reported by Coke in the Case of the Marquess of Winchester XXVIII Dayrel and Thinns Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error EDward Dayrel brought a Writ of Error against Sir John Thinn upon a Iudgment had by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs Father of the Manor of Mexden And Error was assigned for want of warrant of Attorney And the Plaintiff prayed one Certiorare to the chief Iustice of the Common Pleas and another Certiorare to the Custos Brevium both which returned non inveni aliquod warr and now Sir John Thinn being dead the Plaintiff brought another Writ of Error by Journeys accounts against John Thinn Son and Heir of the said Sir John Thinn 3 Cro. 91. 2 Cro. 13. 597. 396. 5 Co. Pag. 36. b. 446. who appeared and alledged Diminution in hoc that the Warrant of Attorney is not certified and prayed another Certiorare unto the chief Iustice of the Bench and another to the Custos Brevium and it was argued by Clark that in this Case Certiorare ought not to be granted for a Certificate is in the nature of a tryal which shall not be crossed in the same Action but the parties to the Action and their Heirs shall be bound by it especially when the matter is certified by one who is Iudge of the Record and that Certiorare sued at the prayer of the Plaintiff shall be as peremptory as if it had been sued at the prayer of the Defendant for the Plaintiff may alledge Diminution as well as the Defendant 7 E 4. 25. by Yelverton And a man cannot have Certiorare of a thing which is contrary to the Record which is certified 11 E 4. 10 by Laicon So Diminution cannot be alledged in this Warrant of Attorney because it hath been certified here that no Warrant of Attorney is to be found c. 9 E 4. 32. by Billing Egerton Sollicitor contrary For the Certiorare obtained at the sute of the Plaintiff shall not prevent the Defendant And the course of proceeding in a Writ of Error when Error is assigned out of the Record and not of a thing within the Record is such After Error assigned before that a Sci. fac issueth against the Defendant ad audiendum errores the Plaintiff may pray a Certiorare to the Custos Brevium in whose hands such collateral thing remain for the Plea Roll doth remain in the custody of the chief Iustice but the Original Writs Essoins and Warrants of Attorney remain in the hands of the Custos Brevium and such a Certiorare the Court may grant to the Plaintiff without making the Defendant privy to it And notwithstanding that the Defendant hath pleaded in nullo est erratum and so hath affirmed the Record to be such as is certified yet the Court ex Officio shall award a Certiorare to ascertain themselves if there be any such Warrant of Attorney or not which see 9 E 4. Certiorare 32. by Billing and therefore the Certiorare being awarded ex Officio shall not prejudice the Defendant and to this purpose he cited the Case betwixt the Lord Norris and Braybrook in a Writ of Error where the Lord Norris being Plaintiff prayed a Certiorare to the Custos Brevium to certifie an Original Writ upon which a common Recovery was had and had it and the Custos Brevium certified that there was no Original and afterwards the Defendant prayed another Certiorare and had it and so in our Case here especially because the Defendant was not party to the Record nor hath day in Court at the time that the said Certiorare was granted for the Defendant is not party before the Sci. facias ad audiendum erroreâ— be issued forth against him and therefore he comes timely enough to pray a Certiorare See 28 H. 6. 10. and 11. And I grant that the Certificate upon a Certiorare which was awarded after a Sci. fac ad audiendum errores is peremptory and final but contrary where it is granted before the awarding of such Scire facias See Book of Entries 271. The Plaintiff assigneth Error in the Original Writ petit br Domini Regis Custodibus Brevium c. ad breve illud origin certificand and upon the return of the Certiorare the Plaintiff prayed a Scire facias ad audiendum errores And see there 293. where it appeareth fol. 272. that Certiorare issued at the suit of the Defendant in Error after he had alledged Diminution and that is after Scire facias ad audiendum errores returned and see Certiorare before Sci. facias awarded 271 c. and this Certiorare is only ex officio and awarded only to enform the Court And in respect of the Certiorare the chief Iustice of the common Pleas to whom the Certiorare is directed is but a Minister and not a Iudge And as to the Case of 9 E 4. 32. before cited he could not have a Certiorare Diminution for he could not alledge Diminution because he had pleaded in Nullo est erratum by which Plea he had confessed the Record which is certified to be a full and perfect Record and fully certified and against that matter he shall not alledge Diminution And in our Case there is not any such contrariety as hath been objected for the return of the Certiorare is Non inveni aliquod warrant not precisely quod non habetur aliquod warrantum And therefore if the Court now at the prayer of the Defendant grant another Certiorare upon which is a Retorn quod habetur warr Attornat the same is not contrary to the return of the first Certificate but they may both stand together for upon further search such Warrant of Attorney may be found so upon the matter the Court shall not be enveigled by any such contrariety for non inveni aliquod warrant returned upon the first Certiorare and inveni quoddam warr upon the second Certiorare are not meer contrary And it seemed to Wray chief Iustice that it would be hard to grant a new Certiorare in this Case but if any variance could be alledged it should be otherwise as it was adjudged in the Case of one Lassell who certified no Warrant of Attorney and afterwards it was moved for another Certiorare as it is here and because the Original was inter Johannem Lassels ar executor Testi c. where he was not named Executor in the first Certiorare upon that matter a new Certiorare was granted XXIX Withy and Saunders Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. WIthy libelled against Saunders in the Spiritual Court Tithes will not pass by grant without deed and now came Saunders and surmised that Withy had libelled against him for Tithe-grass and shewed that all the claim that Withy had to the said Tithes was by a grant without deed and by the Law such things would not pass without deed And also that the Spiritual Court would not allow of this Plea and therefore prayed a
of the Contract and being made at the time of the Communication and contract should charge the Defendant but if the promise were at another time it should be otherwise There was a Case lately betwixt Smith and Edmunds Two Merchants being reciprocally endebted the one to the other agreed betwixt themselves to deliver all their Bills and Bonds into the hands of one Smith who promised that he would not deliver them to the parties until all accounts were ended betwixt them and yet he did deliver them and for that an Action brought against him was adjudged maintainable yet there was not any consideration nor was it material for the action is grounded upon the Deceit and so is it here upon the Warranty And of that opinion were Clench and Wray Iustices but Gawdy was of a contrary opinion CCLXII Woodshaw and Fulmerstones Case Hill. 30. Eliz. Rot. 699 In the Kings Bench. WOodshaw Executor of Heywood brought Debt upon a Bond against Richard Fulmerstone and the Writ was dated October Mich. 29 30 Eliz. and the Condition of the Bond was That if Fulmerstone died before his Age of one and twenty years and before that he had made a Ioynture to A. his Wife Daughter of the Testator Heywood Then if the said Defendant caused one hundred pounds to be payed to the said Heywood within three months after the death of the said William that then the Bond should be void and the said William Fulmerstone died 30 September 30 Eliz. which matter he is ready c. The Plaintiff doth traverse absque hoc that the said Heywood died intestate Tanfield It appeareth of Record that the Plaintiff hath not cause of action for this one hundred pounds was to be paid within three Months after the death of William Fulmerstone 1 Cro. 271 325 565. as the Defendant hath alledged which is also confessed by the Plaintiff and this Action is entred Mich. October 30 Eliz. scil within a month after the death of William Fulmerstone and so before the Plaintiff hath cause of action and therefore he shall be barred Gawdy Where it appeareth to the Court that the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action he shall never have Iudgment as in the Case betwixt Tilly and Wordy 7 E. 4. But here it doth appear that the Plaintiff hath cause of Action for where a man is bound in an obligation the same is a duty presently Obligation and the condition is but in defeazance of it which the Defendant may plead in his discharge CCLXIII Windham and Sir Edward Cleers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ROger Windham brought an Action upon the Case against Sir Ed. C. declared that the said Ed. being a Iustice of Peace in the County of N. and where the Plaintiff was a loyal subject Action upon the Case of sclander 1 Cro. 130. and of good fame all his life time nor ever touched or reproched with any offence of Roâ—ery c. the Defendant malitiose invide machinams ipsum Rogerum de bonis nomine fama et vita deprivare directed his warrant to divers Baylifs and Constables of the said County to arrest the said Plaintiff And it was alledged in the said Warrant That the Plaintiff was accused before him of the stealing of the horse of A. B. by reason of which the Plaintiff was arrested and so detained until he had entred into a Bond for his appearance c. whereas in truth he was never accused thereof nor ever stole such horse and whereas the Defendant himself knew that the Plaintiff was guiltless by reason of which he was greatly discredited c. And it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved that upon this matter an Action doth not lye for a Iustice of Peace if he suspect any person of Felony or other such Offence may direct his Warrant to arrest him 14. H. 8. 16 Gaudy and Clench If a man be accused to a Iustice of Peace for Felony for which he directs his Warrant to arrest him although the accusation be false the Iustice of Peace is excused but if the party in truth was not accused before the Iustice it is otherwise It was a Case lately betwixt the Lord Lumley and Foord where Foord in a letter written by him had written It is reported That my Lord Lumley seeketh my life If it was not Reported an Action upon the Case lieth but if reported no Action lieth So here if he was accused no Action lieth but if not an Action lieth And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCLXIV Isleys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ISley and others were Plaintiffs in an Ejectione firmae and upon the general Issue it was found for the Plaintiffs and 4 days after the verdict given was moved in stay of judgment a special maâ—ter in Law whereof the Iustices were not resolved for the law but took advisement and gave day over and in the mean time one of the Plaintiffs died which matter the Defendant shewed to the Court in further stay of the Iudgment But by Coke the same is not any cause for the Postea came in Quindena Pasch which was 16 Aprilis at which day the Court ought to have given Iudgment presently but took time to be advised and the 19 of April one of the Plaintiffs died And the favour of the Court ought not to prejudice us for the Iudgment here shall have Relation to the 16 of April at which time he was alive and it was so of late adjudged in the Case of Derick James who died the day after the verdict and yet Iudgment was not stayed for the Court after verdict cannot examine surmises and they have not a day in Court to plead and in our case It was but a day of Grace and no entry is made of it Although no plea can be now pleaded after verdict yet as amicus curiae one may inform us of such matter And sometimes in such case Iudgment hath been stayed as 9 Eliz. and sometimes notwithstanding such Exception as 2 Eliz. So as I conceive the matter is much in the discretion of the Iustices And because the same was a hard verdict and much against the Evidence It is good discretion upon this matter to stay Iudgment and such was the opinion of the Court. CCLXV. Steed and Courtneys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error 1 Cro. 116. Owen 93. More 691. Prescription to levy a fine not good ERror was brought upon a Fine levied upon a Plaint in a writ of Covenant in the City of Exceter And two Errors were assigned First The Plaint was quod teneat convent de duobus tenementis Whereas in truth the word Tenement doth not comprehend any certainty for in the Word Tenement is understood Messuage Land Meadow Pasture c. and whatsoever syeth in tenure And 11 H. 6. 18. by grant of Lands and Tenements Rent or Common shall pass And an Ejectione firmae
I do Allow of the Reprinting of These Four Parts of Leonards Reports Febr. 20. 1685 / 6. EDWARD HERBERT REPORTS AND CASES OF LAW Argued and Adjudged in the Courts at Westminster In the Times of the Late QUEEN ELIZABETH AND KING JAMES In Four Parts The Second Impression carefully Corrected with the Addition of Many Thousand of References never before Printed Collected by a Learned Professor of the LAW WILLIAM LEONARD Esquire Then of the Honourable Society of GRAYS-INN Published by William Hughes of Grays-Inn Esquire With Alphabetical TABLES of the Names of the Cases and of the Matter contained in each Part. LONDON Printed by William Rawlins Samuel Roycroft and Miles Flesher Assigns of Richard and Edward Atkins Esquires For H. Twyford H. Herringman T. Basset R. Chiswell B. Griffin C. Harper T. Sawbridge J. Place and S. Keble MDCLXXXVII Academiae Cantabrigiensis Liber TO THE READER Courteous Reader THese Cases were Collected and taken in the French Tongue by William Leonard Esquire sometimes of the Honourable Society of Grays-Inn a Learned Professor and Practiser of the Common Law in the time of the Reign of the late Queen Elizabeth One Copy of some of these Cases many years past came into the hands of Sir Robert Hitcham Knight afterwards Serjeant at Law Another Copy of other of these Cases came then into the hands of Humphry Davenport Serjeant at Law afterwards Sir Humpry Davenport Knight late Lord chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer Both which said learned persons approved of them and made use of them in the course of their several Practice Some other Copies of some of these Cases are now dispersed abroad and are in the hands of divers Practisers and Students of the Law who make the like use of them The Originals themselves of all these Cases amongst many others of the said Mr. Leonards collecting all of them under his own hand-writing are now in my hands having been delivered to me by a worthy Gent. of the said Society of Grays-Inn who had them out of the Library somtimes belonging to the said Mr. Leonard These Cases having been lately truly and carefully Translated by me out of the Original French Copy into English have since the Translation thereof been perused and approved of by many Eminent Professors of the Law. Wherefore I finding that the same do contain many excellent Matters and Points of Law which have not heretofore been Printed or published do here offer the same unto thy Judgment upon a serious consideration hoping they may be of some use and benefit to thee in the like course of thy study and practice of LAW From my Study at Grays-Inn Novemb. 20th 1658. Will. Hughes 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 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. BEamount Serjeant at law afterwards 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 Fenner 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 Serjant at Law. Harris Serjeant at Law. Heale 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 Attorney General of the Queen after Lord Chief Justice of B. R. Periam Judge of the Common Pleas. Pepper Attorney of the Court of Wards Plowden Puckering the Queens Serjeant at Law. R. RHodes Judge of the Common Pleas. S. SNag Serjeant at Law. Shuit Judge of the Kings Bench. Shuttleworth Serjeant at Law. 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. The Names of the Cases Note 1. P. stand for Principal Case 2. B. stand for a Vouched Case A. Sect. ALlington and Bails Case 34 p Albany and Bishop of Saints Asaphs Case 39 p Ashpool and Inhabitants of Everinghams Case 72 p Arden and Gents Case 75 p Arundel and Morris case 98 p Allen and Palmers case 133 p Atkinson and Rolfs case 141 p Atkins and Hales case 192 p Askew and Earl of Lincolns Case 196 p Ashegel and Dennis case 272 p Arundel and Bishop of Gloucesters case 278 p Alexander and Greshams case 306 p Askew and Fuliambs case 310 p Austin and Smiths case 441 p Lord Abergavennies case 469 p Anonimus 2 p 8 p 15 p 17 p 38 p 40 p 45 p 61 p 73 p 75 p 81 p 83 p 86 p 94 p 104 p 108 p 109 p 116 p 132 p 145 p 150 p 157 p 173 p 220 p 221 p 222 p 224 p 226 p 266 p 285 p 290 p 296 p 308 p 335 p 349 p 350 351 252 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 365 371 386 390 392 393 396 397 400 401 408 418 443 444 451. B. Bornford and Packingtons case 1 p Benicomb and Parkers case 31 p Bedows case 32 p Braybrooks case 51 p Bullers case 64 p Bishop of York and Mortons case 69 p Bunny and Wright and Staffords case 77 p Bonefant and Sir Richard Greenfields case 78 p Beverleys and Cornwallis case 84 p Bracebridge Baskarviles case 87 p Barker and Pigets case 89 p Blaunchstower and Friars case 91 p Basset and Kerns case 92 p Bret and Auders case 95 p Brook and Kings case 99 p Baldwin and Cocks case 101 p Bret and Shepherds case 114 p Baxter and Bales case 115 p Butler and Ayres case 118 p Bushies case 122 p Birds case 125 p Branchers case 139 p Bear and Underwoods case 142 p Beverley and Bawds case 148 p Beares case 154 p Bronker and Robothams case 162 p Brook and Doughties case 173 p Bilford and Foxes case 189 p Burgesses of Southamptons case 199 p Lord Buckhurst and Bishop of Winchesters case 213 p Brookesley and Wickams case 232 p Bowâ—y and Popes case 234 p Bedel and Moors case 238 p
hold the Land discharged of the Copy-hold for her life and he put this case If the Lord of such a Manor taketh a Wife a Copy-holder for life dieth the Lord grants a Rent-charge out of the customary land and afterwards grants the said land by copy for life dieth the wife shall hold the land discharged of the Rent but the Copy-holder shall be charged and he put a difference where the Lord grants such Copy-hold in possession and where in Reversion for in the first case the Wife shall hold charged but contrary in the last And he cited the Case of one Slowman who being Lord of a Manor ut supra by his Will devised that his Executors should grant estates by Copy 2. Len 109. and died having a Wife the Executors make estates accordingly Dower discharged of a grant of Copy-hold the Wife in case of Dower shall avoid them Plowden contr the Lord of such a Mannor is bound by recognisance and afterwards a Copy-holder for life of the said Mannor dieth the Lord grants his Copy-hold de novo the said new Grantee shall hold his Copy-hold discharged of the Recognisance which Gawdy Iustice granted and by Wray if the Lord of such a Manor grants a Copy-hold for three lives takes a Wife the three lives end the Lord enters and keeps the lands for a time and afterwards grants them over again by copy and dieth the copy-holder shall hold the Land discharged of the Dower and this is a clear case for the copy-holder is in by the custom which is paramount the title of Dower and the Seisin of the Husband and by him in the case of the Earl of Northumberland 17 Eliz. Dyer 344. That the grant of a copy-hold in Reversion by the Earl of Northumberland doth not make such an impediment as was intended in the condition there for it is by the custom and not by the act of the party And afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff that he and his Lessor should hold the lands discharged of the Dower XX. Fringe and Lewes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt by Fringe against Lewes upon a Bond who pleaded Debt that the condition was that whereas the Defendant was Executor to one Morris Degle that if the Defendant should perform observe fulfil and keep the Will of the said Morris Degle in all points and Articles according to the true intent and meaning thereof that then c. and pleaded further that the said Morris by the said Will bequeathed to the Poor of such a Town ten pounds to be distributed amongst them and also to the Church-wardens of the Parish ten pounds and to I S. three pounds and that he had distributed the said ten pounds to the Poor and that he had paid the ten pounds to the Church-wardens and as to three pounds Uncore priâ—â— a good Plea. he said that he is and always was ready to pay the same to the said I. S. if he had demanded it upon which there was a demurrer And as to the ten pounds to be distributed amongst the Poor the same was holden good enough without shewing the names of the Poor amongst whom the mony was distributed so the pleading of the first payment to the Church-wardens was sufficient without nameing of them See 42 E 3. brief 539. Scire facias out of a Recovery against Executors and the Writ was challenged because it was Scire facias Executors not naming their proper names It was holden to be no exception for Executors are as a corporation known in that they are Executors and as to the third part of the Plea scil always ready and yet is the plea is well enough for this Obligation the Condition of which being general to perform the Will c. Poph. 10â— hath not altered the nature of the payment of the Legacy but the same remains payable in such manner as before upon request and not at the peril of the Defendant See 22 H 6. 57 58. 11 E 4 10. 6 E 6. Br. Tender 60. And afterwards the same Term the Court was clear of opinion and so delivered the Law to the Counsel on both sides that in this case the Legacies are to be paid upon request and not at the peril of the Executors in such manner as they were before the Obligation and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff XXI Sir John Smith and Peazes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SIr John Smith brought Debt upon an Obligation against Peaze who pleaded that the Bond was upon condition to perform covenants contained in an Indenture and shewed what and that he had performed them the Plantiff assigned the breach of one covenant that where the Plaintiff had leased to the Defendant for years certain messuages by the same Indenture the Defendant by the same Indenture did covenant to repair all the said Messuages Covenant alia quam quae appunctuatae forent divelli per script dicti Johannis Smith and shewed further that the Defendant had not repaired the said Messuages to him demised as aforesaid and averred that the said house in which the breach of the covenant is assigned non fuit durante termino praedicto appunctuata divelli and upon that matter of reparation they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Averment in the Replication was not sufficient for the Lease was made in November to begin the Michael after Averment and it might be that the Messuage in the not repairing of which the breach of the covenant is assigned was appointed to be pulled down scil divelli before the Term for years began and then the Defendant is not bound to repair it and then the breach of the covenant is not well assigned and so the Averment doth not answer the exception and because this clause alia quam is in the body of the Covenant it ought to be satisfied by him who pleads it scil by him who assigns the breach in the Covenant in which the exception is contained As by the Lord Dyer in his argument in the argument of Stowels Case reported by Plowden 376. Where a man pleaded the Feoffment of Cestuy que use he ought to plead that Cestuy que use at the time of the Feoffment was of full age sanae memoriae c. for that is within the purview contr upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. in pleading of a Fine for that is in a clause by it self which conceit of Plowden the Lord Wray denyed to be Law for he said he that pleads the Feoffment of Cestuy que use or a Fine according to the Statute of 4 H. 7. shall not be driven to shew that the Feoffor or Conusor at the time of the Feoffment or Fine levyed was of full age c. but he who comes in by such Fine 〈◊〉 21 or Feoffment shall shew the same for his own advantage And
the said Indenture covenanted with Platt that the said Platt and his Heirs should quietly enjoy the said Lands without interruption of any person or persons And afterwards certain controversies rising betwixt them concerning the said Lands Arbitrament the said Bream and Platt submitted themselves to the award and arbitrament of Sir W. Cordel to whom they were bounden severally for the performance of such award the which Sir W. amongst other things awarded that the said Platt and his Heirs should enjoy quietly the said Lands in tam amplo modo forma as the said Land is conveyed and assured by the coveyance and assurance aforesaid And the truth was that the said Bream at the time of the said Assurance was bounden in a Recognizance of six hundred pounds to one More 15. Eliz. and afterwards More 16 Eliz. sued a Sci. fac upon the said Recognizance and 18 Eliz. the bargain and sale aforesaid was made and afterwards 19 Eliz. More sued forth Excution by Elegit and the moyety of the said Land assured to Platt was delivered in Execution to More And if upon the whole matter the Arbitrament was broken was the question It was argued by Godfrey that the Plaintiff ought to be barred and first 1 Hob. 35. Mor. 175. 3 Len. 43. Post 93. Post 179 279. 1 Inst 366. a. b. 388. Dy 42. he conceived that these words in the Indenture give and grant did not help the Action for the Lands passed with a charge and the general words Dedi concessi do not extend to this collateral charge but to the direct right of the Land only but if a stranger had put out the bargainee there upon such general words an Action would lie but as the Case is they do not give any cause of Action for the Recognizance was a thing in charge at the time of the Assurance and yet see 31 E 3. Br. Warr. Chartae 33. A. enfeoffeth B. with warranty who brings a Warrantia Chartae and recovers pro loco tempore and afterwards a stranger doth recover against him a Rent charge out of the said Land and it was holden that upon the matter B. should have execution the special words of the Aribitrament upon which the Action is brought are that the said Platt and his Heirs should enjoy the said Lands in tam amplo modo forma as it was assured and conveyed to the said Platt ergo not in more ample manner 1 Cro. 660. 661. Owen Rep. 65. 2 Cro. 571. 1 Roll. 425. and the said Land was conveyed to Platt chargeable to the said Recognizance therefore if Platt enjoy it charged there is no cause of Action And as to the Covenant in the Indenture that Platt and his Heirs should enjoy quietly the said Lands without interruption of any person the same is a Collateral surety and the words of the Award are that Platt shall enjoy it in tam amplo modo forma as it is conveyed and assured by the assurance aforesaid without interruption these are not words of assurance for the assurance doth consist in the legal words of passing the estate scil bargain sale Dedi concessi and in the limitation of the estate and not in the words of the Convenant And therefore it hath been adjudged that if I. be bounden to A. in an Obligation to assure to him the Mannor of D c. if A. tender to me an Indenture of bargain and sale in which are many Covenants I am not bound upon the peril of my Bond to seal and deliver it Also here doth not appear any interruption against the Covenant in the Indenture for here is not any lawful Execution for it appeareth here that More hath sued Execution by Elegit 4 years after the Iudgment in the Scire facias in which case he shall be put to a new Scire facias for the Sheriff in this Case ought to have returned that the Conusor after the Recognizance had enfeoffed divers persons and shewed who and upon that matter returned the Conusee should have a Sci. facias against the Feoffees vide F. N. B. 266. And the Court was clear of opinion against the Plaintiff XXXV Floud and Sir John Perrotts Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. FLoud recovered against Sir John Perrot 1 Cro. 63. Post 264. 3 Len. 240. in an Action upon the Case upon a promise eighty six pounds against which Floud and Barlow affirmed a Plaint of Debt in London and attached the said moeny in the hands of the said Sir John and had execution according to the custom of London And now the said Floud sued a Scire facias against the said Sir John who appeared and pleaded the said Execution by attachment upon which Floud the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was adjudged no plea for a duty which accrueth by matter of Record cannot be attached by the custom of London And notwithstanding that the custom of London be layed generally in aliquo debito and damages recovered are quoddam debitum as it was urged by the Council of the Defendant Yet the Law is clear that Iudgments given in the Courts of the King ought not Judgments in the Kings Courts not to be defeated by particular custom of places nor cannot by such particular customs be defeated and avoided as it was lately adjudged in a Western Case Damages were recovered the Sheriff by virtue of a Fieri facias levyed the money which one to whom the Plaintiff was endebted did attach by the custom in the hands of the Sheriff but it was adjudged the attachment was not good for the custom of attachment cannot reach upon a thing of so high a nature as a Record is the same Law of Debt upon a Recognizance and Statute c. and it was affirmed by Wray chief Iustice that upon great deliberation it was agreed by Bromley Lord Chancellor himself the Lord Anderson Mead and Periam Iustices that where a Merchant having in an Action recovered certain damages became Bankrupt upon which issued an Commission upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. of Bankrupts that such Commissioners could not entermeddle with such damages to dispose of them to the Creditors according to the said Statute But now see the Statute of 1 Jacobi The Commissioners have power to dispose of such debts c. XXXVI Sir Walter Hungerfords Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Grants of the King. IN a Replevin by Sir Walter Hungerford the Case was this the Queen being seised of a great Waste called Ruddesdown in the Parish of Chipnam granted to the Mayor and Burgesses of Chipnam the moyety of a Yard-land in the said Waste without certainty in what part of the Waste they should have the same or the special name of the Land or how it was bounded and without any certain description of it And afterwards the Queen granted to the said Sir Walter the said Waste and afterwards the said Mayor and Burgesses by warrant of Attorney
in the seisin of the Queen that now is the Church voided by which it belonged to the Queen to present The Defendant did confess the seisin of the Lord Say and the whole matter contained in the Count until the Attainder and pleaded further that after the said Attainder Queen Mary leased the said Manor with the advowson to Rochester and Walgrave for forty years if the said Marquess should so long live who were possessed accordingly and in their possession the Church became void to which Avoidance one Twiniko did present the Defendant who upon his presentment was instituted and inducted Vpon which Plea the Queens Serjeant did demur in Law. It was argued by Serjeant Shuttleworth for the Queen That the counter-pleading of the title of the Queen by the Incumbent without shewing title in his own Patron could not be good nothwithstanding the Statute of 25 E. 3. Cap. 7. before which Statute the Incumbent could not plead any matter which went to the right of the Patronage but only in discharge or excuse of the disturbance and therefore we ought to observe the words of the said Statute sc the possessor shall be received to counter-plead the Kings title and to have his Answer and to defend his Right upon the matter although he claim nothing in the Patronage upon all which words taken together it appeareth that the Incumbent ought not only to counter-plead the title of the King but also to shew and defend his own right and that hath not the Defendant done here For Twiniko of whose presentment he is in the Church doth not claim under the lease made by Queen Mary to Rochester and Walgrave but during their said Lease and their possession of it by usurpation presented the Defendant 46 E. 3. 13. by Finchden The King brought a Scire fac upon a Recovery in a Quare Impedit the Defendant being Incumbent pleaded that after the said Iudgment the King had presented to the said Church I.S. his Clerk who was admitted accordingly and exception was taken because the Defendant did not shew a title in himself to maintain his possession but it was not allowed for a difference is taken betwixt a Plea in a Quare Impedit and a Plea in a Scire facias Where in pleading the party must make title to himself for in a Scire facias it is sufficient to extort the Plaintiff of execution without any title contrary in a Quare impedit And it is a general Rule that in all Cases where an Office is to be traversed none shall be received to traverse the title of the King without making a title to himself which see 38 E. 3. 18. So in the Case of the Lady Wingfield 3 H. 7. 14. and Stamford 63 64. And it is true in Actions real it is sufficient to traverse the title of the Demandant without making title to the Tenant himself As in a Formedon Ne dona pas But in Actions personal it is otherwise as 2 H. 4 14. In Ravishment of Ward it is not sufficient to traverse the title of the Plaintiff but the Defendant ought also to make title to himself Fenner Serjeant contrary who took exception to the Writ 2 Len. 5â— because it is brought against the Incumbent only without naming the Patron or Ordinary For here the Defendant hath pleaded that he is Parson impersonee of the Church aforesaid of the presentment of the said Twiniko and that he is admitted instituted and inducted and hath continued in his Church so many days and years in which Case the Writ ought to have been brought as well against the Patron and Ordinary as against him the Incumbent But in some Cases it is sufficient against the Incumbent only as upon a Collation by Lapse 9 H. 6. 32. by Babbington So where the Defendant is disturber without any presentment 7 H. 4. 93. so where the Defendant was deprived and kept himself in 4 E. 4. 18. So where the Pope makes Provision 11 H. 4. Quare Impedit 120. So a Scire facias upon a Recovery in a Quare Imped shall be brought against the Incumbent only 1 H. 5. 8. for by the Iudgment in the Quare impedit the right of the Patronage is bound and the Scire facias is only for the possession which concerns the Defendant only and no other And to prove that by the Common Law a Quare Impedit lay not but upon such special matter against the Incumbent alone it is clear upon the said Statute of 25 E. 3. For before the said Statute the Incumbent could not plead any matter which did trench to the right of the Patronage and therefore we ought not to presume that the common Law was so unreasonable to give an Action against a singular person who could not by the Law shew and defend his own right nor traverse the right of the other party And as to the plea here he conceived that the same plea which the Patron might have now after the Statute of 25 E. 3. the Incumbent shall have but he who is only a disturber not in by presentment c. he shall not plead any matter but in discharge or excuse of the disturbance 47 E. 3. 8. The King in a Quare Impedit counted That King H. was seised and presented one A. King H. died and the Advowson descended to King E. 3. A. died the now King presented B. and now B. is dead so it belongs to the King to present that the Defendant being Incumbent traversed the institution and induction of B. without making title to himself So 44 E. 3. 19. in a Quare Impedit the King declared that he himself was seised and presented one B. who at his presentment was received c. B. died by which it belonged to the King to present to which the Defendant being Incumbent pleaded that the said B. is yet alive and that plea was allowed without other title made to himself Note that at the first Argument of this case that the Court was of opinion against the Defendant because he had not in his plea any interest in the Advowson and by Periam the Patron himself could not have had such plea if he had been party to the Writ therefore not the Incumbent and it is no good pleading in any Action to discover in pleading any wrong as force disseisin usurpation But at length Mutata opinione all the Iustices were agreed that Iudgment should be given against the Queen And the Lord Anderson shewed openly the reason of their Iudgment for here is not bare usurpation pleaded against the Queen but also an estate scil a Lease for years in the said Advowson derived from Queen Mary and that the Avoidance upon which the Action is brought falleth within the said Term so as the Queen who is Plaintiff is encountred with the Lease of her Ancestor against which she cannot make title to present without special matter wherefore Iudgment was given against the Queen LIX Kynters Case Mich. 28 29.
Plaintiff for certain Beasts which he wrongfully took from the Plaintiff that then c. And he said in facto That the said I. S. had stolen the said Beasts from the Plaintiff Condition against Law. and thereof he was endicted c. and so the condition being against the Law the Obligation was void upon which the Plaintiff did demurr in Law. And it was argued by the whole Court That where the condition of an Obligation shall be said against the Law and therefore the Obligation void the same ought to be intended where the condition is expresly against the Law in express words and in terminis terminantibus Post 103. and not for matter out of the condition as it is in this case And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff C. Hawks against Mollineux Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Replevin by Hawks against Mollineux who avowed for Damage-fesant The Plaintiff in Bar of the Avowry pleaded that Sir Gervase Paston Knight was seised of a Messuage and twenty Acres of Land And that always those whose estate Repleviâ— Yelv. 185. Prescription c. have used to have Common in the place where c. for all their Cattel commonable in this manner viz. If the said Land be sowed by assent of the Commoner then no Common until the Corn be mowed and when the Corn is mowed then Common until the Land shall be sowed again by assent of the Commoners And this Prescription was found by Verdict and exception was taken to this prescription because against common right so as a man cannot sow his Land without the leave of another But the exception was disallowed by the Court for the prescription was holden to be good by the whole Court for by the Law of the Land the Owner of the Land cannot plow the Land where another hath Common but here is a benefit to each party as well for the Owner of the Land against the Commoner as for the Commoner against the Tenant of the Land for each of them hath a qualified Interest in the Land. CI. Baldwin and Cocks Case Intr. Pasch 29 Eliz. Rot. 1410. In Communi Banco Replevin Owen 52. Post 225. 1 Inst 225. 2. BAldwin was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Cocks and upon the pleading the Case appeared to be this That Sir Richard Wayneman was seised of the place where c. and leased the same to one Truepeny and one Eliz. Reade for term of 21 years if the said Truepeny and Eliz. or any child or children betwixt them begotten should live so long Eliz. within the term died without issue If now the term for 21 years be determined was the Question And the Lord Anderson conceived that the estate for years is not determined by the death of Elizabeth And it was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant that upon the matter the term is determined And he put the Case of the Lord Bray 3 Eliz. Dyer 190. Where the Lord Bray sold unto four great Lords the marriage of his Son and Heir to the intent to be married at the appointment and nomination of the said Lords the Lord Bray died one of the said Lords before any marriage 5 Co. 9 1 Brown. 31. 46 47. 80. 101. 2 Br. 83. 148. or appointment or nomination died the Son is married by the appointment c. of the surviving Lords That marriage is not within the intent of the Covenant and adjudged that upon that marrriage no use shall accrue And also he cited this Case adjudged in the Kings Bench. The administration is committed to one durante minore aetaâ—e of two Infants one of them becomes of full age the power of the Administration is determined which Walmesley Serjeant granted for it is but an authority but here in the Case at Bar is a matter of interest And by Anderson all the construction of this lease and grant rests upon this point if this word Or either shall be taken as disjunctive as it is in its nature or as a conjunctive and if it be taken as a disjunctive if it make the whole sentence in the disjunctive as if the limitation had been if the Husband or Wife or any Child c. And Fenner put this Case out of 17 E. 3. as he cited it Land is given to I. S. in Fee so long as A. B. hath issue of his body A. B. dieth without issue his Wife priviment enâ—â—ent Now the estate is determined and upon birth of the issue after shall not revive which Rhodes and Anderson denied for in many Cases the Law shall respect the existency of the child in the mothers belly And see 7 Eliz. Plow 289. where a Copulative shall be taken in the disjunctive as a covenant with B. to make a lease for years of such Lands to the said B. and his Assigns Exposition of words in deeds 244. Post 251. 1 Roll. 444. the same shall be construed or his Assigns And it was clearly agreed by the other parties that if the words had been If Truepeny Elizabeth or any child or children c. so long c. upon the death of any of them the interest is determined And by Rhodes Periam and Windham in the principal Case the lease shall endure as long as any of the persons named in the Proviso shall live and so seemed to be the meaning of the parties And Anderson haesitavit in the words of the limitation i. the Habendum to the said Truepeny and Eliz. for 21 years a festo Sancti Johannis Baptist post terminum annorum the expiration of a former term if the said Truepeny and Elizabeth or any child c. And he conceived that the limitation did go to the commencement of the lease only and not to the expiration or determination as if the lease should not begin if they all were not alive at the commencement of the lease And all the other Iustices were clear of the contrary opinion for by them this limitation shall go and shall be referred to the determination of the Lease and not to the commencement of it Anderson If any cause should be for which the lease should endure untill the years be encurred notwithstanding the death of the Husband or Wife it was because the lease was intended a common advancement to both for it should be in vain to name the Wife in the lease if the lease should cease by the death of the Husband And afterwards after many arguments on both sides it was adjudged that by the death of Elizabeth the lease was not determined for the disjunctive before Child makes all the limitation in the disjunctive CII Zouch and Bamfields Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco THe Case between the Lord Zouch and Bamfield was now argued by the Iustices And Rhodes the puisne Iustice argued 1 And. 165. 3 Co. 88. that the Lord Zouch the Demandant should be barred Four Exceptions have been taken to the bar First because it is not shewed in
the bar that the moyety of those sixty messuages c. of which he pleads the Fine was parcel of the Manor at the time of the Fine levyed for the pleading is that the Grandfather of the Demandant was seised of the said Manor unde medietas praedictorum 60. messuagiorum c. a tempore cujus contrar memoria c. was parcel and so seised de manerio praedict unde c. Finis se levavit and he conceived that the pleading notwithstanding that was good enough for he hath said as much in effect contrar cujus memoria hominum non existit in the present tense which amounts to this that men cannot remember c. but that this moyety was parcel of the said Manor As 10 H. 7 12. In an Assise of Common the Plaintiff makes his title that he was seised of a Messuage and Carve of Land in D. to which the said Common is appendant and that he and all his Ancestors and all those whose estate he hath c. have used to have Common c. Exception was taken to the title because the Plaintiff doth not shew in his title that he is seised of a Messuage c. for if he hath aliened the Messuage the Common passeth so if he be disseised c. but the Exception was not allowed for it appeareth upon the words of the title that the Plaintiff is seised i. all those whose estate he hath in the present tense which words do shew and declare possession and seisin in the Plaintiff the time of the plea pleaded so in this case the substance of the words in which the defect is assigned is ut supra That men cannot remember but that this moyety was parcel of the Manor and then the words after unde c. reddidit Manerium praedict unde c. shall have the same construction as before Periam conceived that the Bar is nought for the cause aforesaid for it is not so pleaded that we can adjudge upon it that the said moyety was parcel of the Manor at the time of the Fine levyed and then the Fine cannot extend unto it And the reason alledged by my brother Rhodes shall not help that matter for the said words cannot be construed otherwise but that no man can remember but the said moyety was parcel but not that it is parcel or at the time of the Fine levyed was parcel Vide 32 H. 6. 24. In Trespass the Defendant pleaded That A. was seised of the Manor of D. whereof the place c. is parcel he ought to say expresly that the place where was parcel of the Manor at the time of the trespass supposed Windham conceived that the plea was good and that it appeareth well upon this plea that the said moyety was parcel of the said Manor at the time of the Fine levyed for he pleads that the Grandfather of the Demandant was seised of the Manor of N. Unde medietas praedictorum c. a tempore cujus contrar memoria hominum non existit sic scisitus existens Finis se levavit sic scisitus i. e. seised of the Manor in such sort as the Manor is set forth before and that is good pleading especially by way of bar which if it be good to a common intent is well enough and the word unde c. so often repeated after shall be idle and to no purpose if the Law shall not give such a construction Anderson to the same purpose And he much relyed upon the reason of Windham and so seised Another Exception was taken to the Bar Averrment because in pleading of the Fine it is not averred that the Conusor at the time of the Fine levyed was of full age out of prison c. And as to that Rhodes took the difference between the pleading upon the Statute of 1 H. 3. where these disabilities are within the purview of the said Statute and upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. where in the body of the Statute no mention is made of them but afterwards in an especial Exception by it self and he cited the opinion of the Iustices especially of the Lord Dyer in the Case reported by Plowd 5 Eliz. 365. betwixt Stowel and the Lord Zouch Periam to the same intent and upon the same reason and further he said that although the Statute of 32 H. 8. contains in its purview the same disabilities Yet this Fine is pleaded upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. and therefore the pleading of the same shall not be directed nor waged by the Statute of 32 H. 8. which doth not alter the pleading of a Fine which was before nor the reason of it for it is not properly a Statute nor do Fines receive any strength or virtue by it but is but a construction of the said former Statute And he put the Case betwixt Hide and Umpton where Umpton mean betwixt the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. Declared his Will of all his Lands which devise if it be good for two parts of the Land devised it was doubted or that the devise should be void for the whole afterwards came the Stat. of 34 H. 8. and cleared the doubt for to that intent it was made and in the said Statute there is a Proviso that the said Statute shall not extend to the Will or the Devise of Tho. Umpton or shall be prejudicial or hurtful to any person or persons for any Lands c. contained or specified in the said Will or Devise but that the said Will and Devise shall stand remain and be in the same case in force and effect in the Law as the same was before the making of this Act. Now notwithstanding that Proviso the Will of Umpton was holden good but for two parts for so the Statute of 34. H. 8. construed the Statute of 32 H. 8. So in our Case the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Fines construes the Statute of 4 H. 7. to extend to Fines levyed by Tenant in tail therefore the estate tail shall be adjudged in Law to be bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. and not by 32 H. 8. which is rather a Iudgment upon the said Statute of 4 H. 7. than any new Statute Windham to the same intent and he relyed upon the reason aforesaid And further said if one will plead a Lease made by Tenant in tail upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. he need not to aver the full age of the Lessor and yet that quality of full age is within the purview of the said Statute First all Leases to be made c. by any person being of full age c. and so is the common use of pleadings And of the same opinion was the Lord Anderson for the said Exception for the reasons and upon the difference aforesaid Another Exception was taken to the Bar because it is not alledged that the said Fine was engrossed in the same Term in which it was levyed And as to that it was holden by Rhodes that
Term which reason in construction of the said Statute the Iudges in the case of the Cooks of London 20. Eliz. have observed which see Plowden 538. For although Successors are not mentioned in the said Statute of 4 H. 7. but only Heirs yet the Iudges did construe the said Statute to extend to them that they should be bounden as well as the Heirs for it is in the like mischief and the said Statute was made for the publick good and for the repose of the Inheritances of the Subjects of this Realm and therefore the same ought to be largely extended in the meaning and sense of it and for the benefit of the Possessors of the Lands and to the destroying of former rights which were not claimed It hath been said that this Fine is but a Fine by conclusion and not in verity and therefore not within the Statute But without question Fines by conclusion are within the Statute And that is clear by the Saving scil to all persons other than parties to the said Fines c. And Periam was against the opinion in Stowells Case by Sanders 356. A Disseisor maks a Feoffment in fee upon condition the Feoffee levies a Fine with Proclamation five years pass the condition is broken the Disseissor re-entreth and Periam conceived that in such Case the Disseissee is bounden for by the Fine and five years non-claim the right of every stranger is barred and when the Disseissor entreth for the condition broken the Fine is not annoyed but rather confirmed and former rights shall not be revived Windham to the same intent and vouched the Books before remembred and that the meaning of the Statute of 32 H. 8. made upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. was to bind the Issue in tail as strongly as the heir of Tenant in Fee-simple was bound at the common Law and that Fines by conclusion are as fully within the purview of that Statute as Fines in verity for Fines by conclusion are Assurances And as to the objection against our Fine that it is not rite levatus because that partes ad finem nihil habuerunt c. the same is no reason wherefore this Fine should not be rite levatus for these words rite levatus to the external form of a Fine are to be taken as to a Fine levied coram Edmundo Anderson socijs suis where all the Iustices ought to be named and so it seemed also to Periam and Anderson Our case had little resemblance to the Case where Tenant in tail maks a Lease according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. if he be not seised at the time of the demise it is void for the Stat. speaks seised in tail but so are not penned the Statutes of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. as 4 H. 7. a Fine levied shall bind privies strangers c. 32 H. 8. Fines levied of any Lands entailed to the Conusor or any of his Ancestors and it is not a Fine in respect of the possession which passeth by the Fine but in respect of the Concord and Agreement And Tenant in tail by these Statutes hath as great power to bind the right of the entail although he cannot meddle with the possession as the Tenant in Fee-simple at the common Law. Anderson to the same intent All the matter rests upon this point if the Issue in tail be privy or not for if he be privy then clearly he is bounden And as to that the Issue in tail before the Statute of 32 H. 8. hath been always accounted privy See 29 H 8. Dyer 32. Tenant in tail of the gift of the King levieth a Fine the same shall bind his Issue for they are privy And he argued much upon the Cases cited by the other Iustices before and especially upon the said Case of Stowel and the Lord Zouch how that the Issue in tail is there holden privy and that the Statute of Fines ought to be taken and construed to enfore the operation of Fines against former rights and for the establishment of the present possessions and estates And by him divers rights and persons are excepted by the said Statute but this right in gross of possession nor the Issue in tail whose Ancestor being out of possession levieth the Fine is not excepted therefore both of them comprehended in the Statute And in his argument he stood much upon it how dangerous a matter it should be to receive such averments and allegations which go meerly in avoidance of Fines for so every Fine might fall in the mouth of the Lay-Gens which would be very inconvenient And he concluded his Argument with this Case Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth his discontinnuee and levieth a Fine the discontinuee before the proclamations reentreth the proclamations are made Tenant in tail doth re-enter and dieth seised against this Fine his Issue shall not be remitted See as to the averment 3 H. 627. 33 H. 6. 18. 42 E. 3. 20. 8 H. 4. 8. 12 E. 4. 19. by Fairfax and Needham and fol. 15. by Brian and Choke And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Demandant should be barred CIII Gunerston and Hatchers Case Intr. Pasch 24 Eliz. Rot. 2112. In Communi Banco CHarles Duke of Suffolk was seised of three parts of the Manor of D. and Poole was seised of the fourth part of the said Manor Avowry and afterwards the Duke granted out of the said three parts a Rent-charge of five marks to Gunerston and afterwards the said Duke of the said three parts did enfeoffe Hatcher in Fee after which Poole conveyed his said fourth part of the said Manor to the said Hatcher in Fee and afterwards Hatcher being seised ut supra reciting the said several purchases especially the said fourth part devised to Katherin Hatcher at Will and Gunerston distreined the Cattel of Katherin Hatcher for the arrearages of the said Rent and in a Replevin avowed the distress and by the opinion of the whole Court the Avowry was not maintainable for the fourth part of the said Manor which was in the possession of Poole was not charged with the Rent and although all the Manor be now in the possession of Hatcher yet the Mannor is not so consolidated nor united by this unity of possession but that the owner might well enough single out eandem quartam partem and grant it and the grantee shall hold the same discharged as the said Poole held it and the beasts of the said Katherin shall not be distreined and so Iudgment was given against the Avowant CIV Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Voucher Post 291. IT was moved by Serjeant Walmesley If a common Recovery be to pass at the Bar and the Tenant is ready at the Bar and voucheth to warr A. for whom one is ready at the Bar to appear for the vouchee by his warrant of Attorny It was holden that this appearance is meerly void for in such case the vouchee ought to appear in person
Kings Bench. PRowse brought an Action upon the Case against Cary for words That the Plaintiff did subborn procure and bring in false Witnesses in such a Court at Westminster c. The Defendant pladed Not guilty And it was found that he did procure and brought in false Witnesses but was acquitted of the suborning It was objected 1 Cr. 296. 554. 607. That the Action doth not lie for it may be that the Defendant did not know that he would depose falsly Thou art a forger of false Writings are not actionable and so it was adjudged for it may be understood of Letters of small importance but that Exception was not allowed for it shall be taken in malam partem and cannot be spoken of any honest man. CXXXII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. Was bounden in an Obligation to B. upon condition that if A deliver to B. twenty Quarters of Corn the nine and twentieth of February next following datum presentium that then c. and the next February had but eight and twenty days And it was holden that A. is not bounden to deliver the Corn until such a year as is Leap-year for then February hath nine and twenty days and at such nine and twentieth day he is to deliver the Corn and the Obligation was holden good CXXXII Allen and Palmers Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was a Copy-holder did surrender his Lands to the use of a stranger for life Copy-holder surrenders where his heir shall be in by purchase 2 Roll. 416. Co. 1 Inst 226. and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Copy-holder who afterwards surrendred his Reversion to the use of a stranger in Fee died and the Tenant for life died and the right Heir of Palmer the Copy-holder entred And by Cook nothing remained in the Copy-holder upon the said surrender but the Fee is reserved to his right Heirs for if he had not made any such second surrender his Heir should be in not by descent but by purchase And the common difference is where a surrender is to the use of himself for life and afterwards to another in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of him who surrendreth there his Heirs shall have it by descent contrary where the surrender hath not an estate for life or in tail limited to him for there his Heir shall enter as a purchasor as if such use had been limitted to the right Heirs of a stranger And by him if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of his right Heirs the Land shall remain in the Lord until the death of the Copy-holder for then his Heir is known c. See Dyer 99. The Husband made a Feoffment to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Husband and Wife begotten they have issue the Wife dieth the issue cannot enter in the life of his Father for then he is not his Heir See Dyer 7 Eliz. 237. The Husband is sole seised in Fee and levieth a Fine of the Land to the use of himself and his Wife and the Heirs of the Husband and they render the Land to the Conusor for the life of the Husband the remainder to B. for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband dieth B. dieth Now the Wife shall have the Land for the life of the Wife for she shall not lose her estate by that render and this remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband is void and the Land and estate in it is in him as a Reversion and not as a Remainder And a man cannot tail a Remainder to his right Heirs whilest he is living unless it begin first in himself See Br. 32 H. 8. Gard. 93. CXXXIV Pearle and Edwards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was that the Defendant had leased Lands to the Plaintiff rendring Rent for certain years Assumpsit Consideration 1 Cro. 94. and after some years of the Term expired the Lessor in consideration that the Lessee had occupied the Land and had paid his Rent promised the Plaintiff to save him harmless against all persons for the occupation of the Land past and also to come And afterwards H. distrained the Cattle of the Plaintiff being upon the Lands upon which he brought his Action Golding Here is not a sufficient consideration for the payment of the Rent is not any consideration for the Lessee hath the ocupation of the Land for it and hath the profits thereof and also the consideration is past Cook The occupation which is the consideration continues therefore it is a good Assumpsit as 4 E. 3. A Gift in Frank-marriage after the espousals and yet the marriage is past but the blood continues so here and here the payment of the Rent is executory every year and if the Lessee be saved for his occupation he will pay his Rent the better Godfrey If a man marrieth my Daughter against my will and afterwards in consideration of that marriage I promise him one hundred pounds the same is no good consideration 2 Len. 111. which Clench Iustice denied And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his damages CXXXV Wakefords Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Extinguishment of Copy-hold by Release THe Earl of Bedford Lord of the Manor of B. sold the Free-hold Interest of a Copy-holder of Inheritance unto another so as it is now no part but divided from the Manor and afterwards the Copy-holder doth release to the purchasor It was holden by the Court that by this Release the Copy-hold Interest is extinguished and utterly gone but if was holden that if a Copy-holder be ousted so as the Lord of the Manor is disseised and the Copy-holder releaseth to the Disseisor nihil operatur CXXXVI Docton and Priests Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close 1 Cro. 95. it was found by special verdict that two were Tenants in common of a house and of a close â—djoyning to the house and they being in the house make partition without deed of the house and the close see 3 E. 4. 9. 10. Partition without deed upon the Land is good enough Vide 3 H. 4. 1. And it seems by 3 E 4. Partition made upon the Land amounts to a Livery Vide 2 Eliz. Dyer 179. Partition by word out the County void 19 H. 6. 25. Betwixt Tenants in common not good without deed 2 Roll. 255. 47 E. 3. 22. being upon the Land it is good without deed Two Ioynt-tenants make partition by word make partition in another County the same is no partition for as to that matter the common Law is not altered by the Statute but as to compel such persons to make partition Wray Iustice conceived that the partition here being without deed was not good although made upon the Lands Vide 18 Eliz. Dyer 35.
And at another day Wray said Dy. 179. that partition by Tenants in common without deed wheresoever it is made is good but in this case it appears that the parties who made the partition were in the house for they were Tenants in common of the Messuage and a close adjoyning to it and made partition that one should have the house 6 Co. 12. and the other the close so as they were not upon the close when they made the partition and then it was void for the close and if for the close then also for the house And Iudgment was given accordingly CXXXVII Cook and Songats Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the case by Cook against Songat the Plaintiff declared Quod cum quaedam Lis and controversie had been moved betwixt the Plaintiff Lord of the Manor c. and the Defendant claiming certain Lands parcel of the said Manor to hold it by copy and whereas both parties submitted themselves to the Iudgment and Arbitrament of I. S. Counsellor at Law concerning the said Land and the title of the Defendant to it The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that if the said I. S. should adjudge the said Copy to be good and sufficient for the title of the Defendant that then he would suffer the Defendant to enjoy the said Land accordingly without molestation The Defendant reciprocally promised the Plaintiff that if the said I. S. should adjuge the said Copy not sufficient to maintain the title of the Defendant that then he would deliver and surrender the possession of the said Land to the Plaintiff without any sute And shewed further that I. S. had awarded the said Copy utterly insufficient c. yet the Defendant did continue the possession of the Land c. And by Godfrey here is not any consideration But by Gawdy the same is a good and sufficient consideration because it is to avoid variances and sutes And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXXVIII Pawlet and Lawrences Case Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. GEorge Pawlet brought an Action of Trespass against one Lawrence Parson of the Church of D. for the taking of certain Carts loaded with Corn which he claimed as a portion of Tythes in the Right of his Wife and supposed the Trespass to be done the seven and twentieth of August 29 Eliz. upon Not guilty it was given in evidence on the Defendants part that the Plaintiff delivered to him a Licence to be married bearing date the eight and twentieth of August 29 Eliz. and that he married the Plaintiff and his said Wife the same day so as the Trespass was before his title to the Tythes And it was holden by the whole Court that that matter did abate his Bill But it was holden that if the Trespass had been assigned to be committed one day after that it had been good but now it is apparent to the Court that at the time of the Trespass assigned by himself the Plaintiff had not Title and therefore the Action cannot be maintained upon that evidence for which cause the Plaintiff was Non-suit CXXXIX Sir John Braunches Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Forfeiture IN the Case of Sir John Braunch it was said by Cook that if a Copy-holder be dwelling in a Town long distant from the Manor a general warning within the Manor is not sufficient but there ought to be to the person notice of the day when the Court shall be holden c. For his not coming in such case cannot be called a wilful refusal Copy-holder So if a man be so weak and feeble that he cannot travel without danger so if he hath a great Office c. these are good causes of excuse It was also holden that if a Copy-holder makes default at the Court and be there amerced although that the amercement be not estreated or levyed yet it is a dispensation of the forfeiture Gawdy Iustice If the Copy-holder be impotent the Lord may set a Fine upon him and if he will not pay the Fine then it is reason that he shall forfeit his Land. Egerton Sollicitor Warning to the person of the Copy-holder is not necessary for then if the Lord of a Manor hath one Copy-holder of it dwelling in Cornwal and another in York c. the Lord ought to send his Bayliff to give notice of the Court to them which should be very inconvenient and by him continual default at the Court doth amount to a wilful refusal And by the whole Court general warning within the Parish is sufficient 1 Cro. 353. 505. 506. for if the Tenant himself be not Resient upon his Copy-hold but elsewhere his Farmer may send to him notice of the Court And it was further given in evidence that Sir John Braunch had by his Letter of Attorney appointed the Son of his Farmer his Attorney to do the services for him due for his said Copy-hold And it was holden that such a person so appointed might essoin Sir John but not do the services for him for none can do the same but the Tenant himself CXL Wilkes and Persons Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. JOhn Wilkes and Margery his Wife and Thomas Persons brought Trespass Quare clausum fregit herbam suam messuit foenum suum asportavit Trespass ad damnum ipsius Johannis Margeriae Thomae And exception was taken that it was not the Hay of the Wife nor she was not damnified by it but her Husband Wray Iustice the Declaration is good enough 1 Cro. 96. Record for although it be not good for the Hay yet clausum fregit herbam messuit makes it good And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs CXLI Atkinson and Rolses Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the case by Atkinson against Rolfe the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant in consideration of the love which he â—ore unto A. his Father did promise that if the Plaintiff would procure a discharge of a Debt of I. S. which his said Father owed to the said I. S. that he would save the Plaintiff harmless against the said I. S. And declared further that he had discharged the Father of the Defendant from the said Debt and is become bounden to the said I. S. in an Obligation for the payment of the said Debt upon which Obligation the said I. S. hath sued the Plaintiff and hath recovered and had execution accordingly and so hath not been saved harmless c. It was objected that the Declaration was not good because the Plaintiff hath not shewed in his Declaration that he had given notice to the Defendant of the said Obligation or of the suit brought against him but that was not allowed but the Declaration was holden to be good notwithstanding the exception Shuttleworth if I be bound to make to you such an assurance as I. S. shall devise I am bound
at my peril to procure notice Notice but if I be bound to you to make such assurance as your Counsel shall advise there notice ought to be given unto me It was adjorned CXLII Bear and Underwoods Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin it was agreed by the whole Court that the Plaintiff cannot discontinue his suit without the privity of the Court for as Leonard Custos brevium said the Entry is Recordatur per curiam Discontinuance of suit in court And if the Plaintiff would discontinue without moving the Court the Defendant may enter the continuance if he will. It was also holden that where an Original is discontinued the Defendant shall not have costs but if the Plaintiff be non-suit the Defendant shall have costs by 32 H. 8. 15. But after a discontinuance in a Latitat the Defendant shall have costs by the Statute of 8 Eliz. cap. 2. And in this case it was agreed that the Plaintiff may be non-suit after a Demurrer and so he was CXLIII Jerom against Neal and Clave Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. GEorge Jerom and Avice his Wife brought an Action of Trespass of Assault and wounding of the Wife Assault and Battery and the Action was laid in Midd. and brought against Neal and Cleave who pleaded that Salisb. is an antient City that within the same there is this custom that if any make an Affray and assault any Officer of the said City or any other person if he upon whom such assault is made complain unto the Mayor of the said City that the Mayor for the time being may send for him who made the Affray as a Iustice of Peace to make him to answer to it and shewed further that the said Jerom made an Affray within the said City of which complaint being made to the Mayor the said Mayor sent the Defendants being Constables to bring the said Jerom to him by virtue whereof they went to the House of the Plaintiff and signified to him the commandment of the said Mayor and would have brought the Plaintiff to him and the Wife of the Plaintiff did assault them and they moliter put their hands upon the said Wife Imprisonment not good which is the same assault battery and wounding c. upon which it was demurred in Law. Coke for the Plaintiff This custom is not good or reasonable See Magna charta 29. Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur c. nisi per legale judiciam parium suorum vel per legem terrae therefore shall not be taken or imprisoned upon a bare suggestion and see 24 E. 3. Br. Com. 3. where a Commission issued to take all which were suspected notoriously for Frionies and Trespasses although they are not endicted and the same was holden against the Law and therefore it was revoked and see the Statute of 5 E. 4. 9. 25 E. 4. 13. 28 E. 4. 13. 28 E. 3. 3. 37 E. 3. 18. 42 E. 3. 3. 2. To be a Iustice of Peace doth not lye in Prescription For one Iustice of Peace was before the Statute of 1 E. 3. and then the Commencement being known prescription cannot be of it 3. Admit that the Mayor was Iustice of Peace yet he cannot determin any thing out of the Sessions 4. The Prescription is that the Mayor might send for him and doth not say within the City and it shall be an unreasonable Prescription to say that the Mayor might send for him in such Case in any place within England 5. It is not shewed that they of Salisbury have a corporation so as they might be enabled to prescribe 6. The wounding is not answered for moliter injicere manus cannot be taken for a wounding it may well answer the battery c. Fleetwood Recorder of London if the Statute of Magna Charta should be observed no Felon is duly handled at Newgate and here we have not pleaded by way of Prescription but of usage consuetudo and usage are all one 1 Cro. 268. And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs for the Plea in Bar was holden to be naught because the wounding is not answered and the Custom is too general and also for the 4th exception CXLIV Sir Julius Caesars Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. FLeetwood came to the Bar and shewed that Julius Caesar Iudge of the Admiralty had libelled against an Officer of the Mayor of Lond. Simon Nicholas for measuring of Coals at Wiggins Key in the Parish of St. Dunstan in the East and it was upon the Thames and prayed a prohibition because such measuring of Coals had always appertained to the Mayor of London for the Statute of 28 H. 8. 15. gave Iurisdiction to the Admiralty in Case of robbery and murder And that prohibition was grounded upon the Statutes of 13. 15 R. 2. 2 H. 4. 11. And it was said that this measuring whereof c. was in the body of the County And note that the said Julius Caesar being Iudge of the Admiralty had put in this Bill ex officio judicis upon which it was said by Wray Iustice that it was hard that he should be both Plaint and Iudge and that his Iurisdiction should be tryed before himself and afterwards it was moved by Egerton Solicitor who said he had spoken with the Lord Admiral who told him that the Mayor of Lond. used to take a Fine for measurage and had made an office of it and that he conceived the same is extortion and being made upon the water he conceived he is punishable in this Court for by the same reason the Mayor might take a Fine for the measuring of Corn Clothes c. Wray and Gawdy Iustices If it be extortion in the Mayor there is no remedy for it in the Court of Admiralty But in the Kings Court. Gawdy It shall be redressed here in a Quo warranto CXLV The Town of Sussex Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Town of Green in Sussex was amereed for the escape of a Felon Amercement and the said Amercement was grounded upon an inquisition taken before the Coroner by whom the escape was found and it was moved for the Town that here is not any such escape found Escape 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 at eight in the Evening of the same day and that then the other escaped for which escape being made in the Night the Town by the Law ought to be amerced for it is not Felony until the party dieth which see 11 H. 4. and Coles Case Pasch 23 Eliz. 401. And therefore the Town nor any other was chargeable with the offendor before that the party was dead Wray It should be hard that the Town should be amerced upon
the limitation for the life of the Wife cannot extend to both And as to the Book of 24 H. 8. Br. Forfeiture 87. 3 Cro. 167 168. Tenant for life aliens in Fee to B. Habendum sibi haeredibus suis for Term of the life of the Tenant for life the same is not a forfeiture for the whole is but the limitation of the estate And afterwards it was adjudged that it was a forfeiture Gawdy continuing in his former opinion And VVray said that he had conferred with the other Iudges of their House and they all held clearly that it is a forfeiture CLXXII Toft and Tompkins Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 528. UPon a special Verdict the case was that the Grand-father Tenant for life the Remainder to the Father in tail Discontinuance 1 Cro. 135. that the Grand-father made a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the Father in Fee And afterwards they both came upon the Land and made a Feoffment to Tompkins the Defendant Coke There is not any discontinuance upon this matter for the Father might well wave the advantage of the forfeiture committed by the Grand-father then when the Father joyns with the Grand-father in a Feoffment the same declares that he came upon the Land without intent to enter for a forfeiture It was one Waynmans Case adjudged in the common Pleas where the Disseissee cometh upon the Land to deliver a Release to the Disseissor that the same is no Entry to revest the Land in the Disseissee Then here it is the Livery of the Tenant for life and the grant of him in the Remainder and he in the Remainder here was never seised by force of the tail and so no discontinuance Godfrey Here is a Remitter by the Entry and afterwards a discontinuance for by the Entry of both the Law shall adjudge the possession in him who hath right c. Gawdy This is a discontinuance for when the Father entreth ut supra he shall be adjudged in by the forfeiture and then he hath gained a possession and so a discontinuance for both cannot have the possession Clench The intent of him in the Remainder when he entred was to joyn with the Grand-father and when his intent appeareth that the estate of the Grand-father and his own also shall passe that doth declare that he would not enter for the forfeiture Shute agreed with Gawdy CLXXIII Broake and Doughties Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 798. Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Case for words Action upon the Case for words 1 Cro. 135. viz. Thou wast forsworn in the Court of Requests and I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Action will not lye for these words for he doth not say that he was there forsworn as Defendant or witness And Trin. 28 Eliz. betwixt Hern and Hex thou wast forsworn in the Court of Whitchurch And Iudgment given against the Plaintiff for the words are not Actionable and as to the residue of the words I will make thee stand upon the Stage for it they are not Actionable as it was adjudged between Rylie and Trowgood If thou hadst Iustice thou hadst stood on the Pillory and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Daniel contrary thou wast forsworn before my Lord chief Iustice in an Evidence these words are Actionable for that is perjury upon the matter and between Foster and Thorne T. 23 Eliz. Rot. 882. Thou wast falsly forsworn in the Star-Chamber the Plaintiff had Iudgment for it shall be intended that the Plaintiff was Defendant or a Deponent there And yet the words in the Declaration are not in the Court of Star-Chamber Wray Thou art worthy to stand upon the Pillory are not Actionable for it is but an implication but in the words in the Case at the Bar there is a vehement intendment that his Oath was in the quality of a Defendant or Deponent which Gawdy granted In the Case 28 Eliz. Thou wast forsworn in Whit-Church Court there the words are not actionable for that Court is not known to you as Iudges And it may be it is but a great House or Mansion house called Whit-church Court But here in the principal case it cannot be meant but a Court of Iustice and before the Iudges there juridice and the subsequent words sound so much I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXXIV Gatefould and Penns Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prescription for tythes 1 Cro. 136. 3 Len. 203 265. Antea 94. GAtefould Parson of North-linne libelled against Penne in the spiritual Court for tythes in Kind of certain pastures The Defendant to have prohibition doth surmise that he is Inhabitant of South-linne and that time out of mind c. every Inhabitant of South-linne having pastures in North-linne hath paid tythes in Kind for them unto the Vicars of South-linne where he is not resident and the Vicar hath also time out of mind payed to the Parson of North-linne for the time being two pence for every acre Lewis This surmise is not sufficient to have a prohibition for upon that matter Modus Decimandi shall never come in question but only the right of tythes if they belong to the Parson of North-linne or to the Vicar of South-linne and he might have pleaded this matter in the spiritual Court because it toucheth the right of tythes as it was certified in the Case of Bashly by the Doctors of the Civil Law. Gawdy This prescription doth stand with reason for such benefit hath the Parson of North-linne if any Inhabitant there hath any Pastures in South-linne And afterwards the whole Court was against the prohibition for Modus Decimandi shall never come in debate upon this matter but who shall have the tythes the Vicar of South-linne or the Parson of North-linne and also the prescription is not reasonable CLXXV Gomersal and Bishops Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 175. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 136. BIshop libelled in the Spiritual Court for tythe Hay the Plaintiff Gomersal made a surmise that there was an agreement betwixt the said parties and for the yearly sum of seven shillings to be paid by Gomersal unto Bishop Bishop faithfully promised to Gomersal that Gomersal should have the tythes of the said Land during his life And upon an Attachment upon a Prohibition Gomersal declared that for the said annual sum Bishop leased to the Plaintiff the said tythes for his life And upon the Declaration Bishop did demur in Law for the variance between the Surmise and the Declaration for in the Surmise a promise is supposed for which Gomersal might have an Action upon the Case and in the Declaration a Lease But note that the Surmise was not entred in the Roll but was recorded
And after four and twenty years after the death of the said Sir Anthony the said Edward entred into the Land to him devised by the said Devise and leased the same to the Plaintiff Descent where tokes away entire c. And it was moved here if this dying seised of Henry of the Lands in Hertford and descent to his Heir should take away the Entry of Edward the Devisee And by Anderson cleerly If here upon the whole matter be a descent in the Case then the Entry of Edward the Devisee is taken away although that the Devisee at the time of the descent had not any Action or other remedy for it shall be accounted his folly that he would not enter and prevent the descent But VVindham Periam and VValmesly Iustices 2 Len. 147. 1 Cro. 920. 3 Cro. 145. Owen 96. were of a contrary opinion For a Devisee by a Devise hath but a Title of Entry which shall not be bound by any Descent as Entry for Mortmain for Condition broken And after long deliberation they all agreed that there was not any Descent in the Case for by the Devise and death of the Devisor the Frank-tenement in Law and the Fee was vested in the Devisee Edward And then when the Queen seised and leased the same during the Nonage of Henry and the Lessee entred he did wrong to Edward and by his Entry had gained a tortions Estate in fee although he could not be said properly a Disseisor nor an Abator And afterwards when Henry after his full age when by his Indenture he leased without any special Entry ut supra and by colour thereof the Lessee entred now he is a wrong-doer to Edward the Devisee and by his Entry had gained a wrongful Possession in Fee and then the paying of the Rent to Henry nor the walking of Henry upon the Land without any special claim did not gain any Seisin to him and so he was never seised of the Land and could never dye seised and then no Descent and then the Entry of Edward was lawful and the Lease by him made to the Plaintiff was good And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXCIV. Greenwood and Weldens Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. Replevin IN a Replevin between Greenwood and VVelden The Defendant made Conusans as Bayliff to John Cornwallis shewed how that seven acres of Land called Pilles is locus in quo and at the time of the taking were holden of the said Cornwallis by certain Rent and other Services And for Rent arrear he made Conusans as Bayliff to Cornwallis The Plaintiff pleaded out of the Fee of Cornwallis upon which they were at Issue And it was found that the Plaintiff is seised of seven acres called Pilles hoden of Cornwallis ut supra But the Iury say That locus in quo doth contain two acres which is called Pilles and these two acres are and then were holden of Agmondesham of the Middle-Temple And if upon the whole matter videbitur Curiae c. And by the opinion of the whole Court out of his Fee upon that matter is not found for although it be found that the two acres be holden of Agmondesham yet it may be that they are within the Fee of Cornwallis for it may be that Cornwallis is Lord Paramount and Agmondesham Mesne and then within the Fee of Cornwallis And therefore for the incertainty of the Verdict a Venire facias de novo was awarded CCXCV. Bishop and Harecourts Case Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In the Common Bench. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 210. IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared that the 5 Junij 30 Eliz. the Defend in consideration that the Plaintiff the same day and year sold and delivered to the Defend a Horse did promise to pay the Plaintiff a hundred pounds in Trinity Term then next ensuing and shewed that the Term began 7 Junij after And upon Non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment That it appeareth upon the Declaration that the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action for the Trinity Term intended is not yet come for the day of the Assumpsit is the fifth of June and the fourth day was the first day of the said Term scil the day of Essoins and the seventh day 4. die post and then the promise being made at the day aforesaid after the Commencement of the said Term the same is not the Term intended but the Plaintiff must expect the performance of the promise until a year after And of that opinion was Anderson but the three other Iustices were strongly against him to the contrary for by common intendment amongst the people the Term shall not begin until 4. die post and so it is set down usually in the Almanack And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCICVI Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In the Common-Bench COoper Serjeant came to the Bar and shewed that A. Tenant in tail the Remainder over to B. in Fee. Co. 2 Inst 483. 484. 1 Cro. 323. 471. 567. Hob. 496. 3 Cro. 224. A. for a great sum of mony sold the Land to I. S. and his Heirs and for assurance made a Feoffment in Fee and levied a Fine to the said I. S. to the use of the said I. S. and his Heirs And note that by the Indenture of Bargain and Sale A. covenanted to make such further Assurance within seven days as the said I. S. or his Heirs or their Council should devise And shewed that before any further assurance was made the said I. S. died his Son and Heir being within age And now by advise of Council and of the Friends of the Infant it was devised that for such further assurance and cutting off the Remainder a common Recovery should be suffered in which the said Infant should be Tenant to the Praecipe and should vouch the Vendor Common Recovery suffered by an Infant by his Guardian and because that the said Term of seven years is almost expired and that the said Recovery is intended to be unto the use of the said Infant and his Heirs it was prayed that such a Recovery might be received and allowed And two Presidents in such Case were shewed in the time of this Queen one the Case of the Earl of Shrewsbury and the other one VVisemans Case But the Iustices were very doubtful what to do But at last upon good assurance of people of good Credit that it was unto the use of the Infant and upon the appearance of a good and sufficient Guardian for the Infant in the Recovery who was of ability to answer to the Infant if he should be deceived in the passing of that Recovery and upon consideration had of the two Presidents and upon Affidavit made by two Witnesses that the said intended Recovery was to the use of the Infant the Recovery was received and allowed CCICVII Cottons Case Mich. 32
Disseisor as well to Robert as to the Infant Then if the Defendant be Disseisor and hath no title by the Infant Robert who hath Right in a moyety may well enter into the whole for he hath the possession per my per tout by his Entry and then when the Defendant doth eject him he hath good cause of Action And after at another day the Case was moved and it was agreed That for one moyety the Infant is bound for Sir Thomas had an estate tail in a moyety for he was Issue of the body of the Comisor But for the other moyety the Fine levyed by Tenant for life William the Father being then Tenant beyond the Sea It was holden by Anderson Windham and Walmesly that the Infant was not barred notwithstanding the objection abovesaid That William the Father never returned into England and notwithstanding the words of the Statute of 4 H. 7. And by Walmesley If an infant make his claim within age it is sufficient to avoid the Fine and yet the said Statute seems to appoint to him time within five years after his full age so that according to the very words a claim made before or after should be vain yet in Equity although he be not compelsable to make his claim until the time allowed by the Statute yet if he make it before it is good enough And by Anderson Although that VVilliam the Father did not return yet if he makes not his claim within five years after the death of his Father being of full age and without any impediment c. he shall be barred If in such case a man hath many impediments he is not compellable to make his claim when one of the impediments is removed but when they are all removed So if the Ancestor hath one of the said impediments and dieth before it be removed and his Heir is within age or hath other impediment he is not bound to make is claim till five years after his impediment is removed And Somes case cited before was holden and agreed to be good Law for the Forfeiture may not be known unto him And as to the objection against the Lease at Will because it was made by an Infant and no Rent reserved upon it nor the Lease made upon the Land and therefore the Lessee should be a Disseisor To that it was answered Be the Defendant a Disseisor or not it is not material here for if the Plaintiff had not title according to his Declaration he cannot recover 1 Cro. 220. 1 Cro. 438. whether the Defendant hath title or not for it is not like unto Trespass where the very possession without other title is good contrary in Actions against all who gave not title but in Ejectione firmae if the title of the Plaintiff be not good and sufficient be the title of the Defendant good or not he shall not recover And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant Hill. 33. Eliz. CCXCVIII Cheny and Smiths Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Ejectione firmae by Cheny and his Wife against Smith The Plaintiffs declared upon a Lease made by the Master of the House or Colledge of S. Thomas of Acons in London to I.S. who assigned it over to Knevit who by his Will devised the same to his Wife whom he made also his Executrix and dyed and afterwards she took to Husband one VVaters and died VVaters took Letters of Administration of the Goods and Chattells of his Wife and afterwards leased to the Plaintiffs And upon not guilty they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence That the Lease given in Evidence was not the Lease whereof the Plaintiffs have declared for the oriâ—inal Lease shewed in Court is Master of the House or Hospital where the Lease specified in the Declaration is Master of the House or Colledge 38 E. 3. 28. And some of the Iustices conceived that there is not any material Variance but if the parties would it might be found by special Verdict For by them Colledge and Hospital are all one And afterwards the Court moved the Plaintiffs to prove if the wife were in as Executrix or as Legatee for by Anderson and Periam until election be made he shall not be said to have it as Legatee especially if it be not alledged in fact that all the debts of the Testator are paid And Anderson doubted although that it be alledged that the debts be paid If the Executor shall be said to have the said Lease as a Legacy before she hath made Election vid. Weldens Case and Paramours Case in Plowd And afterwards it was given in Evidence That the wife after the death of the Husband had repaired the Banks of the Land and produced Witnesses to prove it as if the same should amount to claim it as a Legacy and the Court said that that matter should de referred to the Iury 1 Roll. 620. And it was further shewed in Evidence that the said Wife Executrix and her said Husband Waters formerly made a Lease by Deed reciting thereby that where the Husband was possessed in the right of his said Wife as Executrix of her first Husband c. And by the opinion of the whole Court the same was an express claim as Executrix and then when the Wife died if the Husband would have advantage of it he ought to take Letters of Administration of the Goods of her first Husband and not of the Wife but if she had claimed the Land and the Term in it as Legatee and had not been in possession Administration taken of the Rights and Debts of the Wife had been good as to that intent that his Wife was not actually possessed of it but only had a Right unto it and of such things in Action the Husband might be Executor or Administrator to his Wife but here they have failed of their title The Administration being taken of the goods of the Wife where it should be of the Goods of the Testator the first Husband And for this cause the Plaintiffs were non-suit and the Iury discharged And it was agreed by all the Iustices that if the Wife before Election had taken Husband that the Husband might have made the Election in the Case aforesaid CCXCIX The Lord Cobham and Browns Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. THe Case between the Lord Cobham and Brown was that the Abbot of Grace was seised of the Mannor of Gravesend in the County of Kent which Mannor doth extend to the Parishes of Gravesend and Milton and that the said Abbot and all his Predecessors c. time out of mind c. have had a Water-Court within the said Mannor which Court had been holden at Gravesend Bridge in the end of it and that all the Inhabitants within the said Parishes which have Boats either entirely or joyntly with others and have used to transport or carry passengers from Gravesend to London e contra and have used to fasten
covenanteth and granteth to the others eorum utrique to make assurance and there it was holden that the word uterque doth amount to quilibet Wray Admit it shall be so taken in a Bond yet it shall not be so taken in an Indictment As if a man make a Lease for years rendring Rent payable at the day of St. Martin although there be two days of St. Martin in the year yet the reservation is good and the Rent shall be taken payable at the most usual day of St. Martin there in the Country But in an Indictment if an offence he laid to be done on St. Martins day without shewing which in certain it is not good Fenner The word uterque is matter of surplusage and therefore shall not hurt the Indictment CCCXXVII Blunt and Whiteacres Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas in a Replevin where the Defendant did avow as Fermor of the Manor of F. in the County of Berks to St. Johns Colledge in Oxford and laid a Prescription there in him and his Fermors to distrain for all Amercements in the Court of the said Manor Amercement and shewed that the Plaintiff in the Replevin was presented by the Homage for not repairing of a House being a customary Tenant of the said Manor according to a pain imposed upon him at a former Court for which he was amerced by the Steward to ten shillings and was also presented for not ringing of his Swine for which he was amerced three shillings four pence and for these Amercements he distrained And upon Nihil dicit Iudgment was given for the Avowant to have return upon which a Writ of Error was brought And Error assigned in that there is not any Prescription laid in the Avowry for the Lord to amerce the Tenants and of common Right he cannot do it See 48 E. 3. And such Amercement is Extortion for the Lord cannot be his own Iudge and therefore he ought to enable himself to distrain by Prescription Another Error because the Fine is laid to be assessed by the Steward 1 Cro. 748. 886. whereas by the Law it ought to be by the Suitors for they are Iudges and not the Steward Another because that in the Avowry it is set down quod praesentatum fuit that he had not repaired a certain House but he doth not say in facto categorice c. that he had not repaired for that is matter traversable 4. Here is no offence for a Copy-holder is not bound to repair by the Common Law if it be not by Prescription for he cannot have House-boot upon the Land as a Termor may if it be not alledged a custom Fenner The Steward may assess Fines for a contempt but not Amercements if not by Prescription Gawdy The Lord of a Mannor cannot assess Amercements for a Trespass done to himself upon his own Lands but otherwise it is of a common Trespass or a Trespass done in the Land of another but for the Distress he ought to prescribe and the Iudgment was reversed CCCXXVIII Page and Fawcets Case Pasch 29 Eliz. Rot. 121. In the Kings Bench. Error 3 Cro. 227. ERror was brought upon a Iudgment given in Lyn where by the Record it appeareth that they prescribe to hold Plea every Wednesday and it appeared upon the said Record that the Court was holden 16 Feb. 26 Eliz. which was dies Dominicus and that was not assigned for Error in the Record but after in Nullo est erratum pleaded it was assigned at the Bar And Almanacks were shewed to the Court in proof of it and it was holden clearly to be Error but the doubt was if it should be tried by Iury or by the Almanacks and it was said that the Iustices might judicially take notice of Almanacks and be informed by them and that was the Case of one Robert in the time of the Lord Catline and by Coke so was the Case betwixt Galery and Bunbury and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed CCCXXIX Geofries and Coites Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IT was found by special Verdict 1 Cro. 25â— that one Avice Trivilian was Tenant for life the Remainder to her Son in tail the Remainder over Tenant for life and he in the Remainder in tail make a Lease for life the Remainder for life rendring Rent Tenant for life dieth he in the Remainder dieth and his Son accepteth of the Rent of the Tenant for life in possession who dieth The Issue in tail entreth he in the Remainder for life entreth c. And it was conceived that this acceptance of the Rent of the Lessee for life doth affirm also the Remainder See Litt. Sect. 521. and such was the opinion of Gawdy and Fenner Iustices CCCXXX The Lord Mordant and Vaux Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Lord Mordant brought an Action of Trespass against George Vaux and declared of a Trespass done in quodam loco 1 Inst 225. 1 Cro. 269. called N. parcel of the Manor of Hawarden The Case was William Lord Vaux was seised thereof and thereof levied a Fine to the use of the Lord Vaux which now is for life and after his decease to the use of Ann and Muriel Daughters of the Lord Vaux and their Assigns until Ambrose Vaux should return from the parts beyond the Seas and should come to the Age of 21 years or dye if they should so long live And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death whichsoever of the said days or times should first happen to the use of the said Ambrose and the Heirs of his body begotten with divers Remainders over Ambrose returned Plow Com. 376. 2. Ante 18. 76. and 31 Eliz. before he came of full age for it is not pleaded that he was of full age levied a Fine to the use of George Vaux the Defendant in tail with divers Remainders over Afterwards the Lord Vaux being Tenant for life enfeoffed the Lord Mordant in Fee upon whom the said George Vaux entred for a forfeiture upon which Entry the Lord Mordant brought the Action Buck argued for the Plaintiff Amb. Vaux had nothing in the Lands in question until his return from beyond the Seas and his full age and the estate doth not begin until both be past and he said that no use did arise to Ambrose until the time incurred for the time of the beginning is uncertain and upon a Contingent as 13 Eliz. Dyer 301. A. makes a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life and after to the use of B. who he intendeth to marry until the Issue which he shall beget on her shall be of the age of 21 years and after the Issue shall come of such age then unto the use of the said B. during her Widowhood the Husband dieth without Issue the Wife entreth and her
Entry holden lawful But Error was brought upon it And also Calthrops case was cited to the same purpose 16 Eliz. Dyer 336. This estate limited to Ambrose doth refer to the estate limited to Muriel and Ann and not to the time for ever the first estate is to be respected as 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. He in the Remainder in Fee upon an estate for life deviseth it to his Wife yielding and paying during her natural life yearly 20 shillings and dieth living Tenant for life the Rent shall not begin until the Remainder falleth So as the general words refer to the beginning of the estate although the words imply that the Rent shall be paid presently And see also such construction 9 Eliz. 261. A Lease was made for thirty years and four years after the Lessor makes another Lease by these words Nos dictis 30 annis finitis dedisse concessisse c. Habend tenend a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque terminum c. And although prima facie the beginning of this Term seems incertain yet the Iustices did respect the former estate and so the Lessee hath the Interest of the Term from the making of the Deed but no estate until the first Term expire Then Ambrose before his age of 21 years levying a Fine the Fine shall not bind the Feoffee for it enures only by way of conclusion and so binds parties and privies but not a stranger And the party needs not to plead against this Fine quod partes to the Fine Nihil habuerunt for that appeareth upon their own shewing Wiat contrary The state of Ambr. accrues and rises when any of the said times come first full age return death for the words are And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death c. This word or before death disjoyns all and makes the sentence in the Disjunctive and he cited a case lately judged in the Common Pleas A Lease was made to Trewpeny and his Wife for one hundred years if he and his Wife or any Child or Children betwixt them begotten should so long live the Wife died without Issue the Husband held the Land c. for the Disjunctive before Child made the sentence Disjunctive Gawdy Iustice That had been Law if no such word had been in the Case And Wiat said That although the return be incertain yet it is certain enough that he shall come to the age of 21 years or dye And also this is by way of use which needs not to depend upon any estate and if the Remainder shall vest presently upon his return then it would be doubtful what Remainder it is if it be a Remainder depending upon the estate for the life of Ann and Muriel or for years i.e. until Ambrose shall come of the age of 21 years But be it incertain yet the Fine is good for here is a Remainder in Ambrose and both are but particular estates and there is not any doubt but that one may convey by Fine or bar by Fine such contingent uses for which see the Statute of 32 H. 8. All Fines to be levied of any Lands intailed in any wise to him that levieth the Fine or to any his Ancestors in possession reversion c. which word use goes to contingent uses for at the time of the making of that Statute there was no other use Fenner Iustice remembred the Case adjudged M. 30 31 Eliz. betwixt Johnson and Bellamy 2 Len. 36. which ruled this Case Gawdy Iustice Here is a certainty upon which the Remainder doth depend i. e. the death of Ambrose but the Case had been the more doubtful if no certainty at all had been in the Case Atkinson contrary Here the Lord Vaux is Tenant for life the Remainder to George in tail now when the Lord Vaux levies a Fine this is a forfeiture and then the Entry of George is lawful It hath been objected on the other side that this Remainder was future and contingent and not vested therefore nothing passed to George by Ambrose The words are quousque Ambrose shall return This word quousque is a word of Limitation and not of Condition and then the Remainder may well rise when the Limitation hapneth It hath been said that this Remainder is contingent and then the Remainder which is to vest upon a contingency cannot be granted or forfeited before that the contingent hapneth And he cited the Case of 14 Eliz. 314. Dyer A Fine is levied to A. to the use of B. for life the Remainder to E. in Tail the Remainder to B. in fee. Proviso That if B. shall have Issue of his Body that then after such Issue and 500 l. paid to c. within six months after the birth of such issue the use of the said Lands after the death of the said B. and the said six months expired shall be to the said B. and the heirs of his body And it was holden that before the said contingent hapneth B. had not any estate tail for there it was incertain if the said contingent would happen but in our case the contingents or some of them will happen or run out by effluxion of time and that makes the Remainder certain in Ambrose And he also argued that the Limitations are several by reason of the Disjunctive and the last part of the sentence and that the said sentence is in the Disjunctive appeareth by the subsequent words which of the said days or times shall first happen And then the return of Ambrose for that first hapned vests the Remainder in him and therefore the Plaintiff ought to be barred Buckley contrary The estate of the Daughters doth depend upon a Copulative i.e. the return of Ambrose and his full age and both is but one Limitation it is clear that the first Limitation is upon a contingent and the remainder cannot vest until both are performed And as to that which hath been said that there is a certain Limitation i. e. the return of Ambrose 18 Eliz. the Case was Lands were given to Husband and Wife the Remainder to such of them as should survive the other for years the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth it was holden that although the Limitation was upon a certain estate yet because it is not known in which of the parties the estate secondly limited shall begin the Lease is void So here it is not certainly appointed when the estate limited to Ambrose shall begin upon the return full age or death of Ambrose and he said that here are but two times of Limitation first return and full age second death return and full age determines the estate of the Daughters and also the death if it shall first happen and if these three times shall be construed in the Disjunctive 2 Len. 2â— the same would overthrow the estate of the Daughters which is an estate for years determinable upon the death of themselves or Ambrose
Request the said Feoffees or their Heirs should be seised of the said House to the use of the said Ann and her Heirs Afterwards the seventh of April 16 Eliz. Ann demanded of William Ramsey Son and Heir of John Ramsey six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence being due to the said Ann ut supra the which sum the said William Ramsey did refuse to pay by force of which and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the said Ann Ramsey was thereof seised and died seised and from her descended the said House to William Ramsey The Plaintiff confessed the Feoffment to Crofton and Langhton to John Ramsey and others and shewed further That the said Ann required the surviving Feoffees to enfeoff one Robert Owen of the said House who three days after made the Feoffment accordingly Robert Owen enfeoffed John Owen who died thereof seised and from him the said House descended to Israel Owen Crafton died Langhton having issue two Daughters died All the Feoffees but one died Ann the time aforesaid demanded the said six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence of the said William Ramsey in another House in London due at the Feast of St. Michael last before who denied to pay it the second Daughter of Langhton entred and thereof enfeoffed the said Israel Owen Rents 3 Cro. 210 211. who leased the same to the Plaintiff and upon that Evidence the Defendant did demur in Law And first it was resolved by the whole Court That the said sum to be paid to the said Ann was not a Rent but a sum in gross because reserved to a stranger c. which see Lit. 79. Reversion And by Munson Iustice If the words of the reservation had been twenty Nobles Rent yet it had been but a sum in gross but otherwise it had been by devise Also there is not any condition for the payment of it but only a Limitation for the word subsequent which limits the future use takes away all the force of the words of the Condition as 27 H. 8. 24. Land given in tail upon condition that the Donee and his Heirs shall carry the Standard of the Donor when he goes to battel and if he fail thereof then the same to remain to a stranger the limiting of the Remainder hath taken away the condition and hath controlled it and now the Condition is become a Limitation But where the words subsequent are against Law as if upon failer that then it shall be lawful for a stranger to enter Feoffments upon condition c. these words because they are against Law for a Rent cannot be reserved to a Stranger c. do not destroy the Condition by Mead contrary by Munson for the Condition is utterly gone And by Mead Feoffment in Fee upon condition That if the Feoffor shall do such a thing that he shall re-enter and retain the Land to the use of a stranger the use is void 1 Cro 401 402 and the Feoffor shall hold the Land to his own use A Feoffment in Fee upon condition That the Feoffee shall marry my Daughter and if he refuse to marry her that then he shall be seised to the use of I.S. the same is not a Condition but a Limitation and in all cases afterwards of a Condition where an Interest is limited to a stranger there it is not a Condition but a Limitation And Mead said That the said annual sum is not demandable but the party ought to pay it at his peril Lit. 80. But by Munson it ought to be demanded for so this word Refuse doth imply Regula And when at the Request of Ann the Feoffment is made by Munson Mead and Windham the Rent is gone but Dyer contrary unless the Feoffment be made to Ann her self And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 19 Eliz. Rot. 748. There was a Case betwixt Shaw and Norton Shaw and Nortons Case One Green devised his Lands to A. and devised also the said A. should pay a Rent to B. and that B. might distrain for it and if A. fail of the payment of it that the Heirs of the Devisor might enter the same is a good Distress and a good Condition And by Munson Demand ought to be made of the Rent for the words are Refuse which cannot be without Demand or Request And it was certified That such a Clerk refused to pay his Tenths and because it was expresly set down in the Certificate that he was requested c. for that cause he was discharged And it was also holden That if Request be necessary that in this case Request is to be made That it ought to be made to the surviving Feoffee or his heir and not to the heirs of any of the Feoffees who are dead CCCLXIII Lacyes Case Hill. 25. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictments Co. 13. Rep. 53. LAcy was indicted of the death of a man upon Scarborough Sands in the County of York between the high water-mark and the low water-mark and the same Indictment was removed into the Kings Bench and being arraigned upon it he shewed that the said Indictment was sued by vertue of a Commission which issued the first day of May directed to the Iustices of Assize and other Iustices of Peace in the said County Commission repealed to enquire of all Murders Felonies c. and pleaded further That the second day of May aforesaid issued another Commission directed to the Lord Admiral and others upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 15. by force of which the said Lacy was indicted of the same murder whereof he was now arraigned and the said last Commission was ad inquirendum tam super altum mare quam super littus maris ubicunque locorum infra jurisdictionem nostram maritimam And that the said Indictment taken before the Admiral was taken before this upon which he was arraigned and upon the whole matter prayed to be dismissed And the opinion of all the Iustices was that the first Commission was repealed by the second and so the Indictment upon which he was arraigned taken coram non Judice 10 E. 4. 7. If a Commission for the Peace issueth into one County and afterwards another Commission issueth to a Town within the same County and parcel of it the first Commission is repealed which Gawdy granted if notice be given c. but Wray denied it but the whole Court by this last Commission to the Lord Admiral the first Commission as to the Iurisdiction in locis maritimis is determined and repealed for these two Commissions are in respect of two several Authorities the first Commission meerly by the Common Law the other by the Statute aforesaid and thereupon the party was discharged against the Queen as to that Indictment Note that in the Argument of this Case it was said by Coke and agreed by Wray That if a man be struck upon the high sea 2 Co. 93. whereof he dieth in another County
good as a new devise in Reversion upon the precedent Condition and not as a Remainder quod Windham concessit but Periam was very strong of opinion That it is a Limitation Two Ioyntenants of a Term A. and B. A. grants his part to B. nothing passeth by it for as a Grant it cannot be good Owen 102. 1 Cro. 314. 1 Inst 186. for as one Ioyntenant cannot enfeost his Companion no more can he vest any thing in him by grant for he cannot grant to him a thing which he hath before for Ioyntenants are seised and possessed of the whole all which was granted per Curiam and Anderson said That if Lands be granted to A. and B. and the Heirs of A. B. cannot surrender to A. for a Surrender is as it were a grant And as a Release it cannot enure for a Release of a Right in Chattels cannot be without a Deed. CCCLXXXIV Hollingshed and Kings Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt HOllingshed brought Debt against King and declared That King was bounden to him in a Recognizance of two hundred pounds before the Mayor and Aldermen of London in interiori Camera de Guildhall London upon which Recognizance the said Hollingshed heretofore brought a Scire facias before the said Mayor c. in exteriori Camera and there had Iudgment to recover upon which Recovery he hath brought this Action and upon this Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law because that in setting forth of the Recognizance he hath not alledged That the Mayor of London hath Authority by Prescription or Grant to take Recognizances and if he hath not then is the Recognizance taken Coram non Judice and so void And as to the Statute of West 2. cap. 45. It cannot be taken to extend to Recognizances taken in London which see by the words De his quae recordat sunt coram Cancellario Domini Regis ejus Justiciariis qui Recordum habent in Rotulis eorum Irrotulatur c. And also at the time of the making of that Statute 1 Cro. 186 187. London had not any Sheriffs but Bayliffs and the said Statute ordains that Process shall go to Sheriffs c. But the whole Court was clear of a contrary opinion for they said We will know that those of London have a Court of Record and every Court of Record hath an Authority incident to it to take Recognizances for all things which concern the Iurisdiction of the said Court and which arise by reason of matters there depending Another matter was objected for that the Recognizance was taken in interiori Camera but the Court was holden in exteriori Camera and therefore not pursuant But as to that it was said by the Lord Anderson That admit that the Recognizance was not well taken yet because that in the Scire facias upon it the Defendant did not take advantage then thereof he shall be bounden by his said admittance of it as if one sue forth a Scire facias as upon a Recognizance whereas in truth there is not any Recognizance and the party pleads admitting such Record and thereupon Iudgment is given against him it is nor void but voidable Fleetwood Recorder of London alledged many Cases to prove that the Courts of the King are bounden to take notice Priviledges of London That they of London have a Court of Record for if a Quo warranto issueth to Iustices in Eyre it behoves not them of London to claim their Liberties for all Courts of the King are to take notice of them And at last after many motions the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff And it was said by Anderson and in manner agreed by the whole Court That if depending this Demurrer here the Iudgment in London upon the Scire facias be reversed yet the Court here must proceed and not take notice of the said Reversal CCCLXXXV Bedingfeild and Bedingfeilds Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower DOwer was brought by Anne Bedingfeild against Thomas Bedingfeild The Tenant out of the Chancery purchased a Writ De circumspecte agatis setting forth this matter That it was found by Office in the County of Norfolk that the Husband oâ— the Demandant was seised of the Manor of N. in the said County and held the same of the Queen by Knights Service in chief and thereof dyed seised the Tenant being his Son and Heir of full age by reason whereof the Queen seised as well the said Manor as other Manors and because the Queen was to restore the Tenements tam integre Primer seisin c. as they came to her hands it was commanded the Iudges to surcease Domina regina inconsulta It was resolved per Curiam That although the Queen be entituled to have Primer seisin of all the Lands whereof the Husband of the Demandant dyed seised yet this Writ did not extend unto any Manors not found in the Office for by the Law the Queen cannot seise more Lands than those which are contained in the Office And therefore as to the Land not found by the Office the Court gave day to the Tenant to plead in chief And it was argued by Serjeant Gawdy for the Tenant That the Demandant ought to sue in the Chancery because that the Queen is entituled to have her Primer Seisin and cited the case of 11 R. 2. and 11 H. 4. 193. And after many motions It was clearly agreed by the Court That the Tenant ought to answer over for the Statute De Bigamis Cap. 3. provides that in such case The Iustices shall proceed notwithstanding such seisin of the King and where the King grants the custody of the Tenant himself 1 H. 7. 18 19. 4 H. 7. 1. A Multo fortiori against the Heir himself where he is of full age notwithstanding the possession of the King for his Primer seisin By the Statute of Bigamis after the Heir was of full age the Wife could not be endowed in the Chancery But now by the Prerogative of the King such wives may be endowed there Si viduae illae voluerint and after many motions The Court awarded That the Tenant should plead in chief at his peril for the Demandant might sue at the common Law if she pleased CCCLXXXVI Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Exchange The Husband was seised of Lands in the right of his Wif the Husband and his Wife both joyned in exchange of the Lands with a stranger for other Lands which exchange was executed the Husband and the Wife seised of the Lands taken in exchange aliened the same by Fine It was holden by Rhodes and Windham Iustices That the Wife after the death of her Husband might enter into her own Lands notwithstanding that Fine And Rhodes resembled it to the case reported by my Lord Dyer 19 Eliz. 358. The Husband after marriage assured to his Wife a Ioynture they both levy a Fine 1 Inst 36.
word Children a good name of purchase But the whole Court was against that conceit for these words in the case At the Assignment of Friendship are not void but shew what person should take if the intent of the party should take effect i. he who the Father by Assignment should enable for no Child shall take but he who the Father shall assign that is part of the contract and although by such Assignment no title accrues to the Child assigned yet without Assignment no Child is capable for by the Lease the Father hath such Liberty that he may assign what Child he will And by Wray If the words of the Lease had been at the assignment of the Father within one month and the Father surcease his month Antea 275. the Interest should not vest in any of the Children And by Ayliff Iustice If the words of the Lease had been to the Husband and wife and their Son John where his name is William nothing should vest And peradventure in this case at the Bar if the Father had assigned his Son then born and had assigned him before or at the time of the Lease i. the delivery of the Lease it had been well enough Note that this Action was brought by Cole Lessee of the Son of the Husband and VVife born at the time of the Lease made And afterwards Wray with the assent of all the rest of the Iustices gave Iudgment that the Plaintiff Nihil capiat per Billam CCCXCII Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Execution where joynt where several NOte It was agreed by the whole Court and affirmed by the Clerks That if Debt be brought upon an Obligation against two upon a joynt Praecipe and the Plaintiff hath judgment to recover that a joynt Execution ought to be sued against them both But if the suit were by one Original and several Praecipes execution might be sued against any of them CCCXCIII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Replevin IN a Replevin The Defendant doth avow for Damage Feasant and shewed that the Lady Jermingham was seised of such a Mannor whereof c. and leased the same to the Defendant for years c. The Plaintiff said That long befor King H. 8. was seised of the said Manor and that the place where is parcel of the said Manor demised and demisable by copy c. and the said King by his Steward demised and granted the said parcel to the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by copy in fee c. upon which it was demurred because by this Bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in the Bar to the Avowry ought to have concluded and so was seised by the custom until the Avowant praetextu of the said Term for years entred And so it was adjudged CCCXCIV The Lord Dacres Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 227. Stewardship of a Manor Office of Trust Grants per Copy Deputy Steward IN Ejectione firmae the case was That the Lord Dacres was seised of the Manor of Eversham and that I.S. held the place where of the said Manor by copy for term of his life and the said Lord granted the Stewardship of the said Manor to the now Marquess of Winchester who appointed one Chedle to be his Deputy to keep a court ad traden dum the said Lands I.S. being now dead to one Wilkins by copy for life afterwards the said Chedle commanded one Hardy his Servant to keep the said court and grant the said Land by copy ut supra which was done accordingly the copy was entred and the Lord Dacres subsigned it confirmed it It was further found That Hardy had many times kept the said court both before and after and that the custom of the Manor was that the Steward of the said Manor for the time being or his Deputy might take Surrenders 1 Co. 48. 49. and grant estates by copy And if this estate so granted by Hardy were good or not was the question because by the Servant of the Deputy whereas the custom found did not extend further than the Deputy It was argued that the estate granted ut supra was void for a Deputy cannot transfer his authority over for it is an office of trust See 39 H. 6. 33 34. 14 E. 4. 1. and 6 Eliz. it was adjudged That the Duke of Somerset had divers Stewards of his Lands and they in the name of the said Duke made diverse Leases of the Lands of the said Duke rendring Rent and the Duke afterwards assented to the said Leases and received the Rents reserved upon them and yet after the death of the said Duke the Earl of Hertford his Son and Heir avoided them So here the assent and the subsignment of the copy by the Lord Dacres doth not give any strength to the copy which was void at the beginning against which it was said That to take a Surrender and to grant an Estate by copy is not any judicial Act but meerly an Act of service and no matter of trust is transferred to Hardy for trust is reposed in him who may deceive which can't be in our Case for here is an express commandment which if Hardy transgress it is absolute void for nothing is left to his discretion And the admitting of a Copy-holder is not any judicial Act for there need not be any of the Suitors there who are the Iudges And such a Court may be holden out of the Precinct of the Manor for no Pleas are holden which was concessum per totam Curiam And by Ayliff Iustice If the Lord of such a Manor makes a Feoffment of a parcel of his Manor which is holden by copy for life and afterwards the Copy-holder dyeth although now the Lord hath not any Court yet the Feoffee may grant over the Land by copy again And the whole Court was clear of opinion That the grant for the manner of it was good especially because the Lord Dacres agreed to it And Iudgment was given accordingly CCCXCV Burgesse and Fosters Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the case was 1 Cro. 48 49. That the Dean and Chapter of Ely were seised of the Manor of Sutton whereof the place where c. is parcel demised and demisable by copy according to the custom and by their Deed granted the Stewardship of the said Manor to one Adams to execute the said office per se vel legitimum suum Deputatum eis acceptabilem Surrenders Afterwards Adams made a Letter of Deputation to one Mariot ad capiendum unum sursum redditionem of one I. W. and I. his Wife and to examine the said I. aforesaid ea intentione that the said I.W. and A. might take back an estate for their lives the Remainder over to one John Buck in Fee Note the Surrender ought be de duobus Messuagiis Mariot took two several
and that appears by the Record but if it had been in before the Writ brought then a Scire facias would lye See 9 H. 6. It was adjorned CCCCIII Flemmings Case Mich. 26 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. FLemming was Indicted upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. because he had given the Sacrament of Baptism in other form than is prescribed in the said Statute and in the Book of Common Prayer Indictment upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. and the said Indictment was before the Iustices of Assize Wray and Anderson Of such offence done before and now he is Indicted again for which it was awarded that he suffer Imprisonment for a year and shall be adjudged ipso facto deprived of all his Spiritual promotions And upon the Indictment Flemming brought a Writ of Error and assigned Error because in the second Indictment no mention is made of the first Indictment in which case the second Indictment doth not warrant such a Iudgment Wray Iustice If the first Indictment be before us then is a second Iudgment well given contrary if it be before other Iustices Clench The second Indictment ought to recite the first conviction and if one be Indicted for a Rogue in the second degree the first conviction ought to be contained in such Indictment in an Indictment the day and time are not material as to true recovering in facto And it might be that this last Indictment was for the first offence for any thing appeareth Coke who argued to the same intent compared it to the Case of 2 R. 2. 9. and 22 E. 4. 12. 12 H. 7. 25. Indictment certified to be taken coram A.B. Justiciariis Domini Regis ad pacem c. without saying necnon ad diversas felonias c. is void and if a man hath been once convicted he shall not have his Clergy if it appeareth upon Record before the same Iustices that he had his Clergy before CCCCIV The Mayor of Lynns Case Hill. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Mayor of Lynn was Indicted Indictments for that he had received twenty four shillings of one A. for giving of Iudgment in an Action of Debt depending before him against one B. and he was indicted thereof as of Extortion In contemptum dictae Dominae Reginae contra formam Statuti Coke The Indictment is insufficient for there is not any Statute to punish any Iudge for such a matter For the Statute of West 1. Cap. 26. is made against Sheriffs Cap. 27. Clerks of Iustices Cap. 30. The Marshal and his Servants Statute 23 H. 6. against Sheriffs 3 Inst 145. and other Statutes against Ordinaries But no Action lies against a Iudge for that which a Iudge receives is Bribery and not Extortion Et satis poenae est judici quod Deum habeat ultorem and therefore he said the party indicted ought to be discharged Gawdy Iustice If in the Indictment there be words of Extortion or Bribery although such an offence in a Iudge be not materially Extortion if these words contra pacem c. had been in the Indictment it had been good quod Clench concessit And afterwards the party was discharged CCCCV. Crisp and Goldings Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 50. 2 Len. 71. IN an Action upon the Case by Crisp against Golding the Case was That a Feme sole was Tenant for life and made a Lease to the Plaintiff for five years to begin after the death of Tenant for life and afterwards the 18. of October made another Lease to the same Plaintiff for 21 years to begin at Michaelmass next before and declaring upon all the said matter he said Virtute cujus dimissionis i. e. the later Lease the Plaintiff entred and was possessed Crast Fest S. Mich. which was before the Lease made and further declared that in consideration that the Plaintiff had assigned to the Defendant these two Leases the Defendant promised c. and upon non Assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff and damages taxed 600 l. Coke argued for the Plaintiff against the Solicitor General who had taken divers exceptions to the Declaration i. Where two or many considerations are put in the Declaration although that some be void yet if one be good the Action well lieth and damages shall be taxed accordingly and here the consideration that the Plaintiff should assign totum statum titulum interesse suum quod habet in terra praedict ' 2. Exception that the Lease in possession was made after Michaelmass i. 18 October and the Declaration is Virtute cujus dimissionis the Defendant entred Crastino Mich. and then he was a disseisor and could not assign his interest and right which was suspended in the tortious disseisin and so it appeared to the Iudges and he said there was not here any disseisin although that the Lessee had entred before that the Lease was made for there was an agreement and communication before of such purposed and intended Lease although it was not as yet effected and if there were any assent or agreement that the Lessee should enter it cannot be any disseisin and here it appeareth that the Lease had his commencement before the making of the Lease and before the entry But put case it be a disseisin yet he assigned all the Interest quod ipse tunc habuit according to the words of the consideration and he delivered both the Indentures of the said Demises and quacunque via data be the assignment good or void it is not material as to the Action for the consideration is good enough Egerton Solicitor contrary In every Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit there ought to be a Consideration promise and breach of promise and here in our Case the Consideration is the assignment of a Lease which is to begin after the death of the Lessor who was but Tenant for life which is meerly void and that appeareth upon the Record and as to the second part of the Consideration and the assignment of the second Lease it appeareth that the Plaintiff at the time had but a Right for by his untimely entry before the making of the Lease he was not to be said Lessee but was a wrong-doer c. in 19 Eliz. in the Kings Bench this difference was taken by the Iustices there and delivered openly by the Lord Chief Iustice i. When in an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit two Considerations or more are laid in the Declaration but they are not collateral but pursuant as A. is indebted to B. in 100 l. and A. promiseth to B. that in consideration that he oweth him 100 l. and in consideration that B. shall give to A. 2 s. that he will pay to him the said 100 l. at such a day if B. bring an Action upon the Case upon this Assumpsit and declares upon these two promises although the consideration of the 2 s. be not performed yet the Action doth well lye
the Seisin or possession of the Tenant in Demesn who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent so behind to the Testator in his life or in the Seisin or possession of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by Purchase Gift or Discent in like manner as the Testator might or ought to have done in his life time And now it was moved to the Court. If A. grant a Rent-charge to B. the Rent is behind B. dyeth A. infeoffeth C. of the Lands in Fee who diverse years after infeoffeth D. who divers years after infeoffeth E. It was holden by Walmesey Periam and Windham Iustice against Anderson Lord chief Iustice that E. should be chargeable with the said arrearages to the Executors of A. But they all agreed That the Lord by Escheat Tenant in Dower or by the curtesie should not be charged for they do not claim in by the party only but also by the Law. CCCCXIX Wigot and Clarks Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Right by Wigot against Clark for the Mannor of D. in the County of Glocester the four Knights gladiis cincti did appear Writ of Right and took their corporal Oath that they would choose 12 c. ad faciendum magnam Assisam and by direction of the court they withdrew themselves into the Exchequer chamber and there did return in Parchment the names of the Recognitors and also their own names and at the day of the return of the Pannel by them made the 4 Knights and 12 others were sworn to try the issue and it was ordered by the Court That both the parties scil the Demandant and the Tenant or their Attornies attend the said 4 Knights in the Exchequer chamber and to be present at the making of the Pannel so as each of them might have their challenges for after the return of the Pannel no challenge lieth and thereupon the said 4 Knights went from the Bar and within a short time after sitting the Court they returned the Pannel written in Parchment in this form Nomina Recognitorum c. inter A. petentem B. tenentem and so set down their names six other Knights ten Esquires and four Gentlemen and the Iustices did commend them for their good and sufficient Pannel and thereupon a Venire facias was awarded against the said parties CCCCXX Pory and Allens Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot. 611. In the Common Pleas. THe case was That Lessee for 30 years leased for 19 years 1 Cro. 173. Owen 97. Post 322 323. Surrender 1 Cro. 302. and then the first Lessee and one B. by Articles in writing made betwixt them did conclude and agree That the Lessee for 19 years should have a Lease for three years in the said Lands and others and that the same should not be any surrender of his first Term to which Articles the said Lessee for 19 years did after agree and assent unto and it was the opinion of all the Iustices of the Court that the same was not any surrender and they also were of opinion That one Termor could not surrender to another Termor CCCCXXI Glanvil ane Mallarys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 321. In the Common Pleas. GLanvil was Plaintiff in Audita Querela Audita Querâ—la 1 Cro. 2â—8 against Mallary upon a Statute Staple for that the conusor was within age at the time of the acknowledging of it it was moved for the Defendant that the Court ought not to hold Plea of this matter because there was no Record of the Statute remaining here and therefore by Law he was not compellable to answer it c. and a President was disallowed 5 H. 8. where such a pleading was allowed and judgment given that the Defendant eat sine die Loves Case Dudley and Skinners Case vide 16 Eliz. Dier 332. But on the other side divers presidents were shewed that divers such Writs had been shewed in the Common Pleas as 30 Eliz. Loves case and the Lord Dudley and Skinners case and thereupon it was adjudged that the Action did well lye in this Court. CCCCXXII Pet and Callys Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt IN Debt upon a Bond for performance of covenants the case was I. S. by Indenture covenanted with I.D. that such a woman viz. R.S. at all times at the request and charges of I.D. should make execute and suffer such reasonable assurances of such Lands to the said I.D. or his heirs as the said I. D. or his heirs should reasonably devise or require I.D. devised a Fine to be levied by the said Woman and required her to come before the Iustices of Assise to acknowledge it and the woman came before the said Iustices to that intent and because the said woman at that time was not compos mentis the said Iustices did refuse to take the Conusans of the said Fine and this was averred in the pleading in an Action brought upon the said Bond for performance of Covenants where the breach was assigned in not acknowledging of the said Fine and upon the special matter the party did demur in Law and the opinion of the whole Court was that the condition was not broken for the words are general to make such reasonable assurances which c. but if the words had been special to acknowledge a Fine there if the Iustice doth refuse to take such acknowledgment the Bond is forfeited for the party hath taken upon him that it should be done Wangford and Sextons Case Mich. 22 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 174. Kel 87. a. THe Plaintiff had recovered against the Defendant in an Action of Debt and had execution The Defendant after the day of the Teste of the Fierifacias and before the Sheriff had medled with the execution of the Writ bona fide for money sold certain goods and chattels and delivered them to the buyers it was holden by the Court that notwithstanding the said Sale that the Sheriff might do execution of those goods in the hands of the buyers Executions for that they are liable to the execution and execution once granted or made shall have relation to the Test of the Writ CCCCXXIV Wilmer and Oldfields Case Trin. 29 Eliz. Rot. 2715. In the Common Pleas. Award IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was to perform the Award of I. S Antea 140. c. the Arbitrators make Award That the Defendant before such a day shall pay to the Plaintiff 1000 l. or otherwise procure one A. being a stranger to the Bond to be bound to the Obligee for the payment of 12 l. per annum to the Plaintiff for his life the Defendant pleaded the performance of the Award generally the Plaintiff assigned the breach of the Award in this That the said A. had not paid the said 100 l. without speaking of the cause of the award of the 12 l. per annum upon which the
appeareth upon his own shewing as it was holden in a Hampshire Case betwixt Sutton and Dowze Sutton and Dowzes Case 2 Len. 55. 3 Len. 155 164. which see Mich. 25 26 Eliz. and in that case the Lease is void for it was made within a year after the Statute of 31 H. 8. the January before and the Statute in April after for he hath not averred that the usual Rent is reserved nor that the Land was usually let to farm for which Leases otherwise made within the year are absolutely void by the said Statute But it will be objected Ante 306. 1 Cro. 707 708. Heydons Case That this matter shall come in of our part and it is sufficient for them to plead the Case but it is not so as it was lately agreed in Heydons Case in the Exchequer where the Case was That the Warden and Canons of the Colledge of Otery leased certain Lands to Heydon for years and he in pleading of his Lease did not shew that the ancient Rent was reserved and therefore naught and so was the opinion of the Iustices of the Common Pleas Lord Cromwel and All-Souls Case in the Case betwixt the Lord Cromwel and All-Souls Colledge upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 6. upon a branch of it by which it was provided that the third part of the Rent reserved upon any Lease should be paid in Corn c. and the Leases made to the contrary should be void and in an Ejectione firmae brought upon such Lease because it was not shewed in the Declaration that the Corn was reserved according to the Statute Iudgment was arrested and we need not to plead the Statute for although the Statute be particular yet because the King hath interest in it it shall be holden in Law a general Act and the Iudges shall take notice of it although it be not alledged by the party as it was ruled in the Lord Barcklays Case 4 Eliz. Plow 231. but if such Rent was reserved yet the Lease cannot be good for the King cannot have his Rent because it is not incident to the Reversion nor passeth by the Grant of the Reversion for it is not a Rent but rather a sum due by reason of contract which see 30 Ass 6. A man leaseth a Hundred rendring Rent or grants a Rent out of a Hundred the same is not a good Rent but meerly void for a Hundred is not Manorable nor can be put in view nor any Assize lieth of such Rent See 9 Ass 24. and in 20 Eliz. in the Case betwixt Corbet and Cleer 7 Co. 5. Corbet and Cleers Case the Dean and Chapter of Norwich leased a Parsonage and common of Pasture rendring Rent 1 E. 6. they surrendred their possessions to the King and afterwards the King granted the Parsonage without speaking of the common of Pasture It was holden that the Patentee of the Parsonage should have all the Rent and no apportionment should be in respect of the Common for all the Rent issueth out of the Parsonage and nothing out of the Common So here 2 Co. 48. for Tithes are not an Hereditament which cannot support a Rent within this Statute for which cause the Lease is void Also he said that the traverse of the Defendant was not well taken for the Plaintiff hath said That time out of mind c. the Abbot and his Predecessors were seised of the Rectory and Manor aforesaid simul semel and ratione inde was discharged c. at the time of the dissolution the Defendant traverseth absque hoc that the Abbot and his Predecessors held discharged of Tithes time out of mind c. which is not good for he hath traversed our conclusion for our plea is an argument wheresoever is unity time out of mind c. there is a discharge of Tithes but in the Abbot was such an Vnity ergo he held discharged of Tithes as 21 E. 3. 22. In a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant saith that the Land in demand is parcel of the Manor of D. which is ancient Demesn and c. to which the Plaintiff saith That it is Frank-fee and the same was not good for he denies the conclusion but he ought to plead to the nature of the Manor that it is not ancient Demesn or that the Land in demand is not parcel of it Another matter was because it is pleaded fuit in tenura occupatione of Goodman and others but he did not shew by what Title Disseisin or Lease or other Title c. Buckley contrary And he said This unity of possession is not any discharge of Tithes by the said Statute and as to the Case cited before of 3 H. 7. 12. where Tenant in tail of a Rent entreth upon the Tenant of the Land now is the Rent suspended and then after when he makes a Feoffment in fee by that Feoffment the Rent is extinguished which was but suspended at the time of the Feoffment and therefore some have holden that if after such Entry he makes a Lease for life of the Land that his Rent or Seigniory is utterly gone in perpetuum for by the Livery all passeth out of him which he said cannot be Law and so it seemed to Gawdy Iustice Then upon such Feoffment with warranty he could not vouch as of Land discharged of the Rent generally but as of Land discharged at the time of the Feoffment which proves that the suspension is not a discharge for it was suspended before the Feoffment and discharged by the Feoffment and so suspension is not a discharge à fortiori in the Case of Tithes for in the case of Common and Rent although they are suspended so as they cannot be actually taken yet they are to some intent in esse As where Lands holden of other Lords are in the hands of the King for Primer seisin by reason of Prerogative and during such seisin of the King the Lord gets seisin the same is a good seisin notwithstanding that it was suspended so as he could not distrain And also in Assize of Land damages as to the Rent out of the Land shall be recouped therefore the rent in some sort is in esse and à multo fortiori this Tithe which is a thing of common Right shall be in esse but goes with the Land A Rent in esse to some purposes and suspended to other and therefore by unity of possession shall not be suspended 35 H. 6. He who hath liberty of Warren in the Lands of another entreth into the Land the Warren is not suspended nor by Feoffment of the Land is extinct and in this Case upon the matter during the unity of possession the Tithes were paid although not in specie Also the Abbot had the Tithes as Parson of B. and the Land as Abbot and therefore no suspension for the Tithes were always in esse although not taken in the manner as Tithes commonly are but by way of Retainer 22