Pardon the same did not transfer the Kings right And in this Case there are divers Exceptions of Goods and Chattels in many cases and therefore it cannot be intended that this Pardon doth extend to Freeholds And see the said Act of Pardon There the Queen gave and granted all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amercements Forfeitures and Sums of Mony which word Forfeiture shall be intended personal forfeiture and not otherwise for it is coupled with things of such nature And as to the Traverse he conceived That it did not lie in this Case For the Office is not untrue in substance although it be void in Circumstances And also the King here is entituled by double matter of Record i. e. the Attainder and the Office. And he said That the Statutes of 34 36 E. 3. which gave Traverse are to be meant of Offices found virtute Officii and not virtute Brevis for then Escheators were very troublesome And 2 E. 6. doth not give traverse but where the Office is untruly found As if the Kings Tenant be disseised and the Disseisor be Attainted The Queen seiseth the Land Now the Disseisee hath no remedy by traverse upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. but is put to his Monstrans de Droit for that the Office is true But if I be the Kings Tenant and seised of Lands accordingly and it is found that J.S. was seised of my Land and attainted c. whereas in truth he had not any thing in my Land there Traverse lieth For the Office is false And so our Case for the Traverse is at the Common Law. And it is true that Venables was seised c. Cook to the contrary And he conceived That by the Attainder the Queen had gained but a Chattel And that notwithstanding this Forfeiture If Venables had been in possession a Praecipe should be brought against him And whereas it hath been said by Mr. Attorny That the Writs set down in the Register are the best Expositors of our Law the same is not so For the Register saith That Waste lieth notwithstanding a mean Remainder which is not now Law but it hath been clearly ruled to the contrary See acc 50 E. 3. The Register therefore and the Writs are subject to the Iudgments of our Law. And the Writ of Diem clausit extremum is not to the contrary For I confess that in such case Hob. Rep. 342. the Land shall be seised into the Kings hands but the King shall have but a Chattel in it It hath been argued He may grant therefore he may forfeit Nego Consequentiam For a Man seised in the right of his Wife may grant but not forfeit Gardian in Socage may grant but not forfeit The Husband may grant a Term for years which he hath in the right of his Wife but he cannot forfeit it A Woman enheritrix taketh Husband and afterwards is attainted of Felony the King pardons him they have Issue the Woman dieth the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie which proveth that the King hath no Freehold by this Attainder Before the Statute of West 2. Tenant in tail post prolem suscitatam might forfeit the Land but now the Statute hath so incorporated the Estate tail to the Tenant in tail that it cannot be devested yea a Fine levied ipso jure est nullus although as to the possession it be a discontinuance And that is the reason wherefore Tenant in tail shall not be seised to another's use See Stamford 190. b. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have the Issues of the Land of the Wife during the life of the Husband c. So if Tenant in tail be Attainted of Felony that is but a Chattel in the Lands of the Wife and also in the Lands of the Tenant in tail and if the possessions of a Bishop be seised into the Kings hands for a Contempt In such case the King hath possession and not only the profits The same Law of Lands of Tenant in tail or for life being attainted of Felony So seisure for alienation without Licence or of the possessions of Poor Aliens See Br. Reseisure 10. So where the seisure is for Idiocy And he conceived That nothing is in the King without Office. And as to the Case of 13 H. 4. 6. I confess it For all that time many and amongst them Lawyers and Iustices were attainted by Parliament And so was Sir John Salisbury whose Case it was and their Lands by Act of Parliament given expresly to the King and therefore I grant that their Lands were in the King without Office. Tenant in Fee of a Common Lord is attainted of Felony his Lands remain in him during his life till the entry of the Lord and where the King is Lord until Office be found but in the case of a Common person after the death of the person attainted it is in the Lord before Entry and in the Case of the King before Office for the Mischief of Abeyance And see the Lord Lovell's
Gravenor and Parker 3 4 Mar. Dyer 150. A Lease was made to A. for life by Indenture and by the said Indenture a Proviso was That if the Lessee died within the Term of 60 years then next ensuing that then his Executors should have it in right of the Lessee for so many of the years as should amount to the number of 60 years to be accounted from the date of the Indenture And it was holden That the secondary Interest to the Executor was void And that the words concerning the same went only in Covenant CCXLV The Lord Compton's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 211. Kellow 41. 4 Inst 85. NOte It was holden by the Lord Anderson Chief Iustice in this Case That if Cestuy que Use after the Statute of 1 R. 2. Leaseth for years and afterwards the Feoffees Release to the Lessee and his Heirs having notice of the Vse that that Release is to the first Vse But where the Feoffees are disseised and they Release to the Disseisor although that they have notice of the use yet the same is to the use of the Disseisor And no Subpoena lieth against the Disseisor See 11 E. 4. 8. CCXLVI Sir Thomas Gorge and Dalton's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIr Thomas Gorge and the Lady Helene his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against Francis Dalton Who pleaded That the Queen was seised of the Mannor of D. to which the Advowson c. was appendant and so seised the Church became void And that afterwards the Queen granted the said Mannor with the Advowson to J.S. who presented the Defendant It was the clear Opinion of the Court That by that Grant of the Queen the Advowson did not pass although that the King by his Prerogative may grant a thing in Action Quod vide Dyer 13 Eliz. 300. against F.N.B. 33 16 H 7. CCXLVII. Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Copyholder with the leave of the Lord Leased for years 1 Len. 297. Hob. Rep. 177. and afterwards surrendred the Reversion with the Rent to the use of a stranger who was admitted accordingly It was moved If in this case there needed any Attornment either to settle the Reversion or to create a privity It was holden in this Case by Rhodes and Periam Iustices That the surrender and admittance ut supra are in the nature of an Inrollment and so amount to an Attornment or at the least do supply the want of it CCXLVIII Carter and Marten's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TWo Men made an Obligation joyntly for Debt The principal in the Obligation made him who was surety only for him in the said Obligation for payment of the Mony his Executor who payed the Mony generally And whether it shall be said that he paid it as Executor or as an Obligor was a Quaere not resolved by the Court. CCXLIX Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer A. Was endebted to B. who was endebted to the Queen B. assigned his Debt unto the Queen By all the Barons Process shall be awarded out of the Exchequer to enquire what Goods A. had at the time of the Assignment and not what he had tempore Scripti praedict facti c. CCL Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer A. Was accomptable to J.S. and afterwards J.S. was Out-lawed in an Action personal A. died The Queen by her Letters Patents granted unto B. omnia bona catalla exitus proficua forisfactur advantagia quaecunque which came to her or accrued by reason of the Outlawry of the said J.S. And now B. brought an Action of Accompt against the Executors of the said A. as Executors of their own wrong The Defendants pleaded That they had Letters of Administration committed to them by the Ordinary and demanded Iudgment of the Writ The Plaintiff in maintenance of his Writ Replyed That the Defendants did Administer of their own wrong before that Administration was granted unto them Vpon which the Defendants did demur in Law. It was the Opinion of some of the Iustices That the wrong is urged by taking of Letters of Administration and now they are to be charged as Administrators only and not otherwise See 50 E. 3. 9. 20 H. 6. 1. And see the Case of the Cardinal of Canterbury 9 E. 4. 33. If one Administreth of his own wrong and afterwards takes Letters of Administration he shall be sued not as Executor but as Administrator See 21 H. 6. 8. But Gawdy Iustice conceived That the Defendants might be charged as Executors As to the Grant of the Queen of this Action of Accompt See Br. Pat. 98. 32 H. 8. that the King may grant a thing in action which is personal as debt and damages or the like Or a thing mixt as the Wardship of the body but not a thing real as an Action concerning Lands Rights Entries But it was agreed on all sides That if this Action had been granted specially it had been clearly good And it was Observed That in the principal Case the Accomptant was dead before the Grant so that his Executors were chargeable to the Queen to render an Accompt and the Queen was entituled to it It hath been Objected That this Action of Accompt came to the King by reason of his Prerogative Royal and in vertue thereof the Executors are accomptable to her and therefore the Queen cannot grant the same over to a Subject Certainly the same is not an Incident inseparable from the Crown nor a Flower of the Crown as the King cannot grant over to a Subject power to pardon Felons for that is proper and peculiar to the person of the King nor that a Subject may have a Court of Chancery And although this matter of Accompt is at the first i. e. at the time of the Grant uncertain yet by matter ex post facto it may be reduced to certainty i.e. by the Accompt and although the Accompt be not expresly named in the Letters Patents yet the words of the Grant ut supra do amount to as much And Gawdy Iustice conceived That this Accompt ought to be brought in the name of the Queen And all the Iustices were of Opinion That if the said A. had been living at the time of the said Grant of the Queen the Grant had not been good for then the Action against the Executors which is the matter of Prerogative had not been vested in the Queen CCLI Specot's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 57. HUmphry Specot and Elizabeth his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exceter c. of the Church of Tedcole in the County of Devon The Bishop pleaded That the Plaintiffs presented to him one John Holmes quem super Examinationem invenit Scismaticum inveterat ' and so non habilem to be instituted vel ad acceptandum aliquod Beneficium cum Cura Animarum for which he refused him and of such Refusal gave notice to
bring a new Writ But Gawdy said That the Writ brought was good enough CCCXVII Pike and Hassen's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. touching buying of Titles And the Bargain was laid in Norfolk but the Land c. was in Suffolk And the Issue was tryed in Norfolk and the value of the Land also And as to the 5 Acres they found the Defendant guilty and found also the value of them And for the Residue a Special Verdict was given and for the 5 Acres the Plaintiff had Iudgment presently And by the special Verdict it was found That the Defendant had occupied the Residue of the Land for two years before c. as Tenant at sufferance and afterwards sold the Inheritance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant at sufferance is in truth a Tort feasor by which his taking of the profits is not such as is intended by the Statute But yet he afterwards looking into the words of the Verdict which were That the Defendant tenuit the Lands for two years ex permissione of another thereupon it ought to be intended That he was Tenant at will. CCCXVIII Sparry and Warfield's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN False Imprisonment against the Defendant and others they pleaded The Charter of Bridewell and that the Plaintiff was mali nominis famae and that certain Goods were stollen from J.S. and upon search the Plaintiff was found suspitiously c. And that thereupon they put him into Bridewell It was the Opinion of the Iustices That the Plea was not good CCCXIX. Bragg's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. Rot. 318. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Strait against Bragg Quare Clausum fregit containing one Acre in C. in the County of H. and for the taking of a Horse The Defendant pleaded That long time before the Trespass The Dean and Chapter of Pauls were seised of the Mannor of C. in the said County in Fee in the right of their Church whereof the place where is parcel c. And so seised King E. 4th by his Letters Patents dated Anno 1 of his Reign granted to them all the Fines pro Licentia Concordandi of all their Homagers and Tenants resiants or not resiants within their Fee And shewed That for all that time they have used to have such Fines of their Tenants And shewed further That 29 Eliz. A Fine was levied in the Common Pleas between the Plaintiff and one A. of 11 Acres of Land whereof the place where the Trespass was done was parcel and the Post-Fine assessed to 15 s. And afterwards Scambler the forreign Opposer allowed to them the said 15 s. because the said Land was within their Fee and afterwards in the behalf of the said Dean and Chapter he demanded of the Plaintiff the said 15 s. who refused to pay it for which he by the Commandment and in the right of the Dean and Chapter entred and took the said Horse in the name of a Distress as Bailiff to the said Dean and Chapter for the said 15 s. and afterwards sold it c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was moved That here it is not averred That the Land whereof the Fine was levied was within their Fee but they say That Scambler allowed it because it was within their Fee. And that is not a sufficient averment quod curia concessit And also the opinion of the Court was Ante 56. 2 Len. 179. That the Dean and Chapter cannot distrain for this matter but they ought to sue for the same in the Exchequer as it appeareth 9 H. 6. 27. in the Duchess of Summersets Case Gawdy Iustice The Grant doth not extend to the Post-Fine for the Fine pro licentia Concordandi is the Kings Silver and not the Post-Fine Wray Iustice All passeth by it for it is about one and the same matter And they in Opinion to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff Quaere of it CCCXX South and Marsh's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Court That where Marsh was endebted unto South without any Obligation for it but only by a Note in writing signed with the Hand of Marsh scil By me W. Marsh but not sealed that such a debt might be assigned to the Queen although that before the Assignment against a Creditor he might have waged his Law for in as much as by these Notes and Bills the certainty of the debt appeareth and being true debts they may well be assigned See 21 H. 7. 9. An Obligation may be assigned to the Queel without Deed enrolled and where the Obligee is not endebted to the Queen But it cannot be assigned to a subject Noy 52. if not for a debt due by the Assignor to the Assignee for otherwise it is Maintenance And in this Case it was holden That where the King sues for a debt assigned to him the Obligor cannot plead Nihil debet for now by the Assignment it is become matter of Record CCCXXI. Trapp's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RObert Trapps 1 Eliz. seised of 15 Messuages in Clarkenwell in the Occupation of 15 several persons viz. A.B.C. c. and named them certain demised them to one Cox And afterwards conveyed the Inheritance of them to one Brian Trapps in Fee who afterwards demised to J.S. all those 15 Messuages in Clarken-well which Robert Trapps did demise inter alia to Cox by Indenture dated 1 Eliz. now in the Occupation of A.B.C. c. And one of the Occupiers names was left out in the recital And it was holden by the whole Court That notwithstanding the said Omission the said Messuage did pass for there was sufficient certainty before and the falsity came after the verity CCCXXII Brewin and Mansfield's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That A. was endebted to him in 10 l. and made the Defendant his Executor and died And that the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the Defendant for a certain time promised to pay it at two several days and shewed which in certain And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not set down in the Declaration by what portions the 10 l. shall be paid Clench Iustice conceived That the Defendant had liberty to pay it in what portions he pleased Gawdy He ought to pay it by equal portions as a Rent reserved payable at two Feasts without saying by what portions it shall be paid And he said That if the plea for the cause aforesaid had been defective yet now after Verdict all is helped for it is but form And afterwards the Opinion of the whole Court was That the matter shewed was not good to stay Iudgment Wherefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CCCXXIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Plaintiff in a
Demands or Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua But general words qualified with a restraint where the Limitations are effectual As if the King Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua in D. which he hath by the Attainder of J.S. or which were the possessions of such dissolved Monasteries such Grants are good And where the Case is That Queen Mary hath the Lands in possession of the annual value of 19 l. and other Land there in Reversion of the annual value of 6 l. and then she Grants Omnia terras tenementa nostra rendring 19 l. per annum I conceive That upon these words the Land in possession only passeth because that the said general words may be aptly served and satisfied with the Lands in possession if no other Lands pass And I agree That this word Nostra extends as well to the Lands in Reversion as to Lands in possession but most properly to Lands in possession for Land in Reversion cannot dici simpliciter Nostra but quodam modo tanquam terra revertens and not to take the natural profits of it for the Termor hath such properly that he shall have an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit But the intent and meaning of the Queen is to be regarded and that is the surest way to have right intelligence of the Grants of the King For here the Queen hath reserved but 19 l. Rent which is the proper and ancient Rent of the Lands in possession and if Lands in Reversion should also pass the Rent of which was 6 l. per annum then upon the whole Grant but 19 l. being reserved the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Rent which should be contrary to the intent and meaning of the Queen and the intent of the Grantor even in the Case of a Subject shall direct the construction of Grants As 9 H. 6. Br. Grants 5 by Babington A Man grants Common in his whole Lands he shall not have Common in his Orchards Gardens or Meadows for such was the meaning of the Grantor a fortiori in the Case of the King. It hath been argued That the former Lease ought not to be recited because that after the first Lease made by King Henry the 8th the Inheritance hath been in a Subject that is the Bishop of Bath and Wells but the same is not so For if the King makes a Lease for years and afterwards Grants the Reversion upon Condition which after is broken and so found by Office by which the Reversion is reduced to the King If now the King will make a new Lease he ought to recite the former Estate notwithstanding the mean grant of the Reversion or else such second Lease is void Another matter hath been Objected wherefore the former Lease ought not to be recited and that is because it is determined by surrender in Law before that the new Lease takes effect Sir the same is not so for the former Lease is in being as the Case betwixt Fulmerston and Steward 1 Mar. Plow Com. 106. upon the Statute of Monasteries 31 H. 8. See the words of the Statute whereof and wherein any Estate or Interest for years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his being or continuance And an Abbot made such a Lease to one who had a term for years of a former Grant although here be a Surrender yet this Case is within the said Statute and the said former Lease shall be said to have his being at the time of the making of the later Lease and the Surrender shall not be said so to preceed the making of the Lease but that the former Lease shall be said in Esse at the time of the making of the later Lease And in our Case it shall not be taken for any Surrender for then the Queen shall lose 6 l. of her ancient Rent and Revenue and always when the Title of the King and of the Subject concur the Title of the King shall be preferred as 43 E. 3. The King Lord Mesne and Tenant The Tenant pays his Rent at the day to the Mesne before Noon and then the same day before Night the Mesne dieth his Heir within age the King shall be paid the Rent again for here the Title of the King and the Subject concur together at one time and in that the King shall be preferred and so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant And afterwards at another day the Iustices declared their Opinions and by Wray Chief Iustice We all agree That the first Lease ought to be recited and the reason which hath been urged against that point hath reduced us to be of that Opinion scil That the second Lease was made to the first Patentee and the King doth not make the recital but the party ought to inform the King of all former Estates of the said Lands and that he might well do for he is well knowing of them and although that the Reversion after the first Lease made hath been conveyed to a Subject the same is not material here forasmuch as the second Estate is made to him who had the first Estate and might know whether the first Estate were determined or not Also by the re-purchase the King is in Statu quo prius Gawdy Iustice although that the former Term be drowned by the taking of the second Lease yet it was in being at the time of the taking of it as it is holden by Bromley in the Case of Fulmerston and Steward It is determined by the second Lease and yet it was in being at the time of the making of it Fenner Iustice to the same intent Clench Iustice If the Grant of the Queen shall enure to two intents then the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Revenue It was agreed by all the Iustices That the general words in as much as they are restrained to a certainty would pass the thing si caetera essent paria contrary if they had remained in the generalty and afterwards Iudgment was given Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCCXXXVIII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 4 Len. 233. A Man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son and his Heirs The Father and the Feoffees before issue for Mony by Deed granted and enfeoffed J.S. and his Heirs who hath not notice of the first use The Tenant for life hath issue and dieth the issue entreth Glanvil the use limited to the first Son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and it is gone by their Livery See the Case in Plowden 349. and also he vouched the Case of the Earl of Kent where by the Release of the surviving Feoffee 2 Roll. 797. Plow 347. a Sleeping-Vse was destroyed and could not after be revived Harris the use may rise without entries of the Feoffees and he put a difference between an
the Plaintiff That the Grant was before the Lease It was holden by the Court That this Release was meerly void for here was not any Interest to be released but a power to present and an Authority annexed to the person And afterwards by the Award of the Court the Writ was abated See 11 Eliz. Dyer 253. CCCXLI Woodward and Bagg's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. WOodward Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Bagg and Nelson for Tythes of certain Lands called Christen Hill. Roll. 63. 2 Len. 29. 3 Cro. 188. Owen Rep. 103. The Defendant sued a Prohibition and surmised That one Pretiman was seised of the said Land and in Consideration of 5 l. by him paid to the said Parson It was agreed betwixt them That the said Pretiman and his Assigns should be discharged of Tythes of the Land during his life and afterwards the said Pretiman leased the same to the Defendants upon which a Prohibition was granted And it was holden That the party need not to make proof thereof within 6 Months for it is not within the Statute because a Composition with the same Parson But now a Consultation was granted because the Agreement is shewed but no Deed of it which cannot be any discharge But if it had been for a time scil unica vice it had been good but for life not Also it is not an express grant of the Tythes but only a Covenant and Agreement that he shall be discharged upon which he may have an Action of Covenant but not a Prohibition It was said on the other side That although without Deed Tythes cannot pass in point of Interest yet by way of discharge they might Cook It was holden betwixt Pendleton and Green That upon such words of Covenant and Agreement the party should hold the Land discharged of Tythes which was denyed For if the Grantee of a Rent Charge will grant it to the Tenant of the Land the same without Deed is not good And there was very lately a Case between Westbede and Pepper Where it was agreed betwixt the Parson and one of his Parish That for 20 s. Rent by the year the Parishioner should be discharged of Tythes for 20 years if he so long lived And it was holden That no Prohibition should lie upon it a fortiori where the Estate is for life Gawdy In the Case of grant of Tythes for life a Deed is requisite but here it is noâ— but a Contract for Mony c. See 21 H 6. 43. Wray If it had been for years it had been good enough but here is not any Contract but only a discharge for life which cannot be during his life without Deed. And afterwards the Record was read which was That Concordatum aggreatum fuit between the parties pro omnibus decimis during the time that the one should be Parson and the other Occupier of the said Land That in Consideration of 5 l. the said Pretiman and his Assigns should hold the said Land discharged of Tythes Wray The same is no Contract but a Promise for he doth not grant any Tythes Afterwards a Consultation was awarded CCCXLII Sanderson and Ekins's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Loan by Sanderson against Ekins who waged his Law and at the day being ready to wage his Law the Court examined him And upon examination it appeared That the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And upon Conference betwixt them before the Action brought there was an Accord betwixt them That the Plaintiff should give to the Defendant such a sum which he had done and that the one should go quit against the other And it was the clear Opinion of the whole Court That upon the matter the Defendant could not wage his Law for a Debt cannot be extinguished by word CCCXLIII The Dean and Chapter of Windsors Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN this Case It was moved If he who hath a Rectory impropriate 1 Len. 146. and by the Statute of 26 H. 8. is to pay an Annual Rent for the same in the name of a Tenth and thereby is discharged of all First-fruits and Tenths shall have the Priviledge of the Exchequer for he is to pay the same sum yearly And it was the Opinion of the Barons That he should not For so every one who is to pay any Tenths or First-fruits should draw other who have sued him into the Exchequer And so all Controversies concerning Tythes and Parsonages should be drawn thither which should be a great prejudice to the Spiritual Courts But Egerton Solicitor vouched a Case viz. Coniers's Case The King gave a Parsonage to a Priory in Frankalmoign and the Tythes thereof being withdrawn The Prior impleaded him who withdrew the Tythes in the Exchequer And it was holden That the Prior should have the Priviledge for the King is endangered to lose his Patronage or rather his Foundership if the Rectory be evicted Gent Baron The Kings Tenant in Chief or he who pays First-fruits or he who holds of the Queen in Fee-Farm shall not have in such respect the Priviledge here CCCXLIV Sledd's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SLedd of Great Melton in the County of Oxon 2 Len. 146. was assessed to 7 s. for a Fifteenth And upon refual to pay the same the Collector distrained the Beasts of Sledd and sold them Thereupon Sledd brought Trespass against him the in the Kings Bench. And the Collector exhibited a Bill against Sledd Who shewed by his Counsel That the Statute of 29 Eliz. which enacted this Fifteenth Provides That the said Fifteenth shall be levied of the moveable Goods Chattels and other things usual to such Fifteenths and Tenths to be Contributory and chargeable And shewed further That his Beasts distrained fuerunt tempore districtionis upon the Glebe-Land of a Parsonage presentative which he had in Lease which Glebe-Land is not chargeable usually to Fifteenths granted by the Temporalty nor the Cattel upon it It was the Opinion of the Iustices That although the Parson himself shall pay Tenths to the King yet the Lay-Farmor shall pay Fifteenths and his Cattel are distrainable for the same upon the Glebe-Lands of the Parsonage And therefore it was awarded That the Distress and the Sale were lawful CCCXLV. Sir Walter Water's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was moved in this Case 2 Len. 77. 4 Len. 44. That if one hath a Iudgment in Debt and upon the same within the year sueth forth a Capias ad satisfaciendum although that he doth not prosecute it by the space of 2 or 3 years yet when he pleaseth he may proceed upon it and shall not be put to a Scire facias And of that Opinion was Philips Manwood I grant That if one hath sued forth a Writ of Execution and the same be continued by Vicecomes non misit Breve for 2 or 3 years yet the Plaintiff may proceed upon
Eliz. Leon. 166. Lib. 1. was this Term adjudged upon the Devise That the Survivour shall be each others Heir It was holden That all the surviving Brothers are Ioynt-Tenants and although this word Survivour be in the singular number yet in sense upon the whole matter it shall be taken and construed as for the plural number Survivour shall be each others Heir i. e each Survivour i.e. every Survivour i.e. All the Survivours and then in this case The Plaintiff and the Defendant being Ioynt-Tenants cannot maintain an Action of Trespass one against the other CCCLIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BY the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 37. The Executors of a Grantee of a Rent-Charge may distrain for the Arrearages of the said Rent in the life of the Testator so long as the Land charged doth continue in the seisin or possession of the Tenant in Demesne who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent or in the seisin of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by purchase gift or descent in like manner as the Testator might or ought to have done in his life-time It was now moved If A. grant a Rent-charge to B. the Rent is behind B. dieth A. enfeoffeth C. in Fee who divers years after enfeoffeth D. who divers years after enfeoffeth E. It was holden in this Case by Walmesley Periam and Windham Iustices That E. should be chargeable with the Arrearages to the Executors Anderson Chief Iustice held the contrary But they all agreed That the Lord by Escheat Tenant in Dower or by the Curtesie should not be chargeable for they did not claim by the Party only but also by the Law. CCCLIV. Leverett and Townsend's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case for disturbing him of hs Common 3 Cro. 198. 2 Len. 184. The Plaintiff declared That he was seised in Fee of a Messuage and certain Lands And that he and all those whose Estate he hath have Common of Pasture in 16 Acres of Lands called D. from the time that the Corn is reaped until it be sowen again And also Common of Pasture in Land called R. omni tempore anni as appendant to the said Messuage and Land and that the Defendant had plowed the said Lands and so disturbed him of his Common It was moved in stay of Iudgment That it appeareth here that the Plaintiff was seised in Fee and so he ought to have an Assise and not an Action upon the Case But the Exception was disallowed by the Court. Vide inde Ante 13. 2 H. 4. 11. 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. 11 R. 2. Tit. Action upon the Case 36. CCCLV. The Chamberlain of London's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THE Chamberlain of London brought an Action of Debt in the Mayors Court in Guild-hall 5 Co. grounded upon an Act of Common Council See C. 5 Part The matter was removed into the Kings Bench by Corpus cum causa Fleetwood Recorder of London prayed a Procedendo It was Objected That they of London could not make Ordinances to bind the Subjects as an Act of Parliament To which It was said by Fleetwood That the Custom of the City is That the Mayor and Aldermen and four persons chosen out of each Ward by the Communalty may make Ordinances which they call Acts of Common Council and they shall bind every Citizen and Free-man and all their Customs are confirmed by Act of Parliament and by Magna Charta which hath been confirmed 52 times and also by the Statute of 7 R. 2. For that King seised their Liberties and drove them to pay for the Redemption of them 100000 Marks and then the said King confirmed them unto them for ever and therefore this Ordinance being made according to our Custom ought not to be impeached As in Case of matters of the Forrest If one be punished for offending against an Ordinance made for the governing of the Affairs of the Forrest you cannot remove the matter before you So is the Law called Lex Idumaea concerning Rivers and Fishing in which are divers Ordinances That none shall kill Salmons at certain Seasons of the year and so of other Fishes If one be punished by force of such Law he shall not be relieved here for the Law of the Land hath always allowed such particular Customs And see F. B. If two Merchants put their Stocks together and so Traffick together and the one dieth The Survivor shall not have the whole Stock as the Common Law is but the Executor of him that dieth shall have an Accompt against the other and that is per Legem mercatoriam Cook to the same intent This Act of Common Council is good and according to the Law that is of Common Right There are divers Statutes made for the true making of Cloth and to take away the abuses and deceit in the making of it and this Act of Common Council is for the well executing of the said Statutes and I conceive there is a difference in making of Laws by a Corporation A Corporation may make an Act for the better executing of any Law established at the Common Law but new Laws they cannot make As those of a Town who have used to have Common in certain Lands they cannot make a By-Law That such a one in such a Town shall not have Common there but that none shall use his Common but at such a time such a By-Law made is good See 15 H. 7. 21 H. 7. 40. See 8 E. 2. tit Assise 413. A Town had Common of Turbary in a Marsh and divers of the Inhabitants of the Town had made Trenches in the said Marsh and some had not a full Foot of Land in the Town and such persons by their Trenches which they had made there used to carry Turffs out of the said Marsh by Boats and sell them unto the value of 20 Marks per annum to their great private profit and to the great grievance of the others For which cause It was provided by common assent of the Freeholders of the Lord of the said Town That all the Trenches in the said Marsh should be stopped so as from thenceforth no Turffs be carried in Boats by the Trenches And there it was holden That if the greater part of the Commoners assent the same shall bind the others who have not assented for ubi major pars ibi totum And then if such Towns may make Laws a fortiori The City of London Secondly This Law is good by Custom for they have used to make such Acts and Ordinances time out of mind c. and these Customs are confirmed by Act of Parliament and also they may appoint a penalty for to what purpose otherwise should they make an Act Oderunt peccare mali formidine poenae Also this Action is maintainable for an Amercement in a Court Baron an Action of Debt lieth Gawdy Iustice 44 E. 3. 19.
an Under-Sheriff proceeding after an Habâ—as Horpus delivered C. 99. If one whose Goods are stole desire the Justice to examine one no Action lies unless he charge some one positively C. 100 101. Lies no for exhibiting an Indictment which purported that the Plaintiff was a Disquieter of the Neighbors C. 123. For prosecuting a slanderous Bill against the Plaintiff to the King that the Plaintiff had got 100 l. by Forgery C. 138. For procuring J. S. to sue an Appeal of Death against the Plaintiff C. 140 141. For maliciously indicting the Plaintiff of what offences it lies C. 140 141. If such Action lies if the Appeal were Erroneous C. 140 141. A. 279. Action upon the Case for Assumpsit See Consideration and Request Lies for Rent where the Action is changed from the Baron and Feme to the Baron only A. 43. Lyeth in consideration to forbear parum tempus A. 61. Where it lies not for a Rent A. 155 156. contra B. 107. To pay Mony at two or more days when the Action must be brought A. 319. B. 108 221. If in such Action the consideration be laid to be at the Defendants request the performance of the Consideration must be averred to be done at his request B. 53. C. 91. If it be a good Bar that the Plaintiff did discharge the Defendant B. 214 203 204 If it lies against Bailee of the Plaintiffs Bailee who receiveth Mony to buy Goods and bought them not C. 38. Where this Action or Account lies C. 38. If the Defendant may plead in Bar another promise and traverse part of that in the Count C. 67. A special Assumpsit must be precisely found and averred else the Plaintiff shall not have Judgment C. 99 205. By a Sheriff for that the Defendant promised not to sue him for an Escape upon a Special Warrant granted at the Plaintiffs denomination C. 227 228. Action Popular Is vested in the Informer and the King or his Attorny cannot enter a Nolle pro sequi as to the Informer A. 119. In what Cases it must be brought in the Parties Name only or for the King and Party C. 237. Action upon the Statute Of 32 H. 8. cap. 9. of buying pretended Titles its necessary to alledge that the Defendant knew the Vendor had not been in possession A. 167 208. If the Action be brought pro parte gravata the Statute of 31 Eliz. 5. does not limit him to any time C. 237. Addition Must come before the Alias Dictus else it doth not satisfie the Statute B. 183. School-Master and Scrivener both good B. 186. No utlary without an Addition according to the Statute B. 200. Administrator and Administration Durante minori aetate of three ceaseth by the full age of any one A. 74. Husband Administrator to his Wife A. 216. The Ordinary may commit administration to whom he will if he will incur the penalty of the Statute A. 240. How to alledge Administration granted by a Chancellor or Vicar-General A. 312. Granted by a Bishop where the Intestate had bona notabilia c. is ipso facto void B. 155. If impleading Admistration granted by the Metropolitan bona notabilia must be alledged B. 155. It is the safest to pay Mony upon a Mortgage to the Infant and not to the Administrator durante minore aetate C. 103. Are assigns in Law and a Duty is payable to them though they be not and named in the specialty C. 2 2. Administrator during the minority c. hath one in execution and then the Infant comes of age the Administrator cannot release the Defendant nor acknowledge satisfaction C. 278. Admiralty No remedy there for extortion done on the Land A. 107. If they proceed by the Civil Law where the Common Law can decide the matter a Prohibition lies B. 103. How the Admiral Grants his Offices B. 115. Suit there for a moyety of prize Goods taken by two Ships whereof one did but stand still while the other seised B. 182. If by a Libel there it appear they have not Jurisdiction a Premunire lies B. 183. Action may be sued there upon a Bond made in France and no Prohibition lies C. 232. Advowson In gross cannot be made appendant A. 26. By what words the Advowson of a Vicaridge may be granted A. 191. Whether it pass from the King by the words Bona Catalla A. 201 202. To what it may be appendant A. 207 208. How an Advowson appendant to a Mannor may be granted A. 208. B. 26. C. 17 18 193 196. How an Impropriation may be disappropriated B. 80. Age. At what age a Man and Woman may consent to Matrimony A. 54. The second Vouchee in a Cui in vita shall have his age though the first should not B. 138. Agreement and Disagreement see Acceptance What shall vest in any person before or after Agreement A. 130. B. 223. If the Lords agreement to avoid admittance makes it good A. 288 289. Where an Interest shall be devested by Agreement en pais where not B. 72 73. To what time Agreement to a Disseisin or Feoffment shall have relation B 223. If an Agreement en pais to an Estate be good to devest an Estate C. 271 272 273. Amendment Of a Christian Name in a Plea in Bar after demurrer A. 24. What shall be amended by the Statute of 27 El. cap. 5. A. 80 81. Shall be to affirm a Judgment or Verdict not e contra A. 134. Of a Sheriffs Retorn A. 145. None of the Christian Name of a Juror after Verdict A. 267. Of a Judgment which was Ideo videtur Justic quod quer recuptret B. 1 2. If the Proclamation of a Fine which were wrong with the Custos Brevium and right with the Chirographer C. 106 107 183. Amerciament see Fine Annuity The Judgment therein B. 52. If the Term for which that is granted expire this Action lies not B. 51 52. An Annuity pro Consilio impendendo cannot be granted nor forfeited by attainder B. 122. Appeal Damages recovered in Trespass is a good Bar to an Appeal A. 319. Lies not for the Heir where the Feme poysons her Husband for it is Treason A. 326. If the Defendant shall be arraigned at the Suit of the King if the Appellant die before Judgment or be non-suited B. 83. Where auterfoits acquit or convict is a good Bar B. 83 160. If it be a Bar the Indictment being erroneous B. 160. Where it must be brought if the party die in another County than where the stroke was C. 140 141. See the Statute 2 E. 6. cap. 24. and W. 2. cap. 12. Of Appeals Defendant pleads Ne unques accouple c. Et si trove ne soit Not Guilty C. 268. If an Appeal from a Sentence in the High Commission Court B. 176 177. Appearance The form of recording it to save the Ball bound A. 90. Appendant Appurtenant and Parcel If Tithes pass by Grant of a Rectory cum pertinentiis A. 281 282. Issue if an Advowson be
rebuild B. 189. For saving harmless the Defendant must shew how he saved harmless B. 198. Difference where one is to do an act to a Stranger who refuses to accept it and where it is to be done to the Plaintiff who refuseth B. 222. If the words Yielding and Paying make a Condition C. 58. Provided that the Lessee shall not Grant the Land who devised the same to his Executor C. 67. To procure a Grant of the next Avoidandce so as the Plaintiff may present what is a breach C. 151. Upon a Condition to pay Corn the Obligor not bound to seek the Obligee if no place be appointed C. 260 261. Confirmation If one Chapter where there are two may confirm a Lease A. 234. What acceptance and by whom of Rent confirms the Lease of the Tenant A. 243. Tenant for life and he in remainder in Fee joyn in a Feoffment this is the Confirmation of him in remainder C. 10. Abbot and Covent Lease to J.S. at Will and after by Deed for life C. 15. Of a Dean and Chapter of a Bishops Lease in what time it must be made C. 17. Consideration in Assumpsit Assumpsit in cosideration the Defendant will prove such a thing c. when the proof is to be A. 93 94. Past and executed and yet continuing good to make a promise A. 102. B. 111. 224 225. That the Plaintiff will perform an Award the Defendant would perform it also good A. 102. To forbear a Suit in Chancery if good A. 114. B. 105. Of forbearance to sue the Execution of an Infant not good if the Debt were not due A. 114. B. 105. To stay a Suit in Court Christian good A. 118. In consideration of Goods delivered promised to pay the Debt due for them for if no sale no debt A. 157. If there be two if both must be found A. 173 300. B. 71 72. In consideration of the doing of an illegal Act A. 180. C. 208 236. To forbear a Suit ought to shew in what Court the Suit depended A. 180. In consideration of the Plaintiffs promise A. 180. B. 154. What is a good Consideration to make an Assumpsit A. 192 275 276 397. B. 29 30 C. 105 129. Not to execute a Fieri Facias upon Goods good though the Goods were not liable to the Execution A. 220 221. In Consideration the Obligor would pay the Mony the Obligee promised to deliver up his Bond quaere A. 238. Against the Wife of an Intestate in Consideration of forbearance not good unless she administers A. 240. In Consideration of the arrears of Rent-charge for life were unpaid good A. 293. If one of two Considerations be good and the other void yet the Action is maintainable A. 296 300. In Consideration the Plaintiff will assign his interest where he hath none at all B. 71. To forbear per Paululum tempus good C. 200. Where though the Consideration be past and executed being done at the Defendants request yet is good B. 111 224 225. C. 164 236. Ought to be matter of benefit to the Defendant C. 88. 129. Void Consideration per Stat. 23 H. 6. 10. being to let a Prisoner escape C. 208. Where there are two Considerations whereof one is void the whole is void C. 108. Copyhold and Copyholder Relieved by the Lord per Petition in a matter of equity A. 2. Where he shall do Fealty and have Aid of his Lord in Trespass c. and shall have an Ejectione Firme A. 4. How a person absent must make his surrender A. 36. If the Custom be to grant them in Fee it warrants a Grant for life A. 56. An Action in nature of a Dum fuit infra aetatem lies where an Infant surrenders A. 95. Where Statutes speak generally of Lands c. given to the King as forfeited Copyhold Lands are not intended A. 98 99. An Heir by descent may Lease or bring Trespass without any admittance A. 100. And also enter A. 174 175. C. 70. In pleading such Lease it need not be averred to be warranted by the Custom but must be challenged on the other part A. 100. An Heir within age not bound to tender his Fine while within age A. 100. Surrender to a Stranger for life remainder to the right Heirs of the Surrenderer the Heir is in by purchase Secus where an Estate is limitted to the Surrenderer himself A. 101. Surrender to the use of his right Heirs cannot vest during the Ancestors life A. 102. Lord sells and Copyholder releases the tenure is extinct A. 102. Release of a Copyholder to a Disseisor nihil operatur A. 102. What is a reasonable matter to excuse the Tenants not appearing at the Lords Court A. 104. To whom and where notice of a Court day must be given A. 104. Copyhold Estates may be entailed A. 174 175. Such Estate forfeited to the Lord and by him sold by Bill A. 191. Copyholder accepts a Lease of his Copyhold from the Lord this determines his customary Estate A. 170. What Steward may take Surrenders our of or in Court A. 227 228 288 289. Trespass lies by the Tenant against the Lord for cutting down Trees not being Timber A. 272. If the Lords agreement to avoid Admittance makes it good A. 289. A Court to admit Copyholders may be held out of the Mannor A. 289. The mis-entry of the day of holding the Court does not hurt the Copies but may be averred against A. 289 290. No Attornment necessary upon selling a Reversion of Copyhold Lands A. 297. If Tenant at will or sufferance may grant Copies B. 45 46 47. What Estates accepted by a Copyholder from the Lord does extinguish the customary Estate B. 72 73 208. Copyholders Estate not liable to a Rent-charge granted by the Lord B. 109. Secus of Demesnes grantable by Copy B. 153. C. 59. What refusal of a Copyholder to do his service pay his Rent or to make Presentments is a forfeiture of his Estate C. 108 109. What false Pleas Feoffments or Forgeries of Deeds is a forfeiture c. C. 108 109. He who disseiseth a Copyholder gains no Estate C. 221. No Escheat for want of an Heir until proclamation in Court C. 221. A Reversioner may surrender if no Custom to the contrary C. 239. Conspiracy If it lies if the Indictment were void A. 279. C. 140 141. Constable See False Imprison Iustification If he may imprison and how A. 327. Needs not dispute the legality of a Justices Warrant B. 84. May set one in Stocks for refusing to Watch C. 208 209. Continual Claim May be made though the Lands come to the hands of the King A. 191. What is a good Claim to avoid a Fine by the Statute of 4 H. 7. B. 53. Continuance Death of one Defendant after the Assises and before the Term cannot be pleaded for that the Defendant hath no day in Court to plead it C. 5. The difference between it and a dies datus silicet upon a dies datus and default thereupon
That the Defendant should answer over CXXXVI Hering and Badlock's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 80. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for Damage-feasant and shewed That the Lady Jermingham was seised of such a Mannor whereof the place where c. and leased the same to the Defendant for years The Plaintiff said That long time before King Henry 8th was seised of the said Mannor and that the place where c. is parcel of the said Mannor Demised and Demiseable by Copy c. and that the said King by such a one his Steward demised and granted the said parcel to the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by Copy in Fee c. And upon that there was a Demurrer because by this Bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in Bar to the Avowry ought to have concluded and so was he seised by the Custom until the Avowant praetextu of the said Term for years entred c. And so it was adjudged CXXXVII Rosse's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 83. IN Trespass brought by Rosse for breaking of his Close and beating of his Servant and carrying away of his Goods Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That Sir Thomas Bromley Chancellor of England was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff and one A. which A. assigned his moyety to Cavendish by whose Commandment the Defendant entred It was moved That that Tenancy in Common betwixt the Plaintiff and him in whose right the Defendant justifies could not be given in Evidence and so it could not be found by Verdict but it ought to have been pleaded at the beginning But the whole Court were clear of another Opinion and that the same might be given in Evidence well enough It was further moved against the Verdict That the same did not extend to all the points in the Declaration but only to the breaking of the Close without enquiry of the battery c. And for that cause it was clearly holden by the Court That the Verdict was void And a Venire facias de novo was awarded CXXXVIII Gurney and Saers Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought by Gurney against Saer who pleaded That Verney was seised and leased the same to Baker for 21 years 8 Eliz. Baker 14 Eliz. assigned his Interest to Rolls who 15 Eliz. leased the same to Topp for 10 years and afterwards Rolls granted the residue of his Term to A. Verney 16 Eliz. leased the same Land to Stephen Gurney for 21 years to begin after the determination surrender or forfeiture of the first Lease rendring Rent with Clause of Re-entry And afterwards Verney granted over the Reversion in Fee to Hampden To which Grant A. and Topp attorned Topp leased to B. at Will A. and Topp surrendred B. held himself in by force of the Tenancy at Will And the said Surrender was made privily and secretly without the notice of the said Stephen Gurney The Rent reserved upon the Lease made to Stephen Gurney is demanded as now begun by the said Surrender Hampden entred as for the Condition broken for the non-payment of the said Rent And the Lease made to the said Stephen Gurney was pleaded Quod praedictus Johannes Verney per Indenturam suam sigillo ipsius Stephani Gurney sigillat demisit c. And that was holden a material Exception For here upon the matter doth not appear any Lease made by Verney For here upon the pleading it appeareth That Verney had accepted a Deed of Gurney purporting a Demise by Verney to Gurney which Gurney had sealed but there did not appear any such Deed sealed by Verney and therefore no Lease ut supra And although a Condition may be pleaded by Indenture sealed with the seal of the other party yet a Conveyance cannot be pleaded by Deed as it is here unless sealed with the seal of the party Agent scil the Feoffor Grantor Lessor And for that cause Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Another Exception was taken because that after the Grant of the Reversion by Verney to Hampden the surrender of A. and Topp is pleaded whereas A. ought not to surrender for his Estate was not a Reversion for years but a Lease in Reversion and a Lease for years to begin at a day to come which could not be surrendred See 4 H. 7. 10. But if A. had granted his Interest by way of Reversion where Attornment had been as one Releaseth to him the Reversion for years it is good contrary to him who hath a Lease in Reversion But as to that it was said by the Court That this surrender by A. was good enough for in as much as the Interest which A. had at the time of the surrender was in Rolls a Reversion after his Grant to Topp and there it remained and continued in its nature as to that point notwithstanding that by the Grant it passed in another manner than as a Reversion Another Exception was taken because that in the pleading of the Surrender it is not alledged That at the time of the Surrender Hampden was seised of the Reversion 7 E. 3. 3. He who claims by Cestuy que use ought to alledge the Seisin and Continuance of Seisin to the said use at the time of the Feoffment or Grant notwithstanding that Seisin was alledged before And 10 H. 7. 28. Hewbade's Avowry he there pleaded That A. was seised of a Mannor and thereof levied a Fine to B. that C. the Tenant upon whom the Avowry was made attorned c. And Exception taken because it is not shewed in the Avowry That B. the Conusee was seised of the Mannor at the time of the Attornment And it was holden a good Exception On the other side it was said and affirmed by the Court That in all Cases where an Inheritance is once alledged in a Man the Law shall presume the Continuance of it there until the contrary be shewed See 1 Eliz. the Case between Wrotesley and Adams Plow Com. 193. And 15 Eliz. between Smith and Stapleton Plow 431. Which Wray and Gawdy Iustices granted Ayliff Iustice to the contrary Another point was moved If upon this secret Surrender notice ought to have been given to Gurney who had an Interest for years to begin upon the said Surrender For some conceived That Gurney without notice given him of the said Surrender should not be prejudiced by the Condition aforesaid And of that Opinion clearly was Wray Chief Iustice Note In this Case That Saer the Defendant presently after the Iudgment entred cast in a Writ of Error into the Court and assigned an Error in fact scil That Gurney the Plaintiff in the first Action within age appeared by Attorny whereas he ought by Gardein or Prochein Amy. And it was the Opinion of the Iustices upon the first Motion