THE THIRD PART OF THE REPORTS Of Several Excellent CASES OF LAW Argued and Adjudged in the COURTS of LAW AT WESTMINSTER In the Time of the late QUEEN ELIZABETH From the First to the Five and Thirtieth Year of her Reign Collected by a Learned Professor of the LAW WILLIAM LEONARD Esquire Then of the Honourable Society of GRAYS-INN Not before Imprinted And now Published By William Hughes of Grays-Inn Esq With Alphabetical TABLES of the Names of the CASES and of the Matters contained in the BOOK LONDON Printed by the Assigns of Richard and Edward Atkins Esquires For Henry Twyford Thomas Basset William Rawlins and John Place 1686. TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Can do no less than acquaint thee That the First and Second Part of the REPORTS of that Learned Lawyer William Leonard of Grays-Inn Esquire were obtained from me and Printed by the over-forwardness of those persons that received it from my hand who published it with a Design to prejudice the Learned Author and my self by false Intimating in the Epistle to the Reader prefixed before the Second Part That the First and Second Part was All of our Learned Authors Works that I thought fit to publish That I may Extricate my self out of their intended Abuse and undeceive thee I do hereby assure thee That although I do Collect the First and Second Part yet do I wholly disown the Epistle aforementioned and also aver it to be a false and scandalous Assertion That it is so I refer thee to the View of this Third Part The which is in no wise Inferior to the First and Second Part But on the contrary I may with Modesty say as to the Worth and Usefulness of it That it may Challenge the Precedence of the Other Two the which I intended as one that Feasteth his Guests preserveth the Daintiest Dishes until the last My Intention ever was if my other occasions would give me leave To publish such further CASES as were Collected by him not before Imprinted that might add something to the Study and Benefit of the Ingenuous Reader Wherefore I having lately Collected out of his Manuscript which only is in my hands some other Cases out of many which lay scattering therein not before made Publick I have reduced them into this Third Part which I commend to thy Reading and leave to thy favourable Construction And if these Cases now Printed off in this Third Part as the former Cases have done shall find good Acceptance of thee and be useful to thee I shall willingly if God give me life and it be desired put an End to this Work. In the prosecution of the which I shall have due regard as I hitherto have had in this Third Part as well as in the Two former Parts that thou shalt be presented with nothihg but what is Really useful and not to be had in other Works of the like nature Now for as much as no Action or Thing done under Heaven can be free from Error in a greater or lesser proportion The which as well as other Arts Printing too too frequently demonstrateth yet the Errors of this Third Part are so few and Inconsiderable that it maketh me the more Confident to desire thy favourable Corection Therefore I leave it to thee From my Study in Grays-Inn 24 of October 1662. William Huhges The Names of the Learned Lawyers Serjeants at Law and Judges of the several Courts at Westminster who Argued the Cases and were Judges of the said several Courts where the Cases were Argued Viz. A. ANderson Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Anger Altham afterwards one of the Barons of the Exchequer Atkinson Ayliffe Justice of the Kings Bench. B. Beaumount Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Bromley Lord Chancellor of England Barkley C. Cook after Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Clench one of the Judges of the Kings Bench. Cooper Serjeant at Law. Clark Baron of the Exchequer D. Daniel Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Drew Serjeant at Law. Dyer Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. E. Egerton Solicitor of the Queen after Lord Chancellor F. Fleetwood Serjeant at Law Recorder of London Fuller Fennor Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. G. Gawdy Judge of the Kings Bench. Golding Serjeant at Law. Glanvile Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Gent Baron of the Exchequer Godfrey H. Haughton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Hammon Serjeant at Law. Harris Serjeant at Law. Heal Serjeant at Law. Hobart K. Kingsmil Judge of the Kings Bench. L. Laiton M. Mead Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Morgan Manwood Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Mounson Justice of the Common Pleas. O. Owen Serjeant at Law after Baron of the Exchequer P. Popham Attorny-General of the Queen after Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. Periam Judge of the Common Pleas. Pepper Attorny of the Court of Wards Plowden Puckering the Queens Serjeant at Law. R. Rhodes Judge of the Common Pleas. S. Snag Serjeant at Law. Shute Judge of the Kings Bench. Shuttleworth Serjeant at Law. T. Tanfield Serjeant at Law after Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Topham W. Wray Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. Windham Judge of the Common Pleas. Walmesley Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Y. Yelverton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. A Table of the Names of the CASES in the Thrid Part of LEONARD'S Reports P. stands for Page C. for Case A. ANdrews and Glovers Case Trin. 4 Eliz. Page 7. Case 19 Abrahal and Nurses Case Hill. 19 Eliz. C. B. p. 63. C. 94 Absolon and Andertons Case Mich. 26 Eliz. B. R. p. 84. C. 124 Amner and Luddingtons Case Mich. 26 Eliz. B. R. p. 89. C. 128 Annisley and Johnsons Case Mich. 27 Eliz. C.B. p. 114. C. 164 Archbold and Borrells Case Mich. 28 Eliz. B. R. p. 139. C. 190 Lord Andersons Case Mich. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 149. C. 198 Allen and Hills Case Mich. 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 152. C. 204 Abbots Case Pasch 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 206. C. 266 Anderson and Heywards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 221. C. 294 George Ap-Rices Case Trin. 32 Eliz. Exchequer p. 241. C. 336. B. BArrentines Case Mich. 8 Eliz. C. B. Page 12. C 28 Oliver Breers Case 11 Eliz. Cur. Ward p. 25. C. 52 Banks and Thwaites Case Mich. 21 Eliz. B. R. p. 73. C. 113 Barker and Taylors Case Mich. 21 Eliz. C. B. p. 78. C. 117 Bunny and Bunny's Case Hill. 26 Eliz. C. B. p. 90. C. 129 Brett and Peregrines Case Pasch 26 El. p. 105. C. 155 Brian and Cawsens Case Trin. 27 Eliz. C. B. p. 115. C. 165 Baspoles Case Mich. 27 Eliz. B. R. p. 118. C. 167 Branthwaits Case Mich. 27 Eliz. B R. p. 118. C. 168 Bingham and Squires Case Hill. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 151. C. 201 Beadles Case Mich. 30 Eliz. B.
abate For the Writ shall be brought by the Heir of the Survivor of the said two Daughters because they have that remainder as purchasors XXXIII Stuckly and Sir John Thynns Case Mich 9 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THo Stuckly Administrator of the Goods and Chattels of one Tho. Curties Alderman of London brought Debt upon an Obligation against Sir John Thynn and demanded of him 1000 l. Et modo ad hunc diem venerunt Tam praefatus Tho. Stucklie quam praedict Johannes Thynn Et super hoc dies datus est usque Oct. c. in statu quonunc c. salvis c. At which day the Defendant made default and thereupon the Plaintiff prayed his Iudgment against the Defendant But the Opinion of the Court was That he could not have it but was put to process over because Dies Datus is not so strong as a Continuance XXXIV Luke and Eves Case Pasch 10 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Luke against Eve The Defendant Avowed because that the Iury at such a Leet did present That the Plaintiff was a Resiant within the Precinct of the said Leet c. and that the Plaintiff was warned to appear there and notwithstanding that made default For which he was Amerced by the Steward there to 5 s. And so for that Amercement he avowed the taking c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry pleaded That at the time of the said Leet holden he was not a Resiant within the Precinct of the said Leet Vpon which they were at Issue And it was found for the Avowant Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Avowant to have a Retorn XXXV Mich. 14 Eliz. Rott 1120. In the Common Pleas. THe Abbot and Covent of York Leased to J.S. certain Lands at Will and afterwards by Deed Indented under their Covent Seal reciting That whereas J.S. held of them certain Lands at Will they granted and demised that Land to the said J.S. to hold for life rendring the ancient Rent And by the same Indenture granted the Reversion of the same Land to a stranger for life It was holden by the Court clear That an Estate for life accrueth unto J.S. by way of Confirmation and the remainder unto the stranger depending upon the Estate created by the Confirmation XXXVI Sir Francis Carews Case Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIr Nicholas Carew seised of the Mannor of A. of which Mannor B. held certain Lands B. is disseissed by C. C. assures the same to Sir Nicholas Carew who is attainted of Treason by which Attainder the Mannor and Land cometh to King Henry 8th who thereof dieth seised and the same descends to King Edward the 6th who grants the same Mannor to the Lord Darcy who grants the same to Queen Mary who grants the same to Francis Carew Son of Nicholas Carew who by Fine assures the same to the Lord Darcy the Proclamations pass and the 5 years pass she who hath right to the Lands whereof the Desseisin was made being for all that time a Feme Covert And therefore the Fine did not bar her But because that the King was entituled to the Land by a double matter of Record and by the descent from Hen. the 8th to Ed. the 6th And also because a Seignory is reserved to the King upon the Grant made by King Edward the 6th to the Lord Darcy The Iustices were all of Opinion That the Entry of the Heir of the Disseisee was not lawful upon the Patentee of the Queen 2 Len. 122. but that she ought to be Relieved by way of Petition XXXVII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man brought an Action of Trespass against another for chasing of his Ewes being great with Lambs so as by such driving of them he lost his Lambs The Defendant justified because they were in his several Damage-feasans wherefore he took them and drove them to the Pound And it was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for although that he might take yet he cannot drive them with peril c. XXXVIII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. More Rep. 16 23. THe Case was A. made a Lease to B. for life and further grants unto him That it shall be lawful for him to take Fewel upon the premisses Proviso That he do not cut any great Trees It was holden by the Court That if the Lessee cutteth any great Trees that he shall be punished in Waste but in such case 1 Len. 117. the Lessor shall not re-enter because that Proviso is not a Condition but only a Declaration and Exposition of the Extent of the Grant of the Lessor in that behalf And it was holden also by the Court That Lessee for life or for years by the Common Law cannot take Fewel but of Bushes and small wood and not of Timber-Trees But if the Lessor in his Lease granteth Fireboot expresly if the Lessee cannot have sufficient Fewel as above c. he may take great Trees XXXIX Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Roll. 787. IN Trespass upon an Evidence given to the Iury at the Bar the Case appeared to be thus Land was given to A. in tail the remainder in Fee to his Sisters being his Heirs at the Common Law A. made a Deed in this manner viz. I the said A. have given granted and confirmed for a certain piece of Mony c. without the words of Bargained Sold And the Habendum was to the Feoffee with warranty against A. and his Heirs And a Letter of Attorny was to make Livery and Seisin And the Deed was in this manner To all Christian People c. And the Deed was enrolled within one month after the making of it And the Deed was Indented although that the words of the Deed were in the form of a Deed Poll And after 4 months after the delivery of the Deed the Attorny made Livery of Seisin A. died without Issue and the Sisters entred and the Feoffee ousted them of the Land and thereupon they brought an Action of Trespass And the Opinion of the whole Court was for the Plaintiff for here is not any Discontinuance for the Conveyance is by Bargain and Sale and not by Feoffment because the Livery comes too late after the Inrollment and then the Warranty shall not hurt them And although that in the Deed there be not any word of Indenture and also that the words are in the first person Yet in as much as the Parchment is Indented 2 Roll. 787. and both the parties have put their Seals to it it is sufficient Also It was clearly agreed by the Court That the words Give for Mony Grant for Mony Confirm for Mony Agree for Mony Covenant for Mony If the Deed be duly Inrolled that the Lands pass both by the Statute of Vses and by the Statute of Inrollments as well as upon the words of Bargain and Sale. And by Catline Wray and Whiddon the party ought to take by way
King and a Common Person was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant Dyer Iustice I conceive That it is a good Purchase in Law as well in the Case of the King as in the Case of a Common Person And see to that purpose 39 E. 3. and in this Case If the King had granted the Land to John Holt without naming him Son the same had been a good Purchase But if the King had called him John the Son of Thomas without giving him a sirname there such a Purchase should not be good if he were a Bastard because he hath not Nomen Cognitum as where he hath a sirname and a Man cannot purchase by the Name of John only and then if he be called John the Son of Thomas when he is not his Son it cannot be good And such Case hath here lately been adjudged Where the Lord Powis gave certain Lands to Thomas Gray his Son by him begotten upon the Body of Jane Orwell and in truth the said Thomas was a Bastard of the said Lord Powis and the name of Jane was not Orwell but the Daughter of one Punt and the Mother of Jane who was first married to Punt betwixt whom Jane was begotten married with one Orwell and yet notwithstanding that wrong Name and that the said Thomas Gray was not the Son of the Lord Powis born of Jane Orwell but of one Jane Punt yet it was a good Purchase and Gift to Thomas Gray because it was his known Name Manwood As I take it the Letters Patents are Ex certa scientia ex mero motu and then the Kings Grant shall not be taken in such plight as the Grant of a Common Person void for incertainty because that the King takes notice of the Person of what degree he is and in the Kings Case where he takes knowledge by the words Ex certa scientia there all matter of uncertainty shall be avoided and made good but not matter which is not true And for uncertainty he said Where a thing may be taken two ways there without the words Ex certa scientia c. the best shall be taken for the King and strongest against the Patentee But by Dyer by the words Ex certa scientia c. that incertainty is saved and shall be taken strong for the Patentee and if it can any ways be taken for him then the Patent shall not be void and then when in the principal Case there is the word Son and the word Son may be taken two ways either for a base Son or a true Son there by the words Ex certa scientia the King taketh upon him to know in what manner he is Son and a base Son is a Son Quodam modo so as the Letters Patents shall not be false But where the King in his Letters Patents recites a thing which is false that shall not make the Patent good although the words be Ex certa scientia et mero motu LXX Mich. 15. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was agreed by the Court That if a Man in a Replevin pleadeth and they are at Issue and the Iury is charged and gone from the Bar and returns to give their verdict and the Plaintiff be non-suit their retorn irreplevisable shall not be awarded as in case if a verdict had been given But the party may have a Writ of second Deliverance as well as if he had been nonsuit before declaration or appearance LXXI Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Husband levied a Fine of his Land and died and his Wife within the 5 years after the death of her Husband brought her Writ of Dower but did not pursue her Writ until 6 years were past and then she would have revived her Suit. And Meade Serjeant demanded the Opinion of the Iustices If the Wife should be barred of her Dower or not And by Manwood Iustice it was moved again If they at the Bar did agree That if a Fine be levied by the Husband and the Wife doth not make her claim within the 5 years if for that she shall be barred And he conceived That she should not be barred For he said That he who hath Title to the Land at the time of the Fine levied if he doth not sue within 5 years after his Title accrued should be barred But where the Title accrues after the Fine there he who hath Title shall not be barred by the 5 years but he may come 30 years after and make his Title and Claim But in the principal case he said That if the Fine had been levied after the death of the Husband there the Wife should be barred if she did not pursue her Right and Claim within 5 years And he agreed That if the 5 years be a Bar here that then by the Wives suffering of her Writ of Dower to be discontinued till after the 5 years were past that she should be barred because vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt Leges Harper said That the Discontinuance should be no Bar unto her For he said That if a gift be made to one in tail the Remainder over and Tenant in tail dieth without Issue and he in the Remainder brings a Formedon in the Remainder within 5 years and discontinueth it yet it is no Bar but that after the 5 years ended he may revive his Suit Which Manwood denyed And then Dyer came into the Court and the Case was moved to him And he said That the not prosecuting of the Action by the Wife should be a Bar unto her and that the Marriage which was before the Fine was the cause of Dower although she could not come to be endowed until after the death of her Husband And he said That the Wife could make no other to have her Dower but only by bringing of her Writ of Dower and therefore if she did surcease her time until the 5 years were past that her new claim by her new Writ would not revive the Ancient Claim and that therefore she should be barred For she could not enter into the Land to defeat the Fine And he said That as to the principal Case That it was adjudged Anno 4 H. 8. And it was also said by the Court That an Assignment of Dower made to the Wife in the Court of Wards was no sufficient claim of the Wife because she cannot have a Writ of Dower there and there by this surceasing of her demand of her Dower for the 5 years at the Common Law that she should be barred LXXII Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for years and the Lessee Covenanted to make Reparations The Lessor granted the Reversion to another and the Lessee for years made his Wife his Executrix and died It was holden in this Case by the Court That the Grantee of the Reversion should not recover damages but from the time of the Grant and not for any time before But yet the
Williams and declared Whereas one J. had affirmed a Plaint of Debt against the Plaintiff in the Queens Court of her Mannor of D. in the County of Cornwall and demanded against him 100 l. And whereas the Defendant now Plaintiff sued a Corpus cum Causa c. and delivered the same to the now Defendant being then Vnder-Steward of the said Court That notwithstanding that the now Defendant proceeded to Iudgment and awarded Execution against the Plaintiff and his Sureties by force of which the Goods of the Plaintiff and of his Sureties were taken in Execution Vpon which Declaration the Defendant demurred in Law because the Iudgment was given in a Court-Baron which could not hold plea above the sum of 40 s. And notwithstanding that Exception and notwithstanding also that the Action was brought against the Vnder-Steward c. The Plaintiff had Iudgment to Recover CXLIV Denton and Goddard's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt was brought against Denton Administrator of the Goods and Chattels of James Newton and the Plaintiff declared upon an Obligation made to the Intestate bearing date the 4th day of April 24 Eliz. The Defendant prayed Oyer of the Deed and Condition and then pleaded to the Action For he said That the aforesaid James Newton ante Confectionem praedicti suppositi scripti scilicet ultimo die Septembris 23 Eliz. apud N. obiit and so Non est factum c. The Iury found That the said Deed was delivered to the Intestate 3 July 23 Eliz. in the life of the Intestate bearing date 24 Aprilis 24 Eliz. before which day the Intestate died And upon the whole matter Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXLV Lichfield and Gage's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 167. IN an Ejectione firmae the parties were at Issue And by Order of the Court the Tryal was stayed And yet the Plaintiff against the Order obtained privily a Nisi Prius Vpon which Gawdy Iustice being informed of it after the Term awarded a Supersedeas to the Iustices of Assise before whom c. And notwithstanding that the Enquest at the Instance of the Plaintiff was taken and found for the Plaintiff All this matter was shewed to the Court in the Kings Bench and there examined and proved And it was Ordered by the Court That the Verdict should not be entred of Record nor any Iudgment upon it And so was it put in execution in a Case between Vernon and Fowler And then the Counsel moved and took Exception to the Supersedeas because it was not subscribed by the hand of Iustice Gawdy But it was not allowed because his Seal was sufficient CXLVI Fuller and Cook 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Roll. 111. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant had informed one Tho. Colby a Iustice of the Peace That the Plaintiff had stollen the Defendants Hoggs By force of which the said Colby ad Querimoniam Defendentis made a Warrant and directed it to the Constable of H. to apprehend the Plaintiff and to bring him before the said Colby By force of which the Plaintiff was Arrested and brought before the said Colby and there was examined upon the said matter and bound over by Recognizance to appear at the next Sessions and there to Answer at which Sessions he appeared And Proclamation was made That if any one would inform against the Plaintiff c. and none came For which the Plaintiff was discharged and so by this matter he was discredited c. And all this matter was found by Special Verdict And thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And in this Case the Court took a difference Where one whose Goods a stollen comes to are Iustice of Peace and shews him the matter and prays that the matter be examined and that such a one is examined upon it here in this case No Action lieth But if such a person in such case will expresly say That such a one hath stollen c. Hob. 192. and procure a Warrant from a Iustice of Peace upon such Surmise to arrest the party upon such matter an Action upon the Case will lie CXLVII The Queen and the Lord Lumley's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was moved in the Exchequer 2 Len. 80. Hob. 304. That Queen Mary seised of the Rectory of D. granted Advocationem Ecclesiae de D. If now by this Grant the Advowson should pass as now disappropriate Or that the Rectory it self should pass as appropriate Or that nothing at all should pass And by Manwood Chief Baron the Advowson shall not pass but remain appropriate as it was before For the Church as it was appropriate by a Iudicial act so without such an Act it cannot be disappropriate And he said That by the Grant of the said Advowson the Rectory did not pass For by the Appropriation the Advowson was gone and it was not in esse and by consequence could not be granted And it is not within the Statute of 4 5 Philip Mary of Confirmations of Grants of the King For the said Statute helps not but misrecital misnaming c. But here there is not such a thing in rerum natura as the Patentee pretends to be passed by the Letters Patents And if it were in the Case of a Common person nothing should pass As it was adjudged in Sands Case 11 Eliz. And he said That at this time a Parsonage might be disappropriated but that ought to be by a Iudicial Act as by Presentment and not by any private Act of the Proprietor And so he said a Church was disappropriated by the Lord Dyer by a Presentment which of late he made to it CXLVIII Cox's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation against Cox the Case was A Parson made a Lease for years and became bounden to the Lessee to perform the Covenants in the Lease The Defendant pleaded That the Lease is void by the Statute of 14 Eliz. because he was absent from his Benefice above the space of 80 days part of which time encurred depending the Action and before the Pea was pleaded It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was good But Exception was taken to the pleading The Defendant saith That the said Church is a Parochial Church cum Cura animarum but doth not say That it was so at the time of the Lease and Obligation made For it may be that at the time of the Lease there was a Vicar and then it was not Cura animarum And afterwards upon that Exception Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXLIX Wroth and Capell's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 4 Len. 197. THe Case was A. was Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. And Exception was taken to the Indictment because no word of Freehold was in it or to prove that the party grieved had any Freehold whereof
no case where the party useth but the means of the Law by the Kings Writ without any Corruption or Covin of the party he shall be amerced only pro falso clamore and no Action lieth against him because he hath not used but the means of the Law. Which see 2 R. 3. 9. by all the Iustices But yet in an Appeal because it toucheth the life of a Man the Defendant shall have his damages against the Plaintiff but not in any other Action which is a vexation by suit if no Corporation or Covin be in the party who prosecutes such suit See such matter justifiable in Conspiracy 35 H. 6. 13 14. Afterwards the principal Case was adjourned CXCI. Parker and Howard's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 102. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff and Defendant be now joyntly seised of the Office of the Register of the Court of Admiralty If the Defendant shall permit the Plaintiff to exercise the said Office and take the profits of it wholly to his own use during his life without let or interruption done by him That then c. The Defendant pleaded That the Custom of the Realm of England is That the Lord Admiral for the time being might grant the said Office and that such Grant should be good but for the life of the Grantor And further shewed 1 Len. 103. That the Lord Clynton Lord Admiral granted the said Office to the Plaintiff and the Defendant and died And that the Lord Howard was appointed Lord Admiral And that he 27 Eliz. granted the said Office to one Wade who put him out and interrupted him before which time the Defendant suffered the Plaintiff to enjoy the said Office and to take the profits of it Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Cook argued for the Plaintiff That the Defendant's Plea was not good for he hath not entituled the Lord Admiral to grant the Office For he saith That the Custom of the Realm of England is which he hath pleaded in such manner as no Issue can be taken upon it for it is pleaded Quod usitatum est quod Admirals pro tempore existens Non potest Concedere Officium praedict nisi pro termino vitae suae and that cannot be for it cannot be tryed for the Venire facias cannot be Of the Realm of England Also if it be Through the whole Realm of England then the same is the Common Law and not Consuetudo Which see Br. Custom 39. And see 4 5 Mar. Dyer 152 153. An express case of this Office And there he prescribes in Consuetudine in Anglia c. And also that such Grant is good but during the life of the Admiral who granted it Also he doth not answer to any time of the Grant of the Admiral Howard For if he were lawfully put out by Wade yet the Defendant against his own Obligation cannot put us out or interrupt us As L. 5 E. 4. 115. In a Quare Impedit against an Abbot and the Incumbent who make default upon the distress upon which a Writ to the Bishop was awarded for the Plaintiff Vpon which the Bishop retorned That the Incumbent resigned of which the Bishop gave notice And afterwards Lapse encurred and the Bishop collated the said former Incumbent and then that Writ came to him Now although the Incumbent be in by a new title yet he is bound by the Iudgment So here although the Defendant had another title and the former title of the Plaintiff be determined yet against his own Deed and Obligation he shall not put out the Plaintiff And the Court was clear That the Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff But afterwards the Cause was Compounded by the Order of the Lord Chancellor CXCII Mannings Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was agreed by the Iustices in this Case That where an Enfant Executor sold the Goods of his Testator at less undervalue than they were worth And afterwards brought an Action of Detinue against the Vendee upon it in retardatione executionis Testamenti That this sale of the Enfant Executor was good and should bind him notwithstanding his Nonage CXCIII Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest Son in tail and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs not having at the time of the Feoffment any Son Afterwards he suffered a Common Recovery had Issue a Son who died in the life of his Father having Issue a Son and afterwards he himself dieth It was holden in this Case That the Son and Heir of the Son should not avoid this Recovery by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For there was not any remainder in him at the time of the Recovery had but the remainder then was in abeyance for then the Son was not born And the words of the said Statute are That such Recovery shall be void against such person to whom the Reversion or Remainder shall then appertain i. e. at the time of the Recovery And it was said That if Lands be given to E. for life the Remainder to B. in tail the Remainder to C. in fee B. dieth his Wife with Child with a Son A Recovery is had against E. with the assent of C. and afterwards the Son is born he shall not be helped by this Statute for that the Remainder was not in esse at the time of the Recovery But it was holden in the principal Case That the Heir might avoid this Recovery by the Common Law For the Recompence could not extend to such a Remainder which was not in esse CXCIV The Countess of Sussex and Wroth's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was moved in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant If the Disseisee Licence J.S. to put his Cattle into the Land whereof he was disseised If it were a good Licence And If by the Execution of the said Licence the Freehold should be revested in the Disseisee so as if the Disseisor distrain the Cattel of J.S. for Damage-feasant and in a Replevin avow the Plaintiff may plead That the Freehold was in the Disseisee who so Licensed him Periam Iustice The Licence is void For at the time of the grant of it the Disseisee had but a Right before he had recontinued the Land by re-entry Windham If the Disseisee make a Lease for years of the Land whereof he is Disseised it is a void Lease Anderson If the Disseisee command one to enter into the Land and he doth accordingly the same is good The Case was adjourned CXCV. Payn 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Len. 205. A Writ of Error was brought by Payn Treasurer of the Records in the Kings-Bench in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Court of the Exchequer for the Queen upon an Assignment of a
returned the Court cannot mitigate the damages p. 150 A second Writ of enquiry of damages where not grantable p. 177 The Plaintiff in Replevin is Non-suit the Court may assess damages without a Writ of Enquiry p. 213 Debt Lachess in pleading it where turn to his prejudice p. 63 Against the Heir a general judgment shall be given in it against him by reason of his false Plea p. 70 Lyeth not by an Inn-keeper for Dyet and Lodging in the Inn where there is not a price agreed for it certain p. 161 Where must be in the Debet where in the Detinet and of what p. 206 260 Declaration In Trespass against the Defendant Simul cum J.S. Out-lawed ad Sectam Querentis not good p. 202 Where void for the incertainty of the thing demanded by it p. 228 Deeds Of Assignment made to the King out of Term upon a day in Term which is not dies juridicus if good p. 146 Demurrer Difference between drawing up of a Demurrer upon a Plea and upon a Challenge p. 222 Deprivation Where pleadable specially where generally p. 199 Devastavit Executor of an Enfant not charged with a Devastavit made by the Executor of the first Testator p. 241 Devises Construction of them p. 25 181 Words equally divided in it amount to a Tenancy in Common p. 19 Of Rent of Lands towards education of the Son how to be expounded p. 65 Made good by Averment p. 79 Where void by the Statute of 32 H. 8. p. 105 That his Sons in Law shall sell his Lands how to be construed p. 106 Of a possibility where not good nor shall go to Executors p. 195 Of a Messuage cum pertinentiis the Curtilage and Garden passeth p. 214 Distress Upon the Glebe-Lands for Tenths and First-Fruits and where the Lessee of the Cattel shall be distrained for the same p. 259 E. EJectione Firmae De uno Cubiculo good p. 210 Election Where not transferrable over p. 211 Where the Party hath election to take by Grant or Confirmation p. 127 Entry Of a Stranger upon the Farmer of the Kings Lessee for years he hath gained the Term p. 206 Error Matter not within the Record not to be assigned for Error p. 96 If it lieth to reverse a Judgment given for the King without a Petition first sued p. 155 Lieth to reverse a Judgmene in Covenant because all the Covenanters joyned not in the Action though the Covenant was in quolibet qualibet p. 161 Where lieth not in C. B. upon a recovery had before Justices of Assise p. 159 Eviction Where a Decree in Chancery shall not be said a lawful Eviction by which a Condition shall be broken p. 71 Evidence In a Writ of Right the Tenant shall begin to give Evidence because he is in the affirmative p. 162 Evidence given where shall conclude the Party but not the Jurors ad dicendam veritatem p. 209 Executors Where their Distress for the Arrearages of a Rent Charge is good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Rents p. 263 Where they might satisfie Debts due upon Judgments before Debts due upon Statutes or otherwise p. 271 Executions Sued forth upon a Statute to A. shall be served before a private Statute to B. though the Statute to B. be assigned to the King p. 239 240 By Capias ad Satisfaciendum sued out within the year though not prosecuted for two or three years after together yet the Party may proceed upon it without a Scire Facias p. 259 Debt is recovered by an Administrator durante minore aetate and Execution had and when the Executor comes of age how the Party shall be discharged p. 278 F. FEoffments Livery and Seisin made by Attorny where good to pass the Lands where not p. 37 Of a Mannor An Advowson Appendant shall pass but not the Services if there be no Attornment p. 193 To divers Persons to the use of his Will and afterwards wills the Feoffees shall stand seised till they have levied 100 l. good although in Feoffees at the time of the Devise p. 262 Fines levied Upon a Release not enure to an use p. 36 Where shall make a discontinuance where not p. 74 Where a Bar where not p. 74 Remainder is limited in tail to J. S. and the Heirs of his Body to begin after the death of the Tenant for life If a Fine be levied by him with Proclamation in the life of the Tenant for life shall bar the Issue p. 211 Where a Bar to a Woman in Dower because she pursued not her Claim within five years p. 221 Forfeiture What shall be a forfeiture within the Statute of 11 H. 7. Lessee for years in debt for rent claimed fee by bargain and sale of his Lessor which was traversed by the Lessor yet a forfeiture p. 169 Forprise Where needful to be mentioned where not p. 93 G. GRants of the King p. 10 Void because the King is deceived in them p. 5 119 Not to enure to a double intent p. 75 By the King of Bona Catalla felonum utlagatorum yet the King shall have the Goods of Felo de se p. 113 Where the Church is void by the grant of the King of the Mannor with the Advowson appendant the Advowson shall not pass p. 196 Of Fines pro licentia concordandi doth not extend to Post-Fines p. 234 How to be construed p. 242 to 253 Grants of common persons Where shall enure by way of confirmation Of all Goods and Chattels passeth a Lease for years Restrained and not to extend to things in future p. 29 Of the Office of Register by a Bishop where good where not p. 30 Of a Rent-charge out of his Lands after J. S. dies without issue of his body J.S. dies having issue which issue dies without issue if a good Grant p. 103 Where the mistaking and misrecital in them shall not make void their Grants p. 136 H. HAbeas Corpus Where granted for one committed to the Marshalsey by the Chamberlain of the Houshold one of the Privy Council p. 194 Heir Where he shall be adjudged in by descent notwithstanding a Devise to him p. 118 Of a Copyholder within age not bound to come to any Court during his Non-age to pray admittance or render a Fine p. 221 I. INdictments Upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. Quare Intravit in unum Tenementum not good for the incertainty but if a Tenementum with divers Acres good for the Acres p. 102 Certified and found to be taken before Justices of Assise and Goal-delivery where not good p. 216 Upon the Statute of 5 El. of Perjury question'd because it wanted the word voluntary p. 230 Against three persons for extortion that they colore officiorum suorum had malitiously extorted excessive Fees good though their offences were several p. 268 Informations Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. for cutting down of Trees being a penal Law how to be expounded p. 104 Of intrusion upon the Possession of the King
See the Case 14 Eliz. in Dyer L. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Tottenham and Bedingfields Case Owen Rep. 35 83. IN an Accompt by Tottenham against Bedingfield who pleaded That he never was his Bailiff to render accompt the Case was That the Plaintiff was possessed of a Parsonage for Term of years and the Defendant not having any Interest nor claiming any Title in them took the Tythes being set forth and severed from the 9 parts and carried them away and sold them Vpon which the Plaintiff brought an Action of Accompt And by Manwood Iustice the Action doth not lie for here is not any privity for wrongs are always done without privity And yet I do agree That if one doth receive my Rents I may implead him in a Writ of Accompt and then by the bringing of my Action there is privity and although he hath received my Rent yet he hath not done any wrong to me for that it is not my Mony until it be paid unto me or unto another for my use and by my Commandment and therefore notwithstanding such his Receipt I may resort to the Tenant of the Land who ought to pay unto me the said Rent and compel him to pay it to me again and so in such case where no wrong is done unto me Hob. 32â— I may make a privity by my consent to have a Writ of Accompt But if one disseiseth me of my Land and taketh the profits thereof upon that no Action of Accompt lieth for it is meerly a wrong And in the principal case so soon as the Tythes were severed by the Parishioners there they were presently in the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant by the taking of them was a wrong doer and no Action of Accompt for the same lieth against him And upon the like reason was the Case of Monox of London lately adjudged which was That one devised Land to another 1 Len. 266. and died and the Devisee entred and held the Land devised for the space of 20 years and afterwards for a certain cause the Devise was adjudged void and for that he to whom the Land descended brought an Action of Accompt against the Devisee And it was adjudged That the Action did not lie Harper contrary For here the Plaintiff may charge the Defendant as his Proctor and it shall be no Plea for the Defendant to say That he was not his Proctor no more than in an Accompt against one who holdeth as Gardian in Socage it is no plea for him to say that he is not Prochein Amy to the Plaintiff Dyer The Action doth not lie If an Accompt be brought against one as Receiver he ought to be charged with the Receipt of the Mony and an Accompt doth not lie where the party pretends to be Owner as against an Abater or Disseisor but if one claimeth as Bailiff he shall be charged and so it is of Gardian in Socage Latch 8. And it was agreed That if a Disseisor assign another to receive the Rents that the Disseisee cannot have an Accompt against such a Receivor LI. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte That this Case was ruled in the Court of Wards That where Tenant of the King of Lands holden by Knights Service in chief made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died his eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest Son comes of full age that the younger Son should sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate and value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversioner For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffee is in truth a Reversion for the Fee simple was never out of him because there is not any consideration as to that nor any Vse expressed And because Livery shall not be sued by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but he shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession and if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part the whole value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two parts the moiety of the value of a year as of a Reversion LII Oliver Breers Case 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards OLiver Breer who was Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of A. his eldest Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of the said A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the second Son of the said A. c. and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was holden by the Council of the Court of Wards That he should pay for his first Primer Seisin a third part as in possession and two parts as a reversion See the Case before LIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte 1 Roll. 626 This Case was moved to the Iustices in the Court of the Kings Bench A Man had Issue two Daughters by divers Women and being seised of Lands in Fee he made his Will and by the same Devised That his Wife should have the moyety of his Lands for years and that his eldest Daughter at the day of her Marriage should enter into the other moyety his eldest Daughter married and died without Issue And the Question was Whether her Vncle should have that moyety or the fourth part of the whole Land. Catline conceived and said That when the Devise which was made to the eldest Daughter that she might enter after certain years is not the Inheritance in her presently and the other words void So he said here That it is not a purchase in the eldest Daughter but both the Daughters should enter in Common as one Heir to their Father until the Marriage and then the Inheritance which was once settled in them should not be removed Southcote Iustice said There are no words of Limitation of any Estate that the Daughter should have after the Marriage and therefore the Devise was void and if he had limited that the Daughter after Marriage should have it for life the Fee-simple is vested in her before and then she cannot have it for life And he said That if a Lease be made to the eldest Daughter for years by the Father and afterwards
the Land descends to her and her Sister as unto one moyety of the Land the Lease is determined but not as to the other moyety Whiddon Iustice Where a Devise is for the benefit of a stranger there the Heir shall take by the Devise and not by descent As if a Lease be made for years the remainder to the Heir there the Heir shall take the Land by the Devise Catline She hath it be Descent and not by the Devise But if he deviseth the Land to the Heir in tail with this That he shall pay a certain sum of Mony unto another there the Heir shall take by the Devise for the benefit which may accrue to the stranger and not by descent for otherwise the Will should not be performed But where the Estate of the Heir is altered by the Will nor any benefit doth accrue unto another after that the Lands come to the hands of the Heir in that case he shall have the Land by descent And so here in this case for as much as the Devise is That the Daughter shall enter they both being but one Heir to their Father shall have the Land by descent and the words of the Will That he shall enter into the moiety shall be void as if the Devise had been to the Heir for life there the same is void because the Fee-simple which descendeth to her doth drown the particular estate for life And therefore in the principal case here the Vncle shall have but the moyety of the moyety which is so devised and the other Sister shall have the other moyety of the Land and as to that moyety which is devised to the Wife for years the same shall enure according to the Common Law that the Vncle shall have the moyety of that and the other Sister the other moyety LIV. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant A Man Covenants with another to make and execute an estate of such Lands as should descend to him from his Father and Grandfather by a certain day the same Lands to be of the clear yearly value of 40 Marks And the Question which he moved to the Iustices was That if the party had more Lands which came to him from his Grandfather and Father than did amount to the yearly value of 40 Marks If he was to make assurance of all the Lands or of so much thereof only as amounted to the value of 40 Marks And Manwood Iustice conceived That he should make assurance of Lands only which were of the value of 40 Marks per annum For the words such which do not go so largely as if he had said All my Lands which shall descend or to me be descended for then the yearly value were but a demonstration and all his Lands ought to be assured But here the Intent of the Indenture cannot be taken otherwise than to have but an Assurance of so much Land as if he had said Of such Lands and Tenements as were my Grandfathers and Fathers amounting to 40 Marks by the year for there by those words he shall have but 40 Marks by the year Lovelace It hath been taken That where the Queen made a Lease of all her Lands in such a Town amounting to the yearly value of 40 l. that that valuation is not a demonstration and shall not abridge the Grant precedent to have all in the Town which should be of the value of 40 l. but her Grant shall be taken and construed according to the words precedent Manwood The Common case of assurance upon a settlement of Marriage is That he shall stand seised of so much of his Land as shall be of the clear yearly value of 40 Marks If the marriage take effect The Question hath been If they to whom the assurance is made may enter into any part of the Land at their election and take that which is the best Land to the value of 40 Marks per annum and hold the same in severalty or if they shall be only Tenants in Common with the other And also it hath been a Question Whether they may choose one Acre in one place and another Acre in another place and so through the whole Land where they please because the Grant shall be taken strong against him that granteth But I conceive that it should be a hard case to make such Election of Acres But it was said by some Serjeant at the Bar That if a Man granteth to another to take 20 Trees in his Lands that the Grantee may cut down one Tree in one place and another in another place Manwood agreed that Case but of the other Case the Court doubted of it The principal case was adjourned LV. Vernon and Vernons Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte That in the Case of Dower between Vernon and Vernon and the Argument of it the Plaintiff would have been Nonsuit Dyer Iustice said It should be an ill President if a Nonsuit should be after Demurrer And therefore he said That for his part he would not agree that any Nonsuit should be upon it but he said he would be advised and take better Consideration of it If the Nonsuit should be awarded or not And afterwards at another day Manwood and Dyer took a difference where the Nonsuit is the same Term and where in another Term and said It is like unto the Case where a Man would Wage his Law and is present ready to do it that there the Plaintiff cannot be Nonsuit because it is in the same Term but he shall be barred But in another Term afterwards he might be Nonsuit if the Defendant take day over to wage his Law until another Term and so they said it should be in this case LVI Sir Peter Philpots Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved by Meade Serjeant to the Iustices of the Court of Common Pleas viz. That Sir Peter Philpot Knight seised in Fee of divers Mannors and Lands suffered a Recovery and made a Feoffment thereof unto divers persons To the use of himself for life the remainder to his right Heirs And after the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills He devised all his said Mannors and Land to his Wife for life and it was expressed in his Will That he could not devise all his Lands by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. that his Will was That his Wife should have so much which might be devised by the Laws of the Land And there was another Clause in the said Will That his Feoffees should stand seised of the same Mannors and Lands after the death of his Wife To the use of one Hurlock and others for years for the payment of his Debts and for the raising of Portions for the preferment of his Daughters in Marriage And further by his said Will he willed That if the Law would not bear it That Hurlock and the others should have the Interest Then he
willed that his Son should have all his Mannors and Lands and should pay his Debts and should give certain sums of Monies for the Marriage Portions of his Daughters And the Question which was moved to the Court was Whether the first part of his Will That is to say That Hurlock and the others should have his Lands c. were void or not by the later words of his Will Dyer Iustice said That the last words of the Will did well expound the meaning of the first words and that the Will should be performed as it might be And afterwards Harper said That upon this matter Hurlock and the others had had a Decree in the Court of Wards to have the whole Lands during the years and not two parts of the Lands only Dyer Iustice said That the Will of Sir Tho. Umpton which was made mean between the Statutes of 32 H. 8. and 34 H. 8. and which is excepted by the same Statute that it should not be construed in other form than according to the first Statute was Of all his Lands And upon a Demurrer argued It was adjudged That the Will was good of two parts although that by the Will it was not divided For where a Man hath a Warrant to do a thing and he doth it and more so as he exceeds his Warrant yet it is good for that part for which it is warranted and void for the rest As if a Man makes a Warrant of Attorny to make Livery and Seisin of the Mannor of Dale and he makes Livery of the Mannors of Dale and Sale it is good for the Mannor of Dale and void for the Mannor of Sale. The Case was in a Writ of Partition And afterwards the Record was removed by a Writ of Error supposing that this Court had Erred and the Iudgment was affirmed by three of the Iustices of the Kings Bench. But because there was a Discontinuance in the Record which was erronious for that the first Iudgment was reversed but not for any other cause And such was the meaning and intent of the Statute of 32 H. 8. before the making of the Statute of 34 H. 8. of Explanation of Wills. And therefore here in the principal Case it was holden That the Will was good for two parts both to the Wife and also to Hurlock and the others And it was holden That by the Intent of the Will that the Son was to pay such sums of Monies a Hurlock was to have paid so as the Will was not for the advantage of the Heir but to be construed according to the meaning of Philpot That if Hurlock could not have the Lands c. that then the Son should have them but with such charge as aforesaid and it was no Intent to subvert the first part of the Will if the same might stand with the Law. And so it was adjudged LVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this A Man makes a Lease for 30 years More Rep. 94 Post 55. Winch. Rep. 5. and bargains and sells the Woods in and upon the Premisses to the Lessee and that he might carry them off the Lands during the time of 30 years The Lessee cut down all the Woods and afterwards other Wood grew up from the Stocks and the Lessee cut them also within the Term and the Lessor brought an Action of Waste for cutting of the new Wood. And it was moved by Meade Hob. Rep. 132. Serjeant If the Action of Waste would lie or not Harper Iustice Is the Bargain de bosco subbosco growing in and upon the Premisses Meade No but all his Woods in and upon the Premisses Harper The Grant is in the present tense in praesenti so as he cannot have that which shall grow there after And if he would grant all his Woods which should grow in time to come the Grant should not be good because it is not of a thing in esse And if a Man will grant all his Wood growing upon Black-Acre and there be then no Wood he cannot have any thing although that afterwards Woods grow there and if his meaning had been That he should have the Wood which should there after grow he would have expressed the same in another form Mounson If a Man grants all his Hay growing upon his Land Hob. 132. shall he have that which is growing there after No truly And if he grant all the Wooll which is growing upon his Sheep shall he have more than that which groweth this year Meade No truly But if he had granted all the Wooll growing upon the Sheep for 20 years then the same is like to our case for he hath granted that he may carry the Wooll during the 30 years Harper The same is but a Liberty to fell the Trees which where growing at the time of the Sale and to carry them when he pleaseth and not to give other Trees or Wood which should there after grow LVIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace Serjeant moved this Case to the Court That an Assise was brought of the Office of Registership in the County of Devon And he shewed How that the Bishop of Exeter granted the Office and shewed the name of the Bishop And that after William Alley Bishop there granted the same Office after the death of the first Grantee to the Plaintiff And further he shewed That the Bishop might grant the Office ad Idoneam personam And because he doth not say in his Plaint That the person to whom it was granted is idonea persona I conceive that the Plaint is not good for if there be no such person which can exercise the Office he shall not have it For that is a Condition which is annexed to the Office that he be a fit person who shall take it And the Prothonotaries of this place ought to have skill in that which appertaineth to their Office For if such an Office should be given to a Courtier who hath not skill in that which appertaineth to the Office nor knowledge how to execute he shall not have it Also he said That he hath not shewed that the first Bishop is dead or that he hath resigned or whether that he be deprived and therefore it shall be intended that he continueth unless the contrary be shewed And then the Grant made by Alley to the Plaintiff cannot be good And for these causes and for others he prayed to know the Opinion of the Court. Dyer Iustice The matter is not before us and wherefore should we give our Opinions to serve the fancy of every person and to resolve the doubts of every Court But if the matter laid come before by Adjournment for difficulty because the Iustices of Assise are of divers Opinions or that they doubted of any thing upon such difficulty and adjournment we use to shew our Opinions and to take some pains to search our Books to Resolve the doubts but when we have not any thing before us
but are moved for the pleasure of the parties What Resolutions shall we make by speaking at random Manwood As to the first Exception I nor my Brother Jeffery do not doubt of it but that the Plaint was good notwithstanding that it is not shewed that he was idonea persona for the Law shall intend him so to be until the contrary he shewed And so it is of a grant of an Annuity as long as he se bene gesserit the Law shall intend that he carrieth himself well until the contrary be shewed But as to the other Point That he doth not shew the death of the first Bishop my Brother Jeffery doubted of it but I make no doubt of it for that is but a Recital and the Plaintiff makes his title but from Bishop Alley and therefore that is not material nor parcel of his Plaint whether the predecessor of Alley be alive or not for he doth not derive any Title from him but from Alley Dyer Can a Bishop grant an Office in Reversion without title of Prescription that they have used so to do time out of mind And here no Prescription is laid that the Bishop might so do And then as I conceive the Reversion of the Office cannot be granted for there is not any Reversion of it and it is not like unto an Advowson which may be granted that the Grantee may present when it shall be next void And as I conceive No Reversion of any Office can be granted if not by the King who hath a special Prerogative For he reciting how that such an one hath such an Office for life he may grant that such a person shall have the same Office after the death of the first Grantee And so the Queen may grant the Reversion of such an Office as if she recite that such an one is Keeper of such a Park there she may grant the Keepership of it after the death of another But if a Common person will grant the Stewardship of his Courts after the death of such a person as is now Steward or the Reversion of it the same is not good For of Offices there is not any Fee or Reversion But a Nomination which the party hath to name what person he pleaseth when the same shall become void Manwood It is the Order in the Arches and in the Prerogative Court and of all the Courts of Pauls to grant the Offices in Reversion as in the Case of Doctor Drury and others who have the Reversion of every Office which doth belong to the Spiritual Courts Dyer I do not care nor regard what they do but what they ought to do and I do not respect the person of any one in relating the Law But it may be that by words of Covenant such a Covenant may be good And of late time here a Case hath been adjudged That where one prescribed that such an one might grant an Office cuicunque personae idoneae voluerit and the Grant was made to two and because the prescription did not warrant this manner of grant it was adjudged void for when the prescription is to grant alicui personae and not quibuscunque personis by that he cannot grant it but to one person and not unto divers because the prescription doth not extend so far Manwood I conceive there is a difference betwixt such persons who have Offices for life as the Admiral of England the Lord Treasurer the Iustices of the two Benches which have Offices incident to their Courts they cannot grant any of those Offices in Reversion But a Bishop hath a Fee and therefore the Cases are not alike Dyer he hath not prescribed in the person of the Bishop here but he hath said That the Custom is That the Bishop may grant the said Office whereas in truth if there were a prescription he ought to prescribe That the Bishop for the time being might grant the said Office in possession or in reversion And so as I conceive here no Office shall be granted in reversion unless by prescription which ought to be alledged And in the time of this Queen an Office of this Court was granted to Fry and his Son by the King and the Patent was shewed here in Court and rejected and it was said there was no place in Court for two to sit there and the Office might be exercised as well by one as by two and therefore the Patent was disallowed And although that Offices are granted to two as now in the Kings Bench of late time there is not any President to warrant the same and therefore as I conceive such a Grant is not good nor warranted by the Law for I do not regard in this Case against what persons I speak Mounson In the Chancery a Patent was granted to Bagot and Swirenden of an Office in the Chancery by King Henry the 6th and in 9 E. 4. it is is disputed Whether the Grant were good or not c. LIX Mich. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man Mortgageth his Lands to pay to the Mortgagee his Heirs Executors or Assigns a certain sum of Mony at a day certain The Mortgagee dieth and maketh his Heir within age his Executor and the Mortgagor pays the Mony at the day to the Heir It was holden The same shall be Assets in the hands of the Heir as Executor and that he hath not the Mony as Heir and he shall be charged with it within age LX. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this A Man had made a Lease for 40 years to one by Indenture if the Lessee should so long live and afterwards by another Deed he demised the same Lands and Tenements to the same Lessee To have to his Executors and Assigns for 40 years after the expiration of the first Lease And Lovelace Serjeant demanded the Opinion of the Court the Lord Dyer being then in the Star-Chamber Whether in this Case the Lessee should have the Interest in the second Lease or his Executors or whether it was a void Lease Harper Iustice said That in every Lease there are 3 things incident to make it good 1. That there be a Lessor to make the Lease 2. That there be a Lessee to take the Lease And 3. That there be a thing which should be which should be let And then he said That here although that there be a Lessor and a thing which should be leased yet here there was not any Lessee For Executors are not until after the death of the Testator But he said That if a Lease be made for years or for life and that the Executors shall have the same for certain years after his death the same is good for there is an Interest of the Term. And if a Man maketh a Lease to begin at the month of Easter his Executors may have this Term because the same was an Interest of a Term in the Lessee and the Term shall be executed at Easter But here in this
case there is no person to take it and therefore he conceived That the Lease was void Mounson Iustice The Case is as it is recited And he said That the Premisses of a Deed is to limit the person who shall have the Lease and the Habendum shall not declare the person who shall have it or the Lease but to declare the Estate which shall be in the Lease and it is but a limitation of the Estate and if the Premisses do not limit the person who shall have it the Habendum shall not give any thing to the person unless it be expressed in the Premisses what person shall have it and therefore when he saith Habendum to his Executors and Assigns these words Executors and Assigns are void But when a Man makes a Lease to one Habendum to his Executors and Assigns the same is not void for if Livery be made his Heir shall take it after his death Harper By the Lease of the same Land by a new Deed as the Case is here nothing shall pass without an Habendum And if a Lease be made to the Lessee Habendum to his Executors he himself hath no Estate and when no Estate is limited the person in the Premisses gains not any thing and without the Habendum he cannot have any thing Lovelace If I may declare my Opinion This new Lease shall be a Lease in possession as a Confirmation of the first Lease and shall be taken to be a Lease for life and the Habendum shall be void and therefore he prayed the Opinion of Manwood Iustice therein Who said That in every Lease there are 3 Principals as he had said of Lessor Lessee and thing Let And by the Premisses the Lessor and Lessee are expressed and by the Habendum the Interest which the Lessee shall have ought to be set forth and if no Habendum be in the Deed to express any certainty of time the Lessee by the same shall be Tenant of your Opinion Brother Lovelace That the same shall be a Lease for life unless that in the second Deed the words had been That he Leased and Granted by which word Grant it might enure and amount to a Lease for life but if the Deed had been Demise and Grant that cannot be intended for the life of the Lessee And as I have said before by apt words it might enure to a Confirmation and make it a Lease for life but by the Premisses it is not so and by this Deed it is not expressed that the Lessee shall take a Freehold for by the Habendum his mind appeareth to be otherwise by agreement betwixt the parties that his Executors and Assigns should have it for a certain time after his death and that he himself would not have it for he hath sufficiently provided for himself to have if for 40 years if he liveth so long although it cannot be intended that he should live beyond the Term which he hath so as it cannot be taken to be the meaning of the parties that he should have it as a Lease for life and when by the Premisses of the Deed the parties are not named the Habendum shall never bring in a strange person As where a Lease is made to the Husband Habendum to the Wife the Habendum to her is a void because it shall not introduce one who is a stranger to the Premisses of the Deed. And as my Brother Mounson hath said The Office of the Premisses of a Deed is to limit the persons who shall have it and the Office of the Habendum is to limit the Estate of the thing which is granted and therefore when the Habendum is to such a person as was not named in the Premisses of the Deed it is but a Nugation As if he had Leased to J.S. Habendum to the Moon for certain years there the Habendum to that thing is a Nugation and void and therefore then if the words be in the Premisses that he Leaseth to J.S. for 20 years and doth not say that he shall have it for 20 years it shall be intended that the person named in the Premisses shall have it for the Habendum waits upon the Grant before and when he gives an Estate in the Habendum without limiting of the person in it then the person named in the Premisses shall have it and then when he names a strange person who was not named before in the Premisses or which hath no Capacity as the Moon or such like who are not in rerum natura as his Executors of the Lessee or his Assigns these persons or things named in the Habendum are but Nugations and void and then it is like unto the Case where no person is limited in the Habendum And where apt words are there the Law shall construe them strong against the Grantor and therefore the Law couples the Habendum and the Premisses together that the intent of the parties may if by any means it may have a reasonable Construction And therefore if a Man maketh a Lease to two Habendum to one of them and a third person there as to the third person he gets nothing by the Habendum because he was not named in the Premisses and therefore the naming him in the Habendum is but a Nugation And so here the naming of the Executors and Assigns by the Habendum is but a Nugation and so there is no person named in it But I conceive that the Habendum when the years are expressed and the Estate limited by it shall have reference to the person who is named in the Premisses of the Deed and so the Lease shall be good to him to begin after the first Term expired Harper It appeareth that it was the meaning of the parties that he himself would not have any thing but that his Will was That his Executors should have it and the Law shall frame his intent and meaning and shall not subject the Law to his intent and when he doth not so but overthwarts the Law and frames such an Instrument the Law shall be first served and not their meanings when the same doth not agree with the Law. And therefore as to the Case which my Brother Manwood hath put Where no person is named in the Habendum by Construction of Law he who is named in the Premisses shall have it But when the Habendum makes express mention of his intent what person shall have it and another than was named in the Premisses then if those cannot have it the Estate limited shall not be carried over to him who was named in the Premisses And as to the Case put where a Lease is made to two Habendum to one of them and a third person there I well agree That as to the third person it is but a Nugation and the other two who are named with him in the Habendum and have a Capacity to take it shall have it although the other getteth nothing but that is not like to the Case at
former Lease determined And as to the Attornment it was given in Evidence That B. after the notice of the Grant to C. had speech with C. to have a new Lease from him because he had in his Term but 8 years to come but they could not agree upon the price And it was the Opinion of the Iustices That the same was an Attornment because he had admitted the said C. to have power to make to him a new Lease Also the said B. being in Company with one R. and seeing the said C. coming towards him said to the said R. See my Landlord meaning the said C. Bromley Sollicitor The same is no Attornment being spoken to a Stranger Barham contrary Because that C. was present And it was holden to be a good Attornment But if that Attornment was not before that the Bishop was translated to Winchester the Lease should be void And although the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter was before the Attornment so as no Estate was vested in C. yet it was good enough For an assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient be it before or after as it was holden by Catline Southcote and Whiddon But Wray contrary XCI Norwich and Norwich's Case Trin. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HEnry Norwich was bound by Obligation to Symon Norwich upon Condition To stand to the Award of J.S. who awarded That the said Henry should pay to Symon 150 l. at such a day And that the said Henry should find 3 Sureties to be bounden with him to the said Symon for the payment of another sum of Mony to the said Symon In Debt upon this Obligation Henry pleaded As to the 150 l. payment and as to the other point That he was always ready to become bounden c. And as to the finding of Sureties he demanded Iudgment for that as to that the Arbitrament is void See 22 H. 6. 45. 17 E. 4. 5. 21 E. 4. 75. It was holden That in such a case of such Award to find Sureties the Defendant is not to find Sureties but is only to tender his Obligation And of that Opinion was the whole Court Because it was an Act to be done by a stranger to the Award But if the Award had been of an Act to be done to a stranger by him who was party to the Award then the Award had been good But if the stranger will not accept of the Monies awarded his Obligation is saved So if the Award be That one of the parties to the Award shall discontinue a Suit which he hath against another If the Court where the Action is depending will not suffer the discontinuance of it the Award is performed And in the principal Case It was ruled accordingly Note The same day another Case was in the same Court Between Dudley and Mallery The Condition was to perform an Award c. The Defendant pleaded performance of the Award The Plaintiff assigned the breach of the Award in this because the Award was That the Servant of Mallery should pay to the Servant of Dudley 5 l. which the Defendant had not paid It was the Opinion of the Court That the Bond was not forfeited for the Servants utriusque are strangers to the Submission But if the Award had been That Mallery should pay to the Servant of Dudley 5 l. it had been good for that Mallery is a party to the Submission c. XCII Rivers and Pudsey's Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. JOhn Rivers Alderman of London brought a Writ of Accompt against Pudsey who said That at the time c. and now he is the Plaintiffs Apprentice and demanded Iudgment c. And it was holden by Wray Iustice That it is no Plea for although an Apprentice cannot be charged by this Action for ordinary Receipts upon his Masters Trade yet upon collateral Receipts which do not concern the ordinary Trade of his Master he shall be charged as well as another See 8 E. 3. tit Acc. 94. And F.N.B. 119. XCIII Potkins Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation by Potkin The Defendant pleaded That he himself borrowed of one Watson a certain sum of Mony paying for the forbearance thereof excessive Vsury And that the Plaintiff was bound with the said Defendant to the said Watson for the payment thereof and that he himself by this Obligation upon which the Action is brought was bound to the said Plaintiff to save him harmless against the said Watson c. And because that this Bond was a Counter-Bond for the payment of Excessive Vsury c. And it was holden by Manwood That the same was a good Bar for here the Plaintiff when he was impleaded upon the principal Bond might have discharged himself upon this matter and therefore his Lachess shall turn to his prejudice and therefore the Issue was joyned upon the excessive Vsury XCIV Abrahall and Nurse's Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. JOhn Abrahall brought a Writ of Right-Close against John Nurse in the Court of George Earl of Shrewsbury and made protestation to prosecute that Writ in the form and nature of the Writ of the Lady the Queen of Assise of Novel disseisin at the Common-Law and made his Plaint accordingly And afterwards the Assise was taken who spake for the Plaintiff Whereupon Abrahall had Iudgment to recover After which Nurse brought a Writ of False Judgment and assigned Error in this That whereas the said Writ of Right-Close was directed to the Bailiffs of George Earl of Shrewsbury of his Mannor c. that the said Bailiffs should do full Right c. that it appeareth by the Record that the Plea was holden before the Suitors and not before the Bailiffs of George Earl of Shrewsbury For all the Precepts in the Plea aforesaid are Quod sint hic ad proximam Curiam coram Sectatoribus tenend An other Error was in this and false Iudgment was given therein because that the Roll is Praeceptum est Ministro Curiae praedict that he cause to come 12 Free and lawful Men c. videre illud tenementum c. nomina eorum imbreviare c. and the Minister of the Court retorned 12 Recognitors of the Assise aforesaid whereas by the Law of the Land 24 Recognitors in a Plea of Land ought to be retorned But notwithstanding that these Exceptions were taken Yet upon due consideration of the Court notwithstanding these Exceptions the Iudgment was affirmed See the Record Mich. 17 18 Eliz. Rot. 1301. XCV The Master and Scholars of Linckfords Case Hill. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was That the Master and Scholars of Linckford were seised of the Mannor of Haldesley in the Town of Laberhurst which Town extended into the County of Sussex and also in the County of Kent and they made a Lease to one Clifford of all their Lands in the Town of Laberhurst except the Mannor of Haldesley whereas in truth
said That he promised to find meat drink and apparel for the Plaintiff and his Wife for 3 years absque hoc that he promised to find meat and drink for two servants and Pasture for two Geldings The Plaintiff Replicando said That the Defendant did promise to find c. for 3 years next following Vpon which they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That here is no Issue joyned For the Plaintiff hath declared upon a promise to find c. for 3 years when the Plaintiff will that require The Defendant hath pleaded a promise to find apparel meat and drink for the Plaintiff and his Wife for 3 years absque hoc that he promised for two servants and two Geldings and now the Plaintiff Replicando saith That the Defendant assumed for 3 years next following so here is another Assumpsit in the Replication than that whereof the Plaintiff declared and so the Plaintiff hath not joyned Issue upon the Assumpsit traversed by the Defendant and so there is no Issue joyned for the Defendant denyeth the Assumpsit whereof the Plaintiff hath declared And the Plaintiff in his Replication hath affirmed another Assumpsit than that whereof he hath declared and that is not helped by the Statute of Jeofails For it is not a mis-joyning of Issue but a not joyning of Issues and that was holden by the Court to be a material Exception And the Lord Dyer conceived That here is a Departure for the Plaintiff in his Replication hath alledged another promise than that whereof he declared Another Exception was Because that the Plaintiff had not averred in facto that he had married the Daughter of the Defendant but by an Argument Implicative Licet but that Exception was disallowed For that the word Licet is not a bare Implicative but it is an express Averment And so it was said Plow 127. it had been ruled before See 2 Mar. Plow Com. 127 128. Buckley and Thomas Case C. Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Lease for years was upon Condition Dyer 45. 1 Roll. 214. 1 Len. 3. That the Lessee should not grant over the Land at Will or otherwise He devised the same to his Executors who accepted the same only as Executors and not as Devisees And yet it was the Opinion of the Iustices That the Condition was broken Because he had done as much as lay in him to have devised the Land. 2 Roll. 684. 1 Roll. 24. 9 Co. 94. Stiles Rep. 304 305 405. Hutton Rep. 27. Clayton Rep 85. 1 Len. 113. 1 Cro. 126. Owen 94. See 31 H. 8. 45. CI. Hodgson and Maynards Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was said by the Iustices in this Case That if an Executor promiseth to pay a Debt when he hath not Assets no Action upon the Case lyeth against him upon such promise but contrary if he hath Assets And so it was holden That if the Heir hath nothing by descent an Action upon the Case will not lie against him upon such a promise made CII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Co. 3. Inst 1. Stat. 5. Eliz. 2 Len. 12. AN Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury was brought by three and they declared That the Defendant being examined upon his Oath before Commissioners If a Surrender was made at such a Court of such a Mannor of a Copyhold to the use of A. and B. Two of the Defendants swore That no such Surrender was made c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because that the certainty of the Copyhold did not appear upon the Declaration For the Statute is That in that case the party grieved shall have remedy so as it ought to appear in what thing he is grieved Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Another Exception was taken because that the Action in such case is given to the party grieved And it appeareth upon the Declaration That the surrender in the Negative deposing of which the perjury is assigned was made to the use of two of the Plaintiffs only and then the third person is not a party grieved For he claims nothing by the surrender and therefore and because the two parties grieved have joyned with the third person not grieved It was the Opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustices That the Writ should abate CIII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Len. 263. NOte It was said by Dyer and Manwood Iustices If one be condemned in an Action upon the Case or Trespass upon Nihil dicit or Demurrer c. And a Writ issueth to enquire of the Damages and before the Retorn of the Writ the Defendant dyeth The Writ shall not abate for that For the Awarding of the said Writ is a Iudgment And Manwood said In a Writ of Accompt the Defendant is awarded to Accompt And the Defendant doth Accompt and is found in arrearages and dieth The Writ shall not abate but Iudgment shall be given That the Plaintiff shall recover and the Executor shall be charged with the Arrearages and yet Accompt doth not lie against them CIV Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 52. 2 Len. 282. Post 92. IN an Action upon Escape the Plaintiff is Nonsuit It was holden by the Iustices That the Defendant in that case shall not have Costs by the Statute of 23 H. 8. Note The words in the Statute upon any Action upon the Statute for any offence or wrong personal supposed to be done immediately to the Plaintiff Notwithstanding this Action is Quodam modo an Action within the Statute scil by equity of the Statute of Westm 2. which give expresly against the Warden of the Fleet Yet properly it is not an Action upon the Statute for that in the Declaration in such Action no mention is made of the Statute Which see the Book of Entries 169 171. And also here there is not supposed any immediate personal Offence or Wrong to the Plaintiff and an Action upon the Case it is not For then the Writ ought to make mention of the Escape which it doth not here And yet at the Common Law before the Statute of Westm 2. An Action upon the Case lay upon an Escape And so by the opinion of Dyer Manwood Mounson Iustices Costs are not given in this case and Manwood said That upon Nonsuit in an Action upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. The Defendant shall not have Costs 1 Len. 282. For that the same is not a Personal Wrong For the Writ is Disseisivit which is a real tort CV Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon an Obligation to perform certain Covenants in a pair of Indentures The Plaintiff assigned the breach in one of the Covenants scil That the Defendant should do all reparations of such a House demised to him And that he had not repaired but suffered the same to decay To which the Defendant said That the
Plaintiff ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet And the Plaintiff declares That reparavit generally without saying 2 Cro. 404. That ad requisitionem Davidis reparavit And that is not the Reparation intended in the Consideration i. e. reparatio ad requisitionem c. but a Reparation of his own head and at his pleasure And for this Cause the Iudgment was stayed CXXXII Wrennam and Bullman's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 52. 1 Len. 282. WRennam brought an Action upon the Statute of 1 2 Phil. Mar. against Bullman for unlawful impounding of Distresses and was Nonsuit It was moved by Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Defendant should have Costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. And it was Adjudged That he should not And that appears clearly upon the words of the Statute c. for this Action is not conceived upon any matter which is comprised within the said Statute and also the Statute upon which this Action is grounded was made after the said Statute of 23 H. 8. which gives Costs and therefore the said Statute of 23 H. 8. and the remedy of it cannot extend to any action done by 1 2 Phil. Mary And Rhodes Iustice said It was so adjudged in 8 Eliz. CXXXIII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 161. Dyer 291. IN a Formedon of a Mannor The Tenant pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine with J.S. The Demandant averred the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ supposed and upon that it was found and tryed for the Demandant Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this Because where Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to have abated without any Averment by the Demandant against it and the Averment had been received against Law c. Shuttleworth At the Common-Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Deed the Writ should have abated without any Averment but that was remedied by the Statute of 34 E. 1. But Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine doth remain as it was at the Common Law For he hath satis supplicii because by his Plea if it be false he hath by way of Conclusion given the moyety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy And the Law shall never intend that he would so sleightly depart with his Land for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant confesseth himself to be a Villein of a stranger the Writ shall abate without any Averment Free and of Free estate for the Law intends that the Tenant will not inthral himself without cause Wray to the same purpose But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he who levied the Fine was his Disseisor upon whom he hath before entred And if Tenant in Feesimple be impleaded and he saith That he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayeth in Aid of A. the Demandant shall not take Averment That the Tenant at the time of the Writ brought was seised in Fee. Note In this Formedon Ioynt-Tenancy was pleaded but as to parcel And it was holden by Wray and Southcote That the whole Writ should abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants And so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the Land in demand if the thing in demand be an entire thing the Writ shall abate in all In this Writ the Demandant ought to have averred in his Writ an especial foreprise of the Land parcel of the Land in demand whereof the Ioynt-Tenancy by the Fine is pleaded For this dismembring of the Mannor and distraction of the Land of which the Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded is paravail and under the gift whereof the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Mannor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with a foreprise But if A. giveth unto B. a Mannor except 10 Acres in tail there if after upon any Discontinuance the issue in tail is to have a Formedon in such case there needs not any foreprise for the said 10 Acres for they were severed from the Mannor upon the gift But if Lands in demand be several as 20 Acres except 2 Acres this foreprise is not good See Temps E. 1. Fitz. Brief 866. Praecipe c. unam bovatam terrae forprise one Sellion and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Sellion is but a parcel of Land uncertain as to the quantity in some places an Acre in some more in some less Another Point was Because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this Averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ supposeth And the Question was If the Court notwithstanding the Admittance of the Tenant ought without Exception of the party Ex Officio to abate the Writ And it was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice That it should For it is a positive Law As if a Woman bring an Appeal of Murder upon the death of her Brother and the Defendant doth admit it without a Challenge or Exception yet the Court ought to abate the Appeal 10 E. 4. 7. See the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus c. And if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the Common Custom of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named Common Hostler yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex Officio See 11 H. 4. and 38 H. 6. 42. CXXXIV Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his said Wife for her life It was holden in that Case That the Wife was remitted And it is not like Amy Townsends Case Plow Com. 1 2 Phil. and Mar. 111. For in the said Case the Entry of the Wife was not lawful for she was Tenant in tail which Estate was discontinued by the Feoffment of her Husband And Periam Iustice cited a Case Sidenham's Case Bacon seised in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife They both surrendred and took back the Lands to them and a third person And it was holden That the Wife was not presently remitted but after the death of her Husband she might disagree to the Estate CXXXV Harper and Berrisford's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Partition The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ because the Writ is Quare-cum A. teneat c. pro indiviso c 4 mille acras whereas it should be Quatuor Mille acrarum And many Grammarians were cited all which agreed That it was good both ways viz. Mille Acras or Mille Acrarum And Rhodes Iustice said That Cowper in Thesauro suo Linguae Latinae saith Quod Mille fere jungitur Genitivo Ergo non semper Wherefore Anderson with the assent of the other Iustices Ruled
John the Father in three parts to be divided And afterwards the Father by his Will devised the Lands holden in Socage unto his said Wife for life with divers Remainders over It was the Opinion of the Court in this Case that the Devise was utterly void by the Statute CLV Brett and Peagrims Case Pasch 26 Eliz. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas he himself and the Defendant submitted themselves to the Award of A.B. and C.D. and whereas the said Arbitrators upon the hearing of the Causes between them did intend and were resolved amongst other matters of their Award to award that two Obligations by which the Plaintiff was severally bounden to the Defendant for the payment of certain sums of Mony to the Defendant should be delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to be cancelled The Defendant promised in Consideration that that Article of the delivery of the said two Obligations should be left out of the Award that he himself would gratis deliver them to the Plaintiff without any Coertion or direction of the Award and further declared that the said Article ad specialem instantiam ipsius Querentis was left out by the said Arbitrators out of their Award and notwithstanding that that the Defendant had not redelivered ut supra c. but had put the same in suit against the Plaintiff In this Case upon the matter ut supra c. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff CLVI Nich. Lee's Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 26. 1 Len. 285. 1 Inst 113. Dyer 177. 219. a. 2 Len. 220. NIch. Lee by his Will devised his Land to W. his second Son And if he do depart this World not having Issue then I Will my Sons-in-Law shall sell my Land. The Devisor at the time of the Devise having six Sons-in-Law died W. had Issue John and died John died without Issue one of the Sons-in-Law of the Devisor died the five surviving Sons-in-Law sold the Land. 1. It was clearly agreed by the whole Court that although the words of the Will be ut supra If W. my Son depart this World not having Issue c. And that W. hath Issue which dieth without Issue there although it cannot be said Literally that William did depart this World not having Issue yet the intent of the Devisor is not to be restrained to the Letter but Construction shall be made that whensoever W. dieth in Law upon the matter without Issue the same Land shall be subject to sale according to the Authority committed by the Devisor to his Sons-in-Law And now upon the matter W. is dead without Issue As in a Formedon in the Reverter or Remainder although the Donee in tail hath Issue yet if afterwards the Estate tail be spent the Writ shall suppose that the Donee died without Issue a fortiori in the case of a Devise such Construction shall be made As to the other point concerning the sale of the Land Wray demanded if the Sons-in-Law were named in the Will The Clerks answered they were not See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 31 and 39 Ass 17. Fitz. title Executors 117. Such a sale is good in case of Executors See also 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. And see 4 and 5 Mar. Dyer Land devised in tail and if the Devisee shall die without Issue that then the Land shall be sold pro optimo valore by his Executors una cum assensu of A. if A. dieth before sale the power of the Executors is determined And afterwards it was clearly resolved by the whole Court that the sale by the manner aforesaid was good and Iudgment given accordingly CLVII Rag and Bowley's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ERror was brought upon a Fine and the Error was assigned in the Proclamations Whereupon issued a Certiorari to the Custos Brevium who certified the Proclamations by which Certificate it appeared that two of the said Proclamations were made in one day upon which the Defendant prayed another Scire facias to the Chirographer in whose Office it appeared that all the Proclamations were well and duly made It was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice in this Case that the Defendant ought to have his preyer for the Chirographer maketh the Proclamations and he is the principal Officer as to them And the Custos Brevium hath but the abstract of the Proclamations and we may in discretion amend them upon the matter appearing But the other Iustices seemed to be of a contrary Opinion for that the Proclamations being once certified by the Custos Brevium who is the principal Officer we ought not afterwards to resort to the Chirographer who is the inferior Officer And afterwards the Clerks of the Common Pleas were examined of the matter aforesaid by the Iustices of the Kings Bench and they answered according to that which was said by Wray Chief Iustice Wherefore it was awarded by the Court that a new Certiorari be directed to the Chirographer who Certified the Proclamations to be well and duly made And thereupon the Court awarded that the Proclamations in the Office of the Custos Brevium should be amended according to the Proclamations in the Custody and the Office of the Chirographer Note In the same Case before the Writ brought a stranger had brought a Writ of Error against the same Defendant upon the same Fine upon which the transcript of the Fine and Proclamations are removed in Banco and after the Plaintiff is Non-suit Now another who hath Cause may have a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet CLVIII Taverner and Cromwell's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence unto a Iury 3 Cro. 353. containing difficulty and matter in Law it was found viz. that the Bishop of Norwich 10 H. 8. was seised of the Mannor of Northelman in the right of his Bishoprick and at his Court holden within the same Mannor granted parcel of the Demesnes of the said Mannor to one Taverner and his Heirs where of the said Land in truth there was not any Demise by Copy before And so the said Land continued in Copy until 23 H. 8. at which time Taverner committed a forfeiture which being presented the Bishop seised the Land as forfeited and granted the same again by Copy to Taverner in Fee And so from thence it continued in Copy until 8 Eliz. which Interval between 23 H. 8. and 8 Eliz. amounted to 47 years It was the Opinion of the whole Court in this Case that the Continuance for 50 years is requisite to fasten a Customary Condition upon the Land against the Lord. It was also agreed by the Court that although the Original Commencement and that Customary Interest did commence 10 H. 8. ut supra from which time unto 8 Eliz. 60 years passed yet the seisure for a forfeiture which happened 23 H. 8. interrupted utterly the Continuance from the time which might by the Law have perfected the Customary Interest So
and that was 31 years as if I make a Lease during the Term that J. S. hath in the Mannor of D. and J. S. hath 40 years in it now although that J S. surrendreth or forfeiteth it yet he shall hold over but he shall have it for 40 years for my Lease refers to the time and not to the estate In the like manner here G. cannot have the same Term which J. had nor for 31 years after the death of J. but so much of the said 31 years shall be cut off in the interrest of it as J. had enjoyed it and G. shall have as many years as J. hath left and G. shall perform so much of my Will as J. at his death within the Term aforesaid shall not have performed As if I Lease my Land to one until he hath levied 100 l. and if he dieth before that he hath levied it then J. S. shall have such Term for the levying of it the first Lessee levieth 50 l. and dieth J. S. may levy the residue but not the whole And although that the Iury saith that if the Term be extinct then they find for the Defendant although that it be extinct yet they are not to take Conusance what the Law is thereupon but that is the Office of the Iudges As 13 E. 3. the Iury found that the Son was born during the Elopement and so Bastard that Conclusion of the Verdict is not to the purpose but the Court ought to judge upon the premises of the Verdict If upon the birth during the Elopement the party be Bastard or not And afterwards Manwood with the assent of his Companions the Barons Commanded That Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff Which was done accordingly CLX The Bishop of Bristow's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by Manwood Chief Baron in this Case That if a Lease be made for years rendring Rent 1 Cro. 398. More Rep. 891. with Clause of Distress And afterwards the Rent and Reversion are extended upon a Statute or seised into the Kings hands for Debt if the Lessee payeth the Rent according to the Extent the same is not in any danger of the Condition for that now the Lessee is compellable to pay it according to the Extent CLXI Hill. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Queen by her Letters Patents granted to J. S. catalla Utlagatorum Felonum de se within such a Precinct More Rep. 126 127. One who was endebted unto the Queen is felo de se within the Precinct It was the Opinion of all the Barons and so Ruled That notwithstanding the Grant by the said Letters Patents That the Queen should have the Goods for to satisfie her Debt CLXII Tuker and Norton's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was An Infant being in Execution upon a Condemnation in Debt brought a Writ of Error His Father and his Brother was his Bail It was the Opinion of the Iustices That they two only should enter into the Recognizance That the Enfant shall appear and that if the Iudgment be affirmed that they shall pay the Mony and not that they shall render the Body of the Enfant again to Prison for that when once he is discharged of the Execution he shall never be in Execution again CLXIII Marsh and Jones's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 117. IN a Replevin the Case upon the Evidence was That before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to hold of him by the services Solvend post quamlibet vacationem sive alienationem the value of the annual profits of the Lands c. It was holden by the Court That value shall be intended which at the time of the Feoffment was the value and not as it is now improved by success of time CLXIV Annesley and Johnsons's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione Firme upon Evidence the Case was That Roger Wake was seised c. and before 27 H. 8. enfeoffed certain persons to his use c. and they being so seised to the use aforesaid The said Roger by his Will willed That his Feoffees and Executors should found a Chauntry in perpetuity and a Priest there to say Mass pro anim ' c. and that they procure a Licence to alien in Mortmain and also an Incorporation for such Chauntry Priory And that the said Lands should be conveyed to such a Priest c. And also that every such Priest should be School-Master there And that post dictam Cantariam sic fundatam stabilitam the said Priest should say Mass c. Roger Wake died The Feoffees and Executors did not procure any Corporation or Licence to alien in Mortmain nor make any estate to the Chauntry Priest But the appointing a Priest who said Mass according to the Will of the said Roger and was also a School-Master and took the profits of the said Lands as owner of them and died After which one Vere was appointed to be School-Master there but he was meerly a Lay-person and so continued until his death and took the profits of the Land And upon part of the Land he built a House and there dwelt and kept a School And after his death one Curtis was appointed by the Executors to teach there and he was a Lay-man and there taught many years and afterwards he took Orders and became a Priest and said Mass and other Divine Service and continued School-Master also And 26 H. 8. the same was presented for a Chauntry for First-Fruits and first-fruits were paid for it as appeared by a Particular which was shewed in Evidence And also 2 E. 6. it was presented for a Chauntry and the possessions of it seised into the Kings hands And it was much insisted upon That Vere being a meer Lay-man that the same was a forcible Interruption of the Reputation of the Chauntry But it was the Opinion of the whole Court to the contrary And that notwithstanding That no Corporation was obtained yet because that the Priest was appointed by colour of the Will and he said Mass according to the Will although Vere who succeeded him was a meer Lay-man and not a Priest yet afterwards when Curtis came being appointed but a School-Master being also a meer Lay-man yet afterwards when he took upon him Orders and demeaned himself as a Chauntry Priest there ratione institutionis by the Will of Wake which is confirmed by the Certificate and also by the Presentment The first Reputation is revived and the Law shall not construe That Curtis took the profits in the Quality of a School-Master but as a Priest for the Law hath respect to the Will of the said Wake which was the ground of all these proceedings and that although he did not say Mass within 5 years before the Statute of 1 E. 6. And Note That the Certificate of 26 H. 8. was That Rich. Curtis was
And it was found that the Land was Frank-Fee And the sole Question was If by the Reversal of the Fine by the Writ of Disceit without suing a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant should bind him Atkinson It shall not bind the Lessee for years For a Fine may bind in part and in part not as bind one of the Conusees and not the other As. 7 H. 4. 11. a Fine levied of Lands part Ancient Demesne and part at the Common-Law and by a Writ of Disceit the Fine was reversed in part scil as to the Land in Ancient Demesne and stood in force for the Residue See 8 H. 4. 136. And there by the Award of the Court issued a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant And the Iustices would not admit of the Fine without Certificate that the Land is Ancient Demesne notwithstanding that the Defendant had confessed it But as to those which were parties to the Fine the Fine was become void between the parties and he who had the Land before might enter See 8 E. 4. 6. And it would be a great inconvenience if no Scire facias or other Process should be awarded against the Ter-Tenant For he should be dispossessed and dis-enherited without privity or notice of it Whereas upon a Scire facias he might plead matter of discharge in bar of the Writ of Disceit Release c. which see Fitzh Na. Br. 98. and so although that the Fine be reversed yet he may retain the Land. And he resembled the same to the Case of 2 H. 4. 16 17. In a Contra formam Collationis against an Abbot A Scire facias shall issue forth against the Feoffee and by the same reason here in this Case And for the principal matter he conceived That the Fine should be awarded between the parties but not against the Lessee Kingsmill conceived That a Scire facias brought against the parties only was good enough For they were parties to the Disceit and not the Ter-Tenants c. it was Adâ—â—rned CLXXIII Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ERror was brought upon a Iudgment in a Quid juris clamat It was assigned for Error That the Tenant appeared by Attorny which Act he ought not to do in his own proper person if it be not in case of necessity where in such case an Attorny may be received by the King 's Writ and plead matter in bar of the Attornment As if he claim Fee c. or other peremptory matter after which Plea pleaded he may make an Attorny 48 E. 3. 24. 7 H. 4. 69. 21 E. 3. 48. 1 H. 7. 27. Another Error was assigned Because it is not shewed in the Quid juris clamat what estate the Tenant hath Another matter was If the Grantee of the estate of Tenant in tail after possibility of Issue extinct should be driven to Attorn And conceived He should not Because the priviledge passeth with the Grant. See 43 E. 3. 1. Tenant in tail after possibility of Issue extinct Post 241. shall not be driven to Attorn 46 E. 3. 13. 27. therefore neither his Grantee Williams contrary As to the appearance of the Tenant by Attorny because the same is admitted by the Court and the Plaintiff the same is not Error Which see 1 H. 7. 27. by Brian and Conisby 32 H. 6. 22. acc And he conceived That the Grantee should be driven to Attorn For no other person can have the estate of the Tenant in tail after possibility of Issue extinct but the party himself therefore not the priviledge And although he himself be dispunishable of Waste yet his Grantee shall not have such priviledge As if Tenant in Dower or by the Curtesie grant over their estates the Heirs shall have an Action of Waste against the Grantees for Waste done by the Grantees But if the Heir granteth over the Reversion then Waste shall be brought against the Grantees See Fitzh Na. Br. 57. And if two Coparceners be and one taketh Husband and dieth the Husband being Tenant by the Courtesie A Writ of Partitione facienda lieth against him but if he granteth over his estate no Writ of Partition lyeth against the Grantee 27 H. 6. Statham Aid Tenant in tail after possibility c. shall not have Aid but his Grantee shall Clark conceived That the Grantee should not be driven to Attorn If the Tenant in tail grant all his estate the Grantee is dispunishable of Waste So if the Grantee grant it over his Grantee is also dispunishable It was Adjourned CLXXIV Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Hob. Rep. 66. IN Action of Trespass against J.D. for breaking of his Close c. The Defendant pleaded That the Trespass whereof c. was done by the Defendant and one J.S. against which J.S. the Plaintiff at another time had brought an Action of Trespass and Recovered c. and had Execution of the Damages c. Plowden said It was a good Bar for that all is but one Trespass and satisfaction by one of the Trespassors is satisfaction for the other And if the Plaintiff had Released to the other Trespassors the Defendant if he had it in his hand might well plead it Wray conceived it a good Bar For it is but one Trespass and one wrong although in respect of the several persons of the Trespassors there are several Corporeal Acts. Atkinson conceived That the Bar was not good and it is not like the Case of Release for that taketh away the whole Trespass whosoever doth it And this Action may be sued joyntly or severally against the Trespassors and when the joynt suit is Released the several suit is Released Clench If an Action of Trespass be brought against two and they plead several Pleas and afterwards one of them is found guilty by a several Iury That Iury shall assess all the Damages and if the other be afterwards found guilty he shall be subject to the said Damages although he was not party to the said Iury and by the same Reason that he shall be charged with the same Damages by the same Reason he shall have advantage of the satisfaction of them made by his Companion See Br. Trespass 2. CLXXV Hitchcock and Thurland's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Statute brought for taking of Lands to Farm by a Spiritual person 21 H. 8. It was holden That if any such Lease be made at this day to any Spiritual person such a Lease is not void But such a Lease extends to such Leases made before the Feast of St. Michael mentioned in the said Act and not aliened before the said Feast c. And so it was said It was lately adjudged in one Underwood's Case CLXXVI Cutter and Dixwell's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Case brought by Cutter against Dixwell for that the said Defendant had exhibited a Bill to the Iustices of Peace against the Plaintiff containing That the Plaintiff is an Enemy
force of the first assurance by way of Bargain and the Relation is utterly gone So in our Case The Grant of the Queen mean between the Award of the Commission and the Retorn of it hath destroyed the force and effect of the Commission so as no appearance shall be had of it And he agreed That here are several Rents but the Condition is entire and admit that a Condition may be apportioned in some Cases yet in some Cases it cannot And the Statute of 32 H. 8. gives the Condition and the Reversion to which it is annexed to the King in such sort as it was in the Prior But the Condition in the Prior was not capable of Apportionment and therefore no more it shall be in the Case of the King. As where a Recognizance is acknowledged whicâ— cometh to the King by the Attainder of the Conusee Now if the King will sue Execution upon it he shall not have the whole Land of the Conusor in Execution but only the moyety by Elegit c. This Case afterward Trin. 28 Eliz. for Difficulty was adjourned into the Exchequer-Chamber and there argued before all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchequer And Shuttleworth Serjant argued for the Plaintiff And first he said Here are several Rents and so several Conditions especially when all the things demised are of such a Nature that they may yield a Distress but if any of the things demised cannot yield Distress then it shall be one entire Rent and shall issue out of the Residue c. Which see 17 Ass 10. An Assise was brought of 20 s. Rent and the said Rent was reserved upon a Lease for life made of 100 Acres of Lands and 15 Acres of Wood scil for the Land 10 s. and for the Woods 10 s. And by the Assise it was found the Disseisin in the Wood but not in the Land. Wherefore it was awarded That the Plaintiff should recover seisin of the 10 s. and for the residue that he should take nothing And although these words reddendo inde Trench unto all the things demised entirely yet this word viz. is a distributive and makes an Apportionment And the viz. is not contrary to the premisses scil to the reddendo inde As if I enfeoffe A. and B. of an Acre of Land Habendum the one moyety thereof to A. in Fee and the other moyety to B. in Fee this is good for it well stands with the premisses But if I enfeoffe A. and B. of two Acres of Lands Habendum the one Acre to A. and the other to B. the same Habendum is void because contrary to the premisses for each of them is excluded out of one Acre which was given to him in the premisses And in our Case If the Rent set forth in the Viz. had been greater or less than that which is reserved upon the Reddendo then the Viz. should be void for the contrariety and the Reddendo stand Walmesley contrary And that here is one entire Rent Which see to be so by the close of the Condition Si Redditus praedict ' aut aliqua inde parcella c. And the Lessor may distrain in any part of the Land demised for the whole Rent notwithstanding the Viz. And it was moved by Shuttleworth That admit the Rent and Condition be entire Yet now when the King grants the Reversion of one of the things demised in Fee to a stranger the Condition remains and not determined by the destruction of the Reversion as in the case of a Subject For the King hath divers Prerogatives by which he is exempted and protected from such Mischiefs and Inconveniences which happen to Subjects by their own Acts and their Laches and Folly which shall not be imputed to the King And the reason of Extinguishment of a Condition in such case in the case of a Common person is his own Folly that he will distrahere his Reversion And Folly shall never be imputed to the King And as the Case is here the King is not bound to take notice of a Condition made by a Common â—erson For it is not matter of Record and by this Grant of the King the Rent doth not pass for the Grant is only of the Reversion without any mention of the Rent And the King hath divers Prerogatives in a Condition As in the creating of a Condition 35 H. 6. 38. The Abbot of Sion's Case Ad effectum is a good Condition in the Case of the King by Prison And where the King grants Lands in Fee to one upon Condition That the Grantee shall not alien the same is a good condition So for a Rent-Seck the King may distrain And the King may reserve a Rent and a Condition to a stranger and if he doth reserve a Rent and a Condition to himself he may grant the same over to a Subject 2 H. 7. 8. And the Condition in the case of a Common person may be apportioned As if Lessee of two Acres upon Condition alien one of them in Fee and the Lessor entreth for the forfeiture or recovereth part in an Action of Waste c. but of a surrender it is otherwise Walmesley contrary The Condition is gone For a Condition in the hands of the King is of the same Nature as in the case of a common person impatient of any Division Partition or Apportionment As if the King hath a Rent out of 3 Acres of Land and afterwards purchaseth one of them the Rent is utterly gone and shall not be apportioned as well as in the Case of a common person So of a Common And as this Case is If the Condition doth remain then upon the breach of it the King shall enter into the whole for the words of the Condition are Wholly to re-enter and so he should defeat his own grant And he cited a Case adjudged at the Assizes at York The King gave Land in Fee-Farm rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry The King granteth the Rent over to a stranger And after the Rent is behind The King cannot re-enter nor the Grantee It was also moved If the Iurors of Middlesex might enquire of the usual Feast days in London Shuttleworth That they might do so See 5 H. 5. 23. Where a Commission issued out to enquire in the County of Surrey of Escheats words c. who found that A. held of the King in Chief and took to Wife one E. Cosen of A. within the Degrees they then knowing of it and had Issue betwixt them and afterwards they were Divorced in the County of Kent c. And Exception was taken to that Office Because the Enquest of Surry had found a Divorce in the County of Kent Another matter was Because the Iurors have found the breach of the Condition And before the Iurors had put their Hands and Seals to the Inquisition the Queen granted part of the things demised in his hands to Fortescue After which Grant the Inquisition was sealed and Retorned into the Exchequer If
now the Grant to Fortescue be good or not Vide inde Dyer 2 Eliz. 17. Vpon a Writ of Mandamus The Escheator charged the Enquest who were agreed of their Verdict and delivered the same in Paper to the Escheator And before the engrossing sealing and delivery of it came a Supersedeas And it was Resolved by all the Iustices That before the engrossing indenting and sealing it was no Verdict See this Case Reported in Cook 5. Part 54. CLXXIX Nelson's Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass brought by Nelson chief Preignothory of the Court of Common Pleas the Case was That the Abbot of D. was seised of a Common out of the Lands of the Abby of S. as appendant unto certain Lands of the said Abby of D. And afterwards the said Houses were dissolved and the possessions of them given to the King by Act of Parliament to have and hold in as large and ample manner and form as the late Abbots c. After which the King so being seised granted the said possessions of the said Abby of D. to A. and the possessions of the said Abby of S. to B. It was argued That the Common notwithstanding the unity of possession did continue For unity of possession is so qualified and restrained by the Statute by the words aforesaid and also by the words in the state and condition as they now be And the Abbot of D. was seised in the right of his House of the said Common Therefore so also shall be the King and his Patentees and so a special seisin is given to the King. Rhodes Windham and Anderson Iustices to the contrary And the said words in the said Statute are to be construed according to the Law and no further And by the Law the said Common cannot stand against the Vnity of possession CLXXX Leonard's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 192. 2 Roll. 787. LEonard Custos Brevium brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close The Defendant pleaded That William Heydon was seised and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeffa pas they were at Issue And it was found by Special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased to the Defendant for years and afterwards made a Charter of Feoffment to him by these words Dedi Concessi with a Warrant of Attorny in it and delivered the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same to him who was made Attorny in the said Deed who made Livery accordingly It was moved by the Plaintiff's Counsel That here is not any Feoffment found but only a Confirmation For as soon as the Charter was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave it its operation to that effect to vest the Fee in the Lessee by way of Confirmation See Litt. 532. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here the Lessee hath liberty how and by what Conveyance he shall be adjudged seised of the Land either by Feoffment or by Confirmation And it appeareth here That when the Lessee delivered the Charter to the Attorny And also when the Lessee accepted Livery from the Attorny he declared his meaning to be That he would take by the Livery And the Lord Anderson said That if Tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter-Feoffment with a Warranty of Attorny and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorny who makes Livery accordingly the same is a good Feoffment and so a Discontinuance And after many Motions the Court awarded That the Plaintiff should be barred CLXXXI Palmer and Waddington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Palmer brought an Action upon the Case against Anthony Waddington And Declared That Henry Waddington Brother of the Defendant was endebted to the said Plaintiff in 20 l. Et jacens in extremis mortem indies expectans vocavit ad se dict Anthonium quem executorem Testamenti ultimae voluntatis Constituisset eum rogans ut dictas 20 Libras praefato Richardo infra spacium duorum Mensium mortem suam proxime sequend numeraret solveret Et dictus Anthonius in Consideratione inde super se assumpsit c. And all the matter aforesaid was found by Verdict upon Non Assumpsit pleaded And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Declaration was insufficient because there is not any good Consideration set forth in it for it is not said That in Consideration that the said Henry made the Defendant his Executor c. CLXXXII Stransham and Collington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Plaintiff sued in the Spiritual Court for Tythes against the Defendant within the Parish of C. The Defendant said 1 Cro. 128. That the Tythes are within the Parish of A. and the Parson of A. came in pro interesse suo and thereupon they proceeded to sentence and that was given against Stransham who now sued a Prohibition And the Question was If within such a Parish or such a Parish be tryable by the Law of the Land or by the Law of the Church Wray Chief Iustice said It hath been taken That it is tryable by our Law. Fenner The Pope hath not distinguished Parishes but hath Ordained That Tythes shall be paid within the Parish CLXXXIII Higham's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 226. More Rep. 221. 1 Cro. 15. IT was found by Special Verdict That Thomas Higham was seised of 100 Acres of Lands called Jacks usually occupied with a House And that he Leased the said House and 40 Acres of the said 100 Acres to J.S. for life and made his Will by which he devised the said House and all his Lands called Jacks then in the Occupation of J.S. to his Wife for life and that after the decease of his Wife the Remainder thereof and of all his other Lands appertaining to Jacks to Richard his second Son c. It was said by Meade That the Wife should not have by Implication the Residue of Jacks for that she hath an express estate in the House and 40 Acres of the Land and her Husband having expressed his Will as to that his Will shall not be construed by Implication to pass other Lands to the Wife And it was said by him That it had been adjudged in the Case between Tracy and Glover That if Lands be devised to one and to his Heirs and if he dieth without Heir of his body 1 Roll. 839. that then the Land shall remain over that in such case the Donee hath but an Estate in tail to him and the Heirs males of his body And it was then also said by Anderson Chief Iustice That in the time of Sir Anthony Brown it was holden That if a Man be seised of two Acres of Land and devised one of them to his Wife for life and that J.S. shall have the other Acre after the death of his Wife that the Wife
for the variance is in a thing which is matter of surplusage and so much the rather because the said A. had not another House in D. c. CLXXXVI Lucas and Picroft's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was That an Assise of Novel Disseisin was brought in the County of Northampton of two Acres of Lands 2 Len. 41. and as to one Acre the Tenant pleaded a plea tryable in a Forreign County Vpon which the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and from thence into the forreign County Where by Nisi prius It was found for the Plaintiff and now in the Common Pleas Snag Serjeant prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff and cited the Book 16 H. 7. 12. Where an Assise is adjourned into the Common Pleas for difficulty of the Verdict they there may give Iudgment But all the Court held the contrary For here is another Acre of which the Title is yet to be tryed before the Iustices of Assise before the tryal of which no Iudgment shall be given for the Acre of which the Title is found And the Assise is properly depending before the Iustices of Assise before whom the Plaintiff may discontinue his Assise And it is not like to the Cases of 6 E. 4. and 8 Ass 15. Where in an Assise a Release was pleaded dated in a forreign County which was denyed Wherefore the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and there found by Enquest not the Deed of the Plaintiff's Now if the Plaintiff will release his Damages he shall have Iudgment of the Freehold presently But in our Case parcel of the Land put in View remains not tryed which the Plaintiff cannot release as he may his Damages 2 Len. 199. and therefore the Court remanded the Verdict to the Iustices of Assise CLXXXVII Hare and Mellers Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 163. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Phillip Mellers and declared That the Defendant had exhibited unto the Queen a slanderous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Cosening And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. In this Case it was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any Cause of Action For the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort unto her ad faciendam Querimoniam But if a subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter therein comprehended to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is good cause of Action And that was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter recovered And as to the words themselves It was the Opinion of the Court That they are not actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff hath used perjury forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means not known to the Plaintiff And in such case it is true That the Plaintiff hath recovered by forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he cannot recover for he cannot be sworn in his own Cause It was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLXXXVIII Moore and the Bishop of Norwich's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit by Moor against the Bishop of Norwich c. It was found for the Plaintiff and thereupon issued forth a Writ to the Bishop which was not retorned Vpon which an Alias issued forth Vpon which the Bishop retorned That after Iudgment given in the Quare Impedit the same Incumbent against whom the Action was brought was Presented Instituted and Inducted into the same Church and so the Church is full c. And if that was a good retorn It was oftentimes debated Windham cited the Case L. 5 E. 4. 115 116. A Quare Impedit against Parson Patron and Ordinary and pendant the Writ the Parson resigned and the Ordinary gave notice of it to the Patron and afterwards by Lapse the Ordinary presented the same Incumbent who resigned And afterwards the Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit had Iudgment to recovers And it was holden Because the same Incumbent is now in by a new title scil by Lapse and the same person against whom the recovery was had and that appeared to the Court he should be removed See 9 Eliz. Dyer 260. and 21 Eliz. Dyer 364. And it was said by the Lord Anderson What person soever is presented and admitted after the Action brought unless it be that the title of the Patron be paramount the title of the Plaintiff upon such Recovery he shall be removed And so in the principal case It was adjudged That the Retorn of the Bishop was not good Wherefore he was fined 10 l. and a Sicut alias awarded upon pain of 100 l. CLXXXIX Parret and Doctor Matthews Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Praemunire was brought and prosecuted by the Queens Attorny General and Parret 1 Len. 292. against Doctor Matthews Dean of Christ-Church in Oxford and others for that they procured the said Parret to be sued in the City of Oxford before the Commissary there in an Action of Trespass by Libel according to the Ecclesiastical Law In which Suit Parret pleaded his Freehold and so to the Iurisdiction of the Court and yet they proceeded there and Parret was Condemned and Imprisoned And afterward the said Suit depending the Queens Attorny withdrew his Suit for the Queen It was now moved to the Court If notwithstanding that the party Informer might proceed in his suit there See 7 E. 4. 2. the King shall have Praemunire and the party grieved his Action See Br. Praemunire 13. for by Brook None can have Praemunire but the King. Cook There is a President in the Book of Entries 427. In a Praemunire the words are Ad respondendum tam Domino Regi quam R F. and that upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. And see ibid. 429. tam Domino Regi de Contemptu praedict quam dicto A.B. de Damnis But it was holden by the whole Court That if the Queens Attorny will not ulterius prosequi the party grieved cannot maintain that Suit For the principal matter in the Praemunire is the Conviction and the putting of the party out of the Kings protection and the damages are but accessary and then the Principal being Released the damages are gone And it was also holden That the Presidents in the Book of Entries are not to be regarded For there is not any Iudgment upon any of the pleadings there CXC Archeboll and Borrell's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARcheboll brought an Action upon the Case against Borrell and declared That the Defendant had procured one L. to bring an Appeal of the death of J.S. against
here it is found That she clearly departed out of London but they have not found that she dwelt in the Country c. but only that she went to Melton but she ought to do doth before her Estate shall cease It was argued by Towse for the Plaintiff That the Defendant ought to be found guilty of the Ejectment For it is found That the Defendant entred before the Commandment of Anne but they have not found that Anne was alive Fenner Iustice the same is well enough and so it was holden 18 Eliz. in this Court for although her life be not found yet it shall be intended that she was alive For the Iury did not doubt of it and the Conclusion of the Verdict is That if it shall seem to the Court that his Entry is lawful Then the Defendant is not guilty So as the doubt of the Iury is only upon that point Which Wray concessit Gawdy Iustice If one Deviseth Land to one for life upon Condition That his Estate shall cease which is all one with the Case at Bar and after the breach of the Condition he continueth in possessions he is not Tenant for life but Tenant at sufferance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant for the life of another continues in possession after the death of Cestuy que vie he hath not any Freehold remaining in him for if he dieth nothing descends And so it was lately adjudged by all the Iustices of England upon a Conference had between them And the Book of 18 E. 4. is not Law. Which Gawdy Iustice concessit See 35 H. 8. 57. acc And he said That the same shall be as a Limitation by which the Estate shall cease without an Entry And here in this Case because they have not found That Anne had dwelt in the Country here is no breach of the Condition in the Case And afterwards by the Advice of the whole Court Iudgment was given for the Defendant Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCV Cadee and Oliver's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione Firmae by Cadee against Oliver 1 Cro. 152. Roll. Tit. Grant. 48. of a House in Holborn c. The Case was The Lord Mountjoy and the Lady Katherine his Wife seised of the said House and of other Lands in Fee in the right of the Wife 6 Eliz. acknowledged a Statute-Staple of 1200 l. to Sir Lyonel Ducket Afterwards 9 Eliz. the said Lord Mountjoy and his said Wife Leased the said House to Hoskins for 21 years And afterwards by Indenture 11 Eliz. they Leased the same to Sir Tho. Cotton for 99 years to begin at Michaelmas last past 12 Eliz. Sir Lyonel Ducket extended his Statute and the Land extended was delivered to him at 53 l. 7 s. per annum who held the same until 22 Eliz. Anno 23 Eliz. the Lord Mountjoy and his Wife levied a Fine to Perry to the use of Perry and his Heirs 27 Eliz. Sir Thomas Cotton not being upon the Land granted omnia tunc bona catalla sua to Robert Cotton his Son 28 Eliz. the Lady Mountjoy died Mich. 29 Eliz. the Lease to Hoskins expired Perry entred and Leased the House to Oliver the Defendant for 21 years And afterwards Robert Cotton entred and Leased the House c. to the Plaintiff It was first moved by Brantingham and argued by him If this Lease for 99 years which was made to begin after the Lease made to Hoskins should pass to Robert Cotton by the words aforesaid But the Court eased him from arguing of that point for it was holden That it passed notwithstanding the word tunc 1 Cro. 386. Another matter argued by him was because at the time of the Grant the Lands were in extent and so the said Sir Thomas Cotton had but a possibility If therefore the said Grant made during the Extent was good And he argued That it was for it is more than a bare possibility for it is an Interest vested And in some Cases a possibility may be granted As 19 H. 6. 2. The King granted to a Prior That when any Tenth is granted to the King by the Clergy his House shall be discharged of it c. And 19 E. 2. Avowry 224. The Lord grants to his Tenant That if he dieth his Heir within age that such Heir shall not be in Ward So 21 E. 4. 44. A Grant unto an Abbot to be discharged of the Collectorship of Tenths when it shall be granted by the Clergy It hath been Objected That the Term for 99 years is suspended therefore it cannot be granted during the suspension But the same is not so for a thing suspended may be granted As 15 Eliz. Dyer 319. Husband and Wife Ioynt-Tenants of Lands in Fee The Queen having a Rent out of it in Fee giveth the Rent to the Husband and his Heirs now the Husband Deviseth the said Rent and dieth the same is good a Devise notwithstanding the suspension And he cited the Cases 16 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 22. And 20 E. 3. ibid. 31. A Lease is made to one for life and if he dieth within 20 years that his Executors and Assigns shall hold the Land until the expiration of the 20 years the said Interest may be granted Which Wray Chief Iustice denyed See Gravenors Case 3 4 Ma. Dyer 150. such Interest is void It was further moved by him and argued If the Conusee of the Fine might avoid the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotten And he said He could not for he is in under the Lessors So is 34 E. 1. Recovery in value 36. see the Case there And here although the Wife after the death of her Husband may affirm or disaffirm the Lease at her Election yet this Election is not transferred to the Conusee by the Fine but the Conusee shall be bound by the Fine See 33 H. 8. Dyer 51. As Tenant in tail makes a Lease for years not warranted by the Statute and dieth the Issue alieneth the Land by Fine before affirmation or disaffirmation of the Lease by acceptance or Entry the Conusee cannot avoid this Lease for the Liberty is not transferred Which Gawdy Iustice concessit And Election cannot be transferred over to the prejudice of another person As if a Rent de novo be granted to the Father in Fee who dieth before Election the Heir cannot make it an Annuity to defeat the Dower of the Wife quod Curia concessit It was also moved by Brantingham If the Lessee might enter upon the Conusee of the Statute after his Extent expired without suing forth a Scire facias But the Court discharged him from arguing that Point for that by the Death of the Lady Mountjoy the Extent was void and therefore the Feoffee or Conusee might avoid it by Entry And so Wray Chief Iustice said it had been adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas. At another day the Case was argued by Stephens on the part of
of the said Lands A. brought an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded That before the day of payment the Plaintiff put the said B. out of his Farm It was moved by Godfrey That the same is no plea For this is a Collateral sum and not for Rent issuing out of the Land Also the Defendant is a stranger to the Contract for the Farm. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary For the Defendant hath Covenanted That the Lessee shall pay for the said Farm and Occupation 40 l. so as it is as a Conditional Covenant and here is Quid pro quo and here the Consideration upon which the Covenant is conceived scil the Farm and the Occupation of it is taken away by the Act of the Plaintiff himself and therefore the plea is good and the Action will not lie CCVII. The Archbishop of York and Morton's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Archbishop of York recovered in an Assise of Novel Disseisio against one Morton before the Iustices of Assise 1 Len. 55. upon which Iudgment Morton brought a Writ of Error retornable before the Iustices of the Common Pleas And after many Motions at the Bar it was adjudged That a Writ of Error upon such Iudgment doth not lie in the said Court. Which see 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. See also N. B. 22. e. That upon Erroneous Iudgment given in the King Bench in Ireland Error shall be in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. And Fenner who was of Counsel with the Archbishop demanded of the Court How and in what manner the Record shall be sent back to the Iustices of Assise so as the said Archbishop might have Execution To which the Court answered That the surest way is to have a Certiorari out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by a Mittimus to the Iustices of Assise But Fenner made a doubt to take such Course for such remanding Then Anderson Chief Iustice said Sue Execution out of the said Record for in as much as the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall also be removed and sent back by Writ And so it was done CCVIII The Queen and Hurleston's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 194. THe Queen brought a Scire facias against Hurleston to Repeal a Patent made to him of the Constableship of Chester and Iudgment was given for the Queen And now Hurleston brought a Writ of Error against the Queen in the Kings Bench. And it was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the Writ did not lie for the manner for that he ought first to have sued to the Queen by Petition See 22 E. 3. 3. 23 E. 3. Fitz. Error 9. If the King recover by an Erronious Iudgment a Writ of Error cannot be granted upon such a Recovery sine gratia Regis speciali And he said That in Chester they have Courts of Common Pleas Kings Bench Exchequer and Chancery And that if Iudgment Erronious be given in the Chancery at Westminster It cannot be reversed but by Parliament and so it is of an Erronious Iudgment given in the Chancery at Chester Also he said They have a Custom in London That within one month they may reverse their own Iudgment See 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. Erronious Iudgment given in the 5 Ports cannot be reversed in the King Bench but it is reversable in the Court of the Guardian of the 5 Ports Clench Here both the parties claim by the Queen therefore there needeth no Petition for valeat quantum valere poterit it is no prejudice to the Queen Cook There needs no Petition here for the Attorny General hath subscribed our Writ of Error Egerton Sollicitor General It was the Case of Eliz. Mordant who was to reverse a Fine levied during her Nonage and the proceedings were stayed because she had not sued to the Qeen by Petition See the Case of 24 E. 3. 35. the Case of William de Ingularby who sued to reverse a Iudgment given against him in a Writ of Conspiracy in the Eyre of Derby and there it was said by Thorp Iustice That he must first sue to the King by Petition Wray An Outlawry may be reversed by bringing a Writ of Error without suing Petition to the King. CCIX. Beckwith's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 19. ROger Beckwich by Indenture Tripartite between him of the first part William Vavasour Frances Slingsby and Elizabeth Sister of Roger of the second part George Harvey and Frances Wife of the said George the said Frances being another of the Sisters of the said Roger of the third part Covenant with the aforesaid William Vavasour and Frances Vavasour his Daughter and with the aforesaid George and Frances cum quolibet qualibet eorum That the said Roger at the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture was lawfully and solely seised of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in the County of York discharged of all Incumbrances Francis Vavasour took to Wife Frances Slingsby And Note That by the same Indenture Roger Beckwith Conveyed the said Rectory to the said Francis Vavasour Francis Slingsby and Frances his Wife brought an Action of Covenant against the said Roger Beckwith and assigned the Breach in this That the said Roger was not seised of the said Rectory And Note That the Plaintiff declared of an Indenture bearing date at the Castle of York And upon the breach of the Covenant they were at Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and damages assessed and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff And Note That the Venire facias was de Vicineto Castri de York And upon that Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer upon the new Statute and Error was assigned because all the Covenanters ought to have joyned in the Action of Covenant notwithstanding those words cum quolibet cum qualibet which words do not make the Covenant to be several And for that cause the Iudgment was Reversed Another Error was assigned because the Issue is not well and duly tryed For the Issue is upon the seisin of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in which case the Venire facias ought to have been de Vicineto de Aldingfleet And of that Opinion was Manwood and Anderson Iustices CCX Young and Ashburnsham's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Debt brought by the Administrators of Young against Ashburnham The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Enquest was taken by default And upon the Evidence given for the Plaintiff the Case appeared to be this That the said Young was an Innholder in a great Town in the County of Sussex where the Sessions used to be holden And that the Defendant was a Gentleman of Quality in the Country there And he in going to the Sessions used to lodge in the house of the said Young and there took his lodging
and his diet for himself his servants and horses Vpon which the Debt in demand grew but the said Young was not at any price in certain with the Defendant nor was there ever any agreement made betwixt them for the same It was said by Anderson Chief Iustice That upon that matter an Action of Debt did not lie And therefore afterwards the Iury gave a Verdict for the Defendant CCXI. Heidon and Ibgrave's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 148. A Writ of Right was brought by Heidon against Ibgrave and he demanded the third part of 40 Acres of Land in the County of Hertford and they were at Issue upon the meer Right Vpon which the Grand Assise appeared And first the 4 Knights were specially sworn to say upon their Oath Whether the Tenant hath better right to hold the Land than the Demandant to demand it And afterwards the rest of the Iurors were sworn generally as in other Actions And there was some doubt made Whether the Demandant or the Tenant should first begin to give Evidence And at the last it was Ruled by the Court That the Tenant should begin because he is in the affirmative And it was said by Periam Iustice That so it was late adjudged in the Case betwixt Noell and Watts And upon the Evidence the Case was That King Hen. the 8th by his Letters Patents gave to the Demandant the Mannor of New-Hall and all the Lands in the Tenure and Occupation of John Whitton before demised to Johnson and in the Parish of Watford And the truth was That the said 40 Acres whereof now the third part was in demand were in the Occupation of the said John Whitton but were never demised to Johnson nor in the Parish of Watford And by the clear Opinion of the Court the said 40 Acres did not pass for the circumstances of the Deed are not true scil the Demise to Johnson and the being in the Parish of Watford but both were false But if the said Land had had an especial name in the Letters Patents then it had been well enough notwithstanding the misprision in the rest And by Anderson If upon the particular it had appeared that the Demandant had paid his Mony for the said 40 Acres peradventure they had passed CCXII. The Dean of Gloucester's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Dean and Chapter of Gloucester brough a Writ of Partition against the Bishop of Gloucester upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Partition And it was moved That upon the words of the Statute that the Action did not lie in this Case for the Statute doth not extend but to Estates in Ioynt-Tenancy or in Common of Lands whereof such Ioynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common are seised in their own right And also it is further said That every such Ioynt-Tenant or Tenant in Common and their Heirs shall have Aid to deraign the warranty without speaking of the word Successors And by Periam and Windham Iustices The Writ doth not lie But Anderson seemed to be of a contrary Opinion CCXIII. Hare and Meller's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Philip Meller and declared Ante 138. That the said Defendant had exhibited to the Queen a scandalous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the said Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Forswearing and Cosenage And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. It was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any cause of Action for the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort to her to make their complaints But if a Subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter comprised in it to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is a good cause of Action And so was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter did recover And as to the words themselves It seemeth to the Court That they are not Actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff had used Perjury Forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means the Plaintiff not knowing it and in such case the Plaintiff hath recovered by Forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he could not recover for he could not be sworn in his own Cause And Stanhops Case was remembred by the Court which was That Edward Stanhop of Grays-Inn brought an Action upon the Case against one who had Reported That the said Edward Stanhop had gained his Living by swearing and forswearing And by the Opinion of the Court The Action did not lie for those words do not set forth any actual forswearing in the person of the Plaintiff but it might be in an Action depending between the Plaintiff and a stranger that another stranger produced as a Witness had made a false Oath without any procurement or practice of the Plaintiff in which Case it might be that the Plaintiff had gained by such swearing CCXIV. Cheverton's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Cheverton brought a Quare Impedit and Counted That he was seised of the moyety of the Church of D. that is to say To present qualibet prima vice and that J.S. is seised of the other moyety that is to say To present qualibet secunda vice c. And Exception was taken to the Count Because it was not shewed how the special Interest did begin scil by Prescription Composition or otherwise for it is clearly against common Right and therefore that ought to be shewed See Dyer 13 Eliz. 229. CCXV Edmond's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case against Edmonds the Case was That the Defendant being within age requested the Plaintiff to be bounden for him to another for the payment of 30 l. which he was to borrow for his own use to which the Plaintiff agreed and was bounden ut supra Afterwards the Plaintiff was sued for the said Debt and paid it And afterwards when the Defendant came of full age the Plaintiff put him in mind of the matter aforesaid and prayed him that he might not be damnified so to pay 30 l. it being the Defendant's Debt Whereupon the Defendant promised to pay the Debt again to the Plaintiff Vpon which promise the Action was brought And it was holden by the Court That although here was no present consideration upon which the Assumpsit could arise yet the Court was clear That upon the whole matter the Action did lie and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXVI Farrington and Fleetwood.'s Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer BEtween Farrington and Fleetwood the Case was upon the Stat. of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries 2
and have day to plead CCXX Dicksey and Spencer's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case between Dicksey and Spencer see H. 29 Eliz. Notwithstanding the Opinion of the Court of Common Pleas The Mayor and Aldermen of London reversed the Iudgment given in an Assise of Freshforce Vpon which Dicksey sued a Commission directed to Anderson Manwood and Periam to examine the said Iudgment ad errorem corrigendum And the Case was often Argued The principal matter was That Lessee for years in an Action of Debt brought against him for the Rent reserved claimed Fee by bargain and sale of his Lessor the which bargain and sale the Plaintiff traversed And it was argued Because this bargain and sale was traversed there was not any forfeiture in the Case for upon that both parties are at large As in a Praecipe quod reddat The Tenant disclaims and the Demandant avers him Tenant he shall not enter for that Disclaimer But all the three Iustices were clear of Opinion That notwithstanding the Traverse it is a forfeiture for the very claim is a forfeiture which cannot be saved by matter subsequent See 9 H. 5. 14. If Tenant for life be impleaded in a Writ of Right and joyns the Mise upon the meer Right it is a forfeiture Another Error was assigned Because where it is found that both the Defendants Disseisiverunt the Plaintiff but Spencer only with force and the Iudgment in the Assise of Freshforce was that ambo Capiantur where no force is found in Clark one of them yet such a Iudgment is good enough For the Assise have found a Ioynt Disseisin and that Clark was present at the said Force and then he particeps Criminis And of that Opinion were all the 3 Iustices And it way Objected That forasmuch as Clark is Convicted of force upon the matter for both ought to be taken therefore the Damages ought to be trebled against both And the Court was in some doubt of that But clearly the Incrementum shall be trebled as well as the Damages taxed by the Assise And after many Arguments the said Iustices moved the parties to a friendly course to compound the matter For if we reverse the Iudgment given in the Hustings Then Spencer may have his Writ of Error upon the Iudgment in the Assise of Freshforce sic infinite And afterwards the parties put themselves to the Mediation and Order of the said 3 Iustices who at length made an end of the matter betwixt the said parties CCXXI The Lady Newman and Shyriff's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber 4 Len. 25. THe Lady Newman Sister of James Wingfield lately deceased Exhibited a Bill of Complaint in the Star-Chamber against one Shyriff dwelling in Ireland and two others setting forth That the said Shyriff had forged a Deed purporting That the said James had by the same given to him all his goods and also that the said James had assigned to the said Shyriff a Lease for years of Lands in Ireland And also that the said Shyriff had procured the said two other Defendants to depose upon their Oath before the Town-Clerk of London That the said Deed was sealed and delivered by the said James as his Deed. It was moved by the Counsel of the Defendant's That these matters of Forgery are not within the Statute of 5 Eliz. nor also the Perjury or the procurement of it Whereupon the Lords of the Council referred the Consideration of the said Statute to both the Chief Iustices who the next Court-day declared their Opinions upon the said Matters 1. That the said Statute did not extend to forgery of a Deed conveying a gift of Chattels personals Which see by the Statute which as to that point extends but to Obligations Bills Obligatory Acquittance Release or other discharge And also a Deed of an Assignment of a Lease of Land in Ireland is not within the said Statute And also the said Iustices were of Opinion That this Perjury and the procurement of it is not punishable by the said Statute because the Oath was taken Coram non Judice For the Town-Clerk of London cannot minister an Oath in such case no more than a private person But because the Bill in the perclose and Conclusion of it was contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm The said Chief Iustices were of Opinion That the said Court might punish those offences as misdemeanors at the Common Law but not according to the Statute And afterwards Shyriff paid for a Fine 3 l. and by Order of the Court was set in the Pillory CCXXII Middlemore's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. MIddlemore brought an Action upon the Case for these words scil Middlemore is a Cosening Knave for he had me to Coventry and there cosened me of 40 s. And afterwards had Iudgment to recover And now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-Chamber and there the Opinion of the whole Court was That the said words were not actionable And the Case of one Egerton was remembred Thou art a Cosening Knave Coroner For thou hast Cosened me of my Land. The Plaintiff in that Case could not have Iudgment For he was not particularly charged in respect of his Office. And Note That in this Case of Error the Defendant pleaded an Outlawry in the Plaintiff and being barred in that he pleaded now an Excommengement in the Plaintiff and shewed the Letters of Excommunication Vpon which it appeared That the Plea was pleaded before the Outlawry was pleaded And it was Ruled by the whole Court That this Plea lieth not for the Defendant For he cannot have two Pleas to the person of the Plaintiff but where his second Plea is matter of later time since the first Plea And afterwards the said Iudgment was reversed CCXXIII. Barns Executor of the Bishop of Durham and Smith's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer EManuel Barns Executor of Barns late Bishop of Durham 2 Len. 21. brought Debt for Arrearages of Rent reserved upon a Lease for years of certain Mines demised to Smith scil Mines called Argill and Mines called Greenbourn and it was against the Executors of Smith The Defendant pleaded as to parcel Non detinet and as to other parcel of the Arrears That in the Indenture of demise there is a Covenant Quod si contigerit that the said Lessee impeditus fuerit quominus Mineris praedict gaudere possit That then so much of Rent should be deducted amounting to the value of the Mines he could not enjoy c. And pleads in facto quod impeditus fuit quo minus gaudere potuit Mineris praedictis c. And it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Cook in arrest of Iudgment That here is not any place shewed where these Mines were so as Non constat from what place the Visne shall come As if in an Action as here the Plaintiff Declares of a Lease made of Land called R. in
shall plead That he had not bought modo forma For if he hath bought of A.B. or J.S. the same is not material nor traversable Which Case Cook denyed to be Law. And he also conceived That the Information upon the Quo Warranto is not sufficient For by the same the Defendant is charged to hold a Court and it is not shewed what Court For it may be a Court of Pipowders Turn c. See 10 E. 4. 15 16. acc Shute Iustice The Quo Warranto contains two things in it self 1. A Claim And 2. An usurpation and here the Defendant hath answered but to the Vsurpation but saith nothing to the Claim And it hath been holden in this Court heretofore That he ought to answer to both And he said That it hath been holden in a Reading upon the Statute of Quo Warranto which is supposed to be the Reading of Iustice Frowick That a Quo Warranto doth not lie upon such Liberties which do not lie in Claim as Felons goods c. which lieth only in point of Charter CCXXXVI Venable's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was 1 Inst 351. a. Hughs Queries 13. A Lease was made to A. and B. for their lives the remainder to Tho. Venables in tail who 3 Eliz. was attainted of Felony 23 Eliz. there was a General Pardon Tho. Venables 24 Eliz. levied a Fine and suffered a Recovery to the use of Harris Serjeant Office is found Harris traversed the Office and thereupon was a Demurrer It was argued by Leake That Traverse did not lie in this Case 4 H. 7. 7 Where the King is entituled by double matter of Record the party shall not be admitted to his Traverse nor to his Monstrans de Droit but is put to his Petition Which see 3 E. 4. 23. in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland Where Tenant of the King is Attainted of Treason and the same is found by Office. See also 11 H. 4. in the Case of the Duke of Norfolk And the same is not helped by the Statute of 2 E. 6. Cap. 8. for the words are Untruly found by Office but here the Office is true By this Attainder Tho. Venables is utterly disabled to do any Act For by Bracton a Person attainted forisfacit Patriam Regnum Haereditatem suam 13 E. 4. One was attainted of Felony And before Office found the King granted over his Lands Also he is not helped by the General Pardon For before the General Pardon he had a special Pardon therefore the General Pardon nihil operatur as to him But by the Iustices the forfeiture doth remain until the General Pardon Harris to the contrary And he put the Case of Sir James Ormond 4 H. 7. 7. Where the King is entituled by matter of Record and the subject confesseth the title of the King and avoids it by as high matter as that is for the King Traverse in that case lieth and if the King be entituled by double matter of Record if the party avoids one of the said Records by another Record he shall be admitted to his Traverse And so here we have the Pardon which is a Record and that shall avoid the Record for the King And here the Pardon hath purged the forfeiture in respect of the Offence And he said That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall not lose his Lands but the profits only for he hath his Interest by the Will of the Donor and it is a Confidence reposed in him and as Walsingham's Case is he cannot grant over his Estate And see in Wroth's Case Annuity granted pro Consilio impendendo cannot be granted over or forfeited for there is a Confidence See Empson's Case Dyer 2. and 29 Ass 60. If the Issue in tail be Outlawed of Felony in the life of his Father and gets his Pardon in the life of his Father after the death of his Father he may enter But by Thorp If the Issue in tail gets his Pardon after the death of his Father then the King shall have the profits of the Lands during the life of the Issue And the Case of Cardinal Pool was debated in the Parliament 27 Eliz. That he being Dean of Exeter was seised of Lands in the right of his Church and was attainted of Treason It was holden he should forfeit the profits of such Lands But admit That by this Attainder the Land be forfeited yet the party hath the Freehold until Office found See Nicholls Case Plow Com. And also the Case of the Dutchy in Plow Com. acc And here the Pardon hath dispensed with the forfeiture A Tenant of the King aliens in Mortmain before Office found the King pardons it it is good The Lord Poynings conveyed all his Lands to Sir Adrian Poynings who was an Alien and after made a Denizen and the King pardoned and released to him all his right in the said Lands without any words of grant and adjudged the same did bind the King And he said he had a good president 14 H. 7. Where a General Pardon before seisure into the hands of the King was allowed good contrary after a seisure without words of Grant. See Br. 29 H. 8. Br. Charter of Pardon 52. If a Man be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Felonies executiones eorundem and Outlawries c. and releases all forfeitures of Lands and Tenements and of Goods and Chattels the same will not serve but for life of Lands if no Office be found but it will not serve for the goods without words of restitution and grant for the King is entituled to them by the Outlawry without office But the King is not entituled to Land until Office be found See Ibid. 33 H. 8. 71. The Heir intrudes and before Office found the King pardons now the Heir is discharged as well of the Issues and profits as of the Intrusion it self But a Pardon given after the Office found is available for the Offence but not for the Issues and profits And he cited the Case of Cole in Plowden where a Pardon was granted mean between the stroak and the death See 35 H. 6. 1. 16 E. 4. 1. 8 Eliz. Dyer 249. Brereton's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 284 285. Egerton Sollicitor contrary This Traverse is not good for he who traverseth hath not made title to himself as he ought upon which the Queen may take Issue for it is in the Election of the Queen to maintain her own title or to traverse the title of the party At the Common Law no Traverse lay but where Livery might be sued but that is helped by the Statute of 34 E. 3. but where the King is entituled by double matter of Record as in our Case he is no Traverse was allowed until 2 E. 6. Cap. 8. And in such Case two things are requisite 1. That the Office be untruly found 2. That the party who is to be admitted to his Traverse have just title or Interest
of Estate of Freehold c. But in our Case the Office is confessed by the Traverse to be true although that the conveyance be not truly found And also Harris at the time of the Office found had not just title but his Interest came to him long time after the Office found Also the traverse is not good for he traverseth the matter of the Conveyance which is not traversable For if the Queen hath title non refert quo modo or by what Conveyance she hath it As to the matter in Law Tenant in tail in remainder is Attainted of Felony If the King during the life of the Tenant in tail shall have the Freehold And he conceived she should For it shall not be in abeyance and it cannot be in any other for when he is attainted he is dead as unto the King The chief Lord cannot have it For the Tenant for life is alive and also he in the remainder in Fee c. The Donor shall not have it for the Tenant is not naturally dead but civilly and the Land cannot revert before the Tenant in tail be naturally dead without Issue But if there were any other in whom the Freehold could vest then the King should not have the Freehold but only the profits So if the Tenant be attainted the Lord shall have the Land presently 3 E. 3. 4 E. 3. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have but the profits because that the Freehold rests in the Wife and if the Lord entreth the Wife shall have an Assise And Tenant in tail may forfeit for his life as he may grant during his life See Old N.B. 99. If Tenant in tail for Life Dower or by the Curtesie be attaint of Felony the King shall have the Land during their lives and after their decease he in the Reversion shall sue to the King by Petition and shall have the Lands out of the Kings hands And there it is further said That the Lord by Escheat cannot have it for the party attainted was not his very Tenant but he in the Reversion for the term yet endures But now is to see If the Freehold be in the King without Office And I conceive that it is Where the King is entituled to an Action there the King ought to have an Office and a Scire facias upon it As where the King is entituled to a Cessavit Action of Waste c. 14 H. 7. 12. Where entry in the Case of a Common person is necessary there behoves to be an Office for the King. As where the Kings Villain purchaseth Lands or an Alien born c. so is it for a Condition broken Mortmain c. In some Cases an Office is only necessary to instruct the King how he shall charge the Officer for the profits which may be supplyed as well by Survey as by Office As if the King be to take by descent or as the Case is here And it is true That a person attainted of Felony may during his Attainder purchase Lands and yet he cannot keep it against the King. And it is clear That by the Common Law in such Cases the Land was in the King but not to grant For the Statute of 18 H. 6. was an Impediment to that But now that defect is supplyed by the Statute of 33 H. 8. So as now the King may grant without Office. See 26 Eliz. Cook 3 Part Dowty's Case And in our Case Office is not necessary to entitle the King but to explain his Title See 9 H 7. 2. The Lands of a Man attainted of High Treason are in the King without Office so where the Kings Tenant dieth without Heir or Tenant in tail of the gift of the King dieth without Issue See Br. Office before the Escheator 34. See 13 H. 4. 278. A Man Attainted of Treason the King before Office grants his Lands and Goods Things which lie in Grant as Advowsons Rents c. such things upon Attainder are in the King without Office. As to the General Pardon of 23 Eliz. He conceived That the same did not extend to this Case and that this Interest of the Queen by this Attainder did not pass by the Pardon out of the Queen So if the Queen had but a Right and title only Popham Attorny General By this Attainder the Estate of him in the Remainder in tail accrued to the Queen for the life of him in the Remainder For by our Law Felony is punished by the death of the Offendor and the loss of his Goods and Lands for the example of others therefore nothing is left in him Tenant for life is attainted of Felony The King pardons to him his life yet he shall have his Lands during his life for he himself cannot dispose of them for his life And so it is of Tenant in tail c. for he may forfeit all that which he hath and that is an Estate for his life which is the Freehold If Lands be given to one and his Heirs for the life of another and the Donee be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Land during the life of Cestuy que vie for the Heir cannot have it because the blood is corrupt and there is not any Occupancy in the Case For 17 E. 3. the Iustices would not accept a Fine of Lands for the life of another because an Occupant might be in the Case But for a Fine of Lands to one and his He is for the life of another they accepted a Fine for there is no mischief of Occupancy Land is given to A. for life the remainder to B. for life the remainder to the right Heirs of A. who is attainted of Felony A. dieth now the King hath a Fee executed And here in our Case If this Tenant for life had been dead no Praecipe would lie against him in the remainder being in possession but the party who had right was to sue to the King by Petition 4 E. 3. If one seised in the right of his Wife of Lands for life be attainted the King shall have exitus proficua But I conceive that Case is not Law For see F.N.B. 254. D. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife in Fee is Outlawed of Felony the King seiseth the Husband dieth Now shall issue forth a Diem Clausit extremum the words of which Writ are in such case Quia A. cujus terra Tenement quae ipse tenuit de jure haereditate N. uxoris suae adhuc superstites occasione cujusdam utlagariae in ipsum pro quadam felonia inde indictatus fuit c. in manu Domini H. Patris nostri extiterunt c. therefore the King hath not exitus tantum but also the Land it self See to the same purpose the Register 292. b. And see also now in the Book of Pleas of the Crown 186 187. which affirmeth That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall forfeit the
Land during his life And he conceived That this Estate of Tho. Venables was in the King without Office not to grant for he is restrained by the Statute of 18 H. 8. but it is in him so before Office that he who hath right ought to sue to the King by Petition if he will have the same Yet he conceived That before the said Statute of 18 H. 6. the King might grant it before Office as it appeareth by Thirning 13 H. 4. 278. which was before the Statute So if the Kings Tenant makes a Lease for years the remainder over to another in Fee who dyeth without Heir the said remainder is in the King without Office because a common person in such case cannot enter but a Claim is sufficient and therefore it shall be in the King without Office. As to the Pardon He conceived That it did not extend to this Estate For the same is a Freehold therefore not within the Pardon As if the Kings Tenant be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Offences and all which he may pardon these words will not go or extend to Freehold but only to personal matters and such punishments and pains which do concern Chattels But it may be Objected That in this Pardon title of Quare Impedit and Re-entries for Conditions are excepted and therefore if they had not been excepted they had been released by the Pardon And therefore this Pardon doth extend to Inheritances and Freeholds As to that I say That such Exceptions were not in use in the time of King Ed. 4. and such Inheritances and Freeholds were not taken to be within such Pardons And such Exceptions began 5 Eliz. And he said he had been of Counsel in such Cases where it had been taken That such Pardons did not extend to Freeholds As an Abbot was disseised and during the Disseisin the Abby was dissolved the King made such a Pardon the same did not transfer the Kings right And in this Case there are divers Exceptions of Goods and Chattels in many cases and therefore it cannot be intended that this Pardon doth extend to Freeholds And see the said Act of Pardon There the Queen gave and granted all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amercements Forfeitures and Sums of Mony which word Forfeiture shall be intended personal forfeiture and not otherwise for it is coupled with things of such nature And as to the Traverse he conceived That it did not lie in this Case For the Office is not untrue in substance although it be void in Circumstances And also the King here is entituled by double matter of Record i. e. the Attainder and the Office. And he said That the Statutes of 34 36 E. 3. which gave Traverse are to be meant of Offices found virtute Officii and not virtute Brevis for then Escheators were very troublesome And 2 E. 6. doth not give traverse but where the Office is untruly found As if the Kings Tenant be disseised and the Disseisor be Attainted The Queen seiseth the Land Now the Disseisee hath no remedy by traverse upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. but is put to his Monstrans de Droit for that the Office is true But if I be the Kings Tenant and seised of Lands accordingly and it is found that J.S. was seised of my Land and attainted c. whereas in truth he had not any thing in my Land there Traverse lieth For the Office is false And so our Case for the Traverse is at the Common Law. And it is true that Venables was seised c. Cook to the contrary And he conceived That by the Attainder the Queen had gained but a Chattel And that notwithstanding this Forfeiture If Venables had been in possession a Praecipe should be brought against him And whereas it hath been said by Mr. Attorny That the Writs set down in the Register are the best Expositors of our Law the same is not so For the Register saith That Waste lieth notwithstanding a mean Remainder which is not now Law but it hath been clearly ruled to the contrary See acc 50 E. 3. The Register therefore and the Writs are subject to the Iudgments of our Law. And the Writ of Diem clausit extremum is not to the contrary For I confess that in such case Hob. Rep. 342. the Land shall be seised into the Kings hands but the King shall have but a Chattel in it It hath been argued He may grant therefore he may forfeit Nego Consequentiam For a Man seised in the right of his Wife may grant but not forfeit Gardian in Socage may grant but not forfeit The Husband may grant a Term for years which he hath in the right of his Wife but he cannot forfeit it A Woman enheritrix taketh Husband and afterwards is attainted of Felony the King pardons him they have Issue the Woman dieth the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie which proveth that the King hath no Freehold by this Attainder Before the Statute of West 2. Tenant in tail post prolem suscitatam might forfeit the Land but now the Statute hath so incorporated the Estate tail to the Tenant in tail that it cannot be devested yea a Fine levied ipso jure est nullus although as to the possession it be a discontinuance And that is the reason wherefore Tenant in tail shall not be seised to another's use See Stamford 190. b. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have the Issues of the Land of the Wife during the life of the Husband c. So if Tenant in tail be Attainted of Felony that is but a Chattel in the Lands of the Wife and also in the Lands of the Tenant in tail and if the possessions of a Bishop be seised into the Kings hands for a Contempt In such case the King hath possession and not only the profits The same Law of Lands of Tenant in tail or for life being attainted of Felony So seisure for alienation without Licence or of the possessions of Poor Aliens See Br. Reseisure 10. So where the seisure is for Idiocy And he conceived That nothing is in the King without Office. And as to the Case of 13 H. 4. 6. I confess it For all that time many and amongst them Lawyers and Iustices were attainted by Parliament And so was Sir John Salisbury whose Case it was and their Lands by Act of Parliament given expresly to the King and therefore I grant that their Lands were in the King without Office. Tenant in Fee of a Common Lord is attainted of Felony his Lands remain in him during his life till the entry of the Lord and where the King is Lord until Office be found but in the case of a Common person after the death of the person attainted it is in the Lord before Entry and in the Case of the King before Office for the Mischief of Abeyance And see the Lord Lovell's
the Plaintiffs and of the cause of it upon which the Plaintiffs did demur in Law. It was argued by Fleetwood Serjeant for the Bishop but to little purpose therefore I will report but certain passages of his Argument He conceived That that general Pleading of Schismaticus inveteratus was good enough as if the Bishop certifieth Bastardy It is sufficient to say Bastardus sive Spurius without other Circumstances as to say On the body of such a Woman begotten Lollard derivatur à Lollio i. e. Anglice Tares Sampson was Dean of Christ Church in Oxford and was convented before the Ordinary for Schism because he would not use a Surplice and for that he was condemned for a Schismatick and deprived of his Deanery in the time of the Queen that now is Shuttleworth Serjeant for the Plaintiffs That the Bishop in his Plea ought to have shewed specially how and in what point the Presentee of the Plaintiffs was Schismaticus There are divers manners of Schisms 1. In Doctrine 2. In manners and of each kind there are many c. And therefore for doubt of enveigling the Metropolitan who is to try that Issue the Defendant ought to have shewed the Schism in certain in which the Metropolitan was to examine the Clerk readily See 38 E. 3. 2. the Case of the Countess of Arundel where in a Quare Impedit the Ordinary pleaded That the Presentee was Criminosus Perjurus and shewed the Cause in what and when he was Perjured And although this Issue is to be tryed by the Metropolitan yet it ought to be formally pleaded in the Temporal Court and with certainty As where a Divorce is pleaded It is not sufficient to say That a Divorce was had but the party ought to shew for what cause and before what Iudge the Divorce was had which see 18 E. 4. 29. where the Divorce is specially pleaded for cause of Consanguinity for by one Divorce the Issues are bastardized by others not See as to the Pleading of a Divorce 11 H. 7. 9. Profession although it be a Spiritual thing yet the general Pleading of it is not good but he who pleads it ought to shew of what Order and under whose Obedience 40 E. 3. 37. which see the Book of Entries 444. Intravit Religionem viz. in Domo Carmelitarum de London ibi fuit professus sub Obedientia R. Prioris Domus illius So Deprivation shall not be generally pleaded which see Book of Entries 458. Ecclesia vacavit per Privationem c. per J.S. Legum Doctor Delegat c. so of Resignation 7 E. 4. 16. Resignavit in manus I.L. Bishop of London Ordinary of the said place Now It is to see If by this general Demurrer the matter in Fact be confessed scil That the Presentee was Schismaticus inveteratus and as to that the Rule is That all matters in Fait which are well and duly pleaded by a general Demurrer be confessed but that which is not well alledged by no Demurrer shall be holden confessed Which Learning see in the Commentaries in Partridge and Stranges Case And here for as much as Scismaticus is not not well pleaded for the cause aforesaid it shall not be holden confessed Now It is to see If upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. this defect be helped and he conceived it was not for here the defect is in matter and not in form As if in Trespass of his Close breaking the Defendant justifies by a Lease for years and doth not shew the place where the Lease was made and the Plaintiff demurrs generally upon it the said defect is not helped by the said Statute for that it is Matter So in a Formedon in Discender The Defendant pleads a Warranty with Assets without shewing the place where the Assets is and the Demandant demurrs upon it generally the same defect is not helped by the said Statute See a good Case adjudged upon the Statute Mich. 28 29 Eliz. between Henly and Broad Periam and Windham Iustices conceived That the Plea of the Bishop is not good because it is not shewed in what point the Presentee was Schismaticus for by this genral Pleading if it should be allowed the Metropolitan to whom the Tryal of the Cause belongeth shall be driven to peruse all Schisms in the Examination of the Presentee which is a thing infinite and inconvenient Rhodes and the Lord Anderson to the Contrary And Rhodes vouched an Old Book 30 E. 1. out of a written Book of the Lord Catline In a Quare non admisit the Defendant pleaded That the Clerk presented was Schismaticus Adulter and the Court commanded that he hold himself to one of them for which he said Adulter so as the Court did not mislike the Plea for the generality but for the doubleness And by Anderson Our Case is not like the Cases put by Shuttleworth for they concern things tryable by our Law in which Case to have convenient tryal all matters issuable ought to be specially alledged but here the Case is otherwise and no peril of Tryal And by the said Statute of 27 Eliz. we ought to judge according to the right of the Cause and matter in Law. See this Case adjudged upon a Writ of Error brought in the Kings Bench. Hill. 32 Eliz. in Cook 5 Part 57. Specot's Case CCLII Estrigge and Owles's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case by Estrigge against Owles It was holden by the Iustices Ante 73. That forbearance per paululum tempus is a good Consideration Then it was moved That in the Action the Request was not sufficiently laid in respect of the place and time And Cook said That the difference had always been agreed That where the promise is to do a Collateral thing upon Request there in the Declaration the place and the time ought to be certainly set down As it was holden in the Case of Alderman Pulison where he promised to give a Cun of Wine upon request Ante 73. in such case the request is traversable and therefore it ought to be certainly shewed for the request is parcel of the Issue But if such Action be brought and the Plaintiff declares upon an Indebitatus then if the Plaintiff prove the Debt it is not material to prove the promise for every Contract executory implyes a promise and in such case the request is not traversable And the truth of the Case was That one Tickil was endebted to the Plaintiff in 30 l. and died Intestate B. his Wife took Letters of Administration and took to Husband the Defendant And he for the Consideration aforesaid and that the Plaintiff would forbear his Debt for a little time promised to pay it And further declared That he had forborn c. from such a day until such a day but yet the Defendant would not pay it licet saepius requisitus And upon this Declaration the Plaintiff had Iudgment And now a Writ of Error was brought
so as of necessity we must lay the promise accordingly And it is a clear case That the Plaintiff in an Action upon the Case shall declare upon a Promise the first day of May And if it be found that it was made at another day yet the Plaintiff shall recover CCCX Hamper's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 211. 1 Cro. 147. HAmper was Endicted upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury And in the body of the Endictment the Record was that he falso deceptive deposuit Whereas the Statute speaks Wilfully And although in the perclose of the Endictment the Conclusion is Et sic commisit voluntarium perjurium Yet the Opinion of the Court was That the same did not help the matter and for that cause the party was discharged For contra formam Statuti will not help the matter and yet it was moved and urged that contra formam Statuti did supply such defect And in this case It was holden by the Court That if a Witness deposeth falsly but the Iury do not give credit to his Oath but give their Verdict against his Oath although the party grieved cannot sue him for the Perjury yet at the Suit of the King he shall be punished CCCXI. Collet and Robston's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 149.192 2 Len. 118. ARthur Collet and Thomas Andrews recovered against Robston in a Writ of Accompt Hill. 29 Eliz. And now Robston brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That whereas the said Writ of Accompt was brought against the Defendant as Receivor of monies to render Accompt quando ad hoc requisitus fuerit the said Writ ought to have been more special But the Writ in its generalty was holden good enough without any special matter And so it was adjudged in the Case of one Gomersell scil Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum suum de tempore quo fuit Receptor Denariorum ipsius A. Another Error was assigned For that the Iury had assessed damages which ought not to be done in an Action of Accompt Which see 2 Ric. 2. Fitz. Accompt 45. and 2 H. 7. 13. But see the Book of Entries 22. In a Writ of Accompt against one as Receivor for to render Accompt damages were given by the Iury for the Plaintiff And in the Case of an Accompt against one as Bailiff damages shall be given For if my Bailiff by the imployment of my monies whereof he was Receivor might have procured profit and gain unto me but he neglects the same he shall be chargeable to me to answer the same And here in our Case damages shall be given ratione implacitationis And afterwards notwithstanding the Exceptions the Iudgment was affirmed CCCXII Yates's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. YAtes and another brought a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in a Writ of Partition and assigned for Error 2 Len. 118. That the Partition was not sufficient For it is there set forth That the Plaintiffs insimul pro indiviso tenent cum defendente c. and doth not say what Estate See F.N.B. 61 62. Insimul et pro indiviso tenent de haereditate which was of A. matris of the Plaintiff and Defendant And yet see F. N. B. 62. A Writ of Partition betwixt strangers without naming de haereditate in the Writ 1 Cro. 759 760. And see also that Partitions of Lands in London without shewing of what Estate See Register 67. 6 Eliz. in Partitione facienda by Courtney against Polyweel no Estate shewed in the Writ 26 Eliz. Between the Lord Cheney and Bell. So between Finch and Tirrell And so between Fry and Drake 14 Eliz. And 4 5 Phil. Mary It was holden That it is not necessary in such Writ to shew the Estate But Tenants in Common ought to shew the same in their Declaration CCCXIII. Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King Bench. AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words scil Thou hast forged my hand It was holden by Gawdy and Wray Iustices That such words are not actionable because too general without shewing to what writing And by Wray these words scil Thou art a forger are not actionable because it is not to what thing he was a forger Godfery Between Warner and Cropwell scil She went about to kill me An Action lieth for them for if they were true she should be bounden to the good behaviour And by Gawdy for these words scil Thou hast forged a Writing They are not Actionable because they are incertain words Which Wray concessit But if the Declaration had been more certain as innuendo such a deed then it had been good enough Fuller A Case was betwixt Brook and Doughty scil He hath Counterfeited my Lord of Leicester's hand unto a Letter against the Bishop of London for the which he was committed to the Marshalsey for it And it was holden Not Actionable And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was Nihil Capiat per Billam CCCXIV Delabroche and Barney's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DElabroche was sued in the Admiral Court upon an Obligation supposed to be made and delivered in France and now he prayed a Prohibition It was holden by the whole Court That such a Bond might be sued here but being begun in the Court of Admiralty we cannot prohibit them for that perhaps the Witnesses of the Plaintiff are beyond Sea which may be examined there but not here CCCXV. Moulton's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THis Case was moved to the Court by Cook That one Robert Moulton Tenant in tail having Issue two Sons Robert and John died seised And that Robert his Son and Heir levied a Fine thereof and afterwards levied another Fine and died without Issue And John brought two several Writs of Error to reverse both Fines And the Tenant to the Writ of Error brought upon the first Fine pleaded the second Fine in bar of it And in her of a Writ of Error brought upon the second Fine he pleaded the first Fine The Court advised him to Reply That the Fine pleaded in bar was erronious See 7 H. 4. 107. Where a Man is to annul an Outlawry his person shall not be disabled by any other Outlawry CCCXVI. Babington and Babington's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt brought The Defendant pleaded an Attachment made in London after imparlance It was adjudged That it was not any plea. And Wray said That the same should be observed for a Rule in other Cases After that plea was disallowed The Defendant pleaded Variance betwixt the Obligation and the Declaration For the Obligation was Randal Bab. And the Declaration was ad respondend Randulpho B. alias Randal B. Cook said That Randulphus is Latine for Randal Owen Serjeant shewed divers Presidents where Randulphus was taken for Randal But the Court did not agree upon it Wray advised the Plaintiff for his more speed to
bring a new Writ But Gawdy said That the Writ brought was good enough CCCXVII Pike and Hassen's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. touching buying of Titles And the Bargain was laid in Norfolk but the Land c. was in Suffolk And the Issue was tryed in Norfolk and the value of the Land also And as to the 5 Acres they found the Defendant guilty and found also the value of them And for the Residue a Special Verdict was given and for the 5 Acres the Plaintiff had Iudgment presently And by the special Verdict it was found That the Defendant had occupied the Residue of the Land for two years before c. as Tenant at sufferance and afterwards sold the Inheritance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant at sufferance is in truth a Tort feasor by which his taking of the profits is not such as is intended by the Statute But yet he afterwards looking into the words of the Verdict which were That the Defendant tenuit the Lands for two years ex permissione of another thereupon it ought to be intended That he was Tenant at will. CCCXVIII Sparry and Warfield's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN False Imprisonment against the Defendant and others they pleaded The Charter of Bridewell and that the Plaintiff was mali nominis famae and that certain Goods were stollen from J.S. and upon search the Plaintiff was found suspitiously c. And that thereupon they put him into Bridewell It was the Opinion of the Iustices That the Plea was not good CCCXIX. Bragg's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. Rot. 318. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Strait against Bragg Quare Clausum fregit containing one Acre in C. in the County of H. and for the taking of a Horse The Defendant pleaded That long time before the Trespass The Dean and Chapter of Pauls were seised of the Mannor of C. in the said County in Fee in the right of their Church whereof the place where is parcel c. And so seised King E. 4th by his Letters Patents dated Anno 1 of his Reign granted to them all the Fines pro Licentia Concordandi of all their Homagers and Tenants resiants or not resiants within their Fee And shewed That for all that time they have used to have such Fines of their Tenants And shewed further That 29 Eliz. A Fine was levied in the Common Pleas between the Plaintiff and one A. of 11 Acres of Land whereof the place where the Trespass was done was parcel and the Post-Fine assessed to 15 s. And afterwards Scambler the forreign Opposer allowed to them the said 15 s. because the said Land was within their Fee and afterwards in the behalf of the said Dean and Chapter he demanded of the Plaintiff the said 15 s. who refused to pay it for which he by the Commandment and in the right of the Dean and Chapter entred and took the said Horse in the name of a Distress as Bailiff to the said Dean and Chapter for the said 15 s. and afterwards sold it c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was moved That here it is not averred That the Land whereof the Fine was levied was within their Fee but they say That Scambler allowed it because it was within their Fee. And that is not a sufficient averment quod curia concessit And also the opinion of the Court was Ante 56. 2 Len. 179. That the Dean and Chapter cannot distrain for this matter but they ought to sue for the same in the Exchequer as it appeareth 9 H. 6. 27. in the Duchess of Summersets Case Gawdy Iustice The Grant doth not extend to the Post-Fine for the Fine pro licentia Concordandi is the Kings Silver and not the Post-Fine Wray Iustice All passeth by it for it is about one and the same matter And they in Opinion to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff Quaere of it CCCXX South and Marsh's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Court That where Marsh was endebted unto South without any Obligation for it but only by a Note in writing signed with the Hand of Marsh scil By me W. Marsh but not sealed that such a debt might be assigned to the Queen although that before the Assignment against a Creditor he might have waged his Law for in as much as by these Notes and Bills the certainty of the debt appeareth and being true debts they may well be assigned See 21 H. 7. 9. An Obligation may be assigned to the Queel without Deed enrolled and where the Obligee is not endebted to the Queen But it cannot be assigned to a subject Noy 52. if not for a debt due by the Assignor to the Assignee for otherwise it is Maintenance And in this Case it was holden That where the King sues for a debt assigned to him the Obligor cannot plead Nihil debet for now by the Assignment it is become matter of Record CCCXXI. Trapp's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RObert Trapps 1 Eliz. seised of 15 Messuages in Clarkenwell in the Occupation of 15 several persons viz. A.B.C. c. and named them certain demised them to one Cox And afterwards conveyed the Inheritance of them to one Brian Trapps in Fee who afterwards demised to J.S. all those 15 Messuages in Clarken-well which Robert Trapps did demise inter alia to Cox by Indenture dated 1 Eliz. now in the Occupation of A.B.C. c. And one of the Occupiers names was left out in the recital And it was holden by the whole Court That notwithstanding the said Omission the said Messuage did pass for there was sufficient certainty before and the falsity came after the verity CCCXXII Brewin and Mansfield's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That A. was endebted to him in 10 l. and made the Defendant his Executor and died And that the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the Defendant for a certain time promised to pay it at two several days and shewed which in certain And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not set down in the Declaration by what portions the 10 l. shall be paid Clench Iustice conceived That the Defendant had liberty to pay it in what portions he pleased Gawdy He ought to pay it by equal portions as a Rent reserved payable at two Feasts without saying by what portions it shall be paid And he said That if the plea for the cause aforesaid had been defective yet now after Verdict all is helped for it is but form And afterwards the Opinion of the whole Court was That the matter shewed was not good to stay Iudgment Wherefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CCCXXIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Plaintiff in a
Demands or Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua But general words qualified with a restraint where the Limitations are effectual As if the King Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua in D. which he hath by the Attainder of J.S. or which were the possessions of such dissolved Monasteries such Grants are good And where the Case is That Queen Mary hath the Lands in possession of the annual value of 19 l. and other Land there in Reversion of the annual value of 6 l. and then she Grants Omnia terras tenementa nostra rendring 19 l. per annum I conceive That upon these words the Land in possession only passeth because that the said general words may be aptly served and satisfied with the Lands in possession if no other Lands pass And I agree That this word Nostra extends as well to the Lands in Reversion as to Lands in possession but most properly to Lands in possession for Land in Reversion cannot dici simpliciter Nostra but quodam modo tanquam terra revertens and not to take the natural profits of it for the Termor hath such properly that he shall have an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit But the intent and meaning of the Queen is to be regarded and that is the surest way to have right intelligence of the Grants of the King For here the Queen hath reserved but 19 l. Rent which is the proper and ancient Rent of the Lands in possession and if Lands in Reversion should also pass the Rent of which was 6 l. per annum then upon the whole Grant but 19 l. being reserved the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Rent which should be contrary to the intent and meaning of the Queen and the intent of the Grantor even in the Case of a Subject shall direct the construction of Grants As 9 H. 6. Br. Grants 5 by Babington A Man grants Common in his whole Lands he shall not have Common in his Orchards Gardens or Meadows for such was the meaning of the Grantor a fortiori in the Case of the King. It hath been argued That the former Lease ought not to be recited because that after the first Lease made by King Henry the 8th the Inheritance hath been in a Subject that is the Bishop of Bath and Wells but the same is not so For if the King makes a Lease for years and afterwards Grants the Reversion upon Condition which after is broken and so found by Office by which the Reversion is reduced to the King If now the King will make a new Lease he ought to recite the former Estate notwithstanding the mean grant of the Reversion or else such second Lease is void Another matter hath been Objected wherefore the former Lease ought not to be recited and that is because it is determined by surrender in Law before that the new Lease takes effect Sir the same is not so for the former Lease is in being as the Case betwixt Fulmerston and Steward 1 Mar. Plow Com. 106. upon the Statute of Monasteries 31 H. 8. See the words of the Statute whereof and wherein any Estate or Interest for years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his being or continuance And an Abbot made such a Lease to one who had a term for years of a former Grant although here be a Surrender yet this Case is within the said Statute and the said former Lease shall be said to have his being at the time of the making of the later Lease and the Surrender shall not be said so to preceed the making of the Lease but that the former Lease shall be said in Esse at the time of the making of the later Lease And in our Case it shall not be taken for any Surrender for then the Queen shall lose 6 l. of her ancient Rent and Revenue and always when the Title of the King and of the Subject concur the Title of the King shall be preferred as 43 E. 3. The King Lord Mesne and Tenant The Tenant pays his Rent at the day to the Mesne before Noon and then the same day before Night the Mesne dieth his Heir within age the King shall be paid the Rent again for here the Title of the King and the Subject concur together at one time and in that the King shall be preferred and so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant And afterwards at another day the Iustices declared their Opinions and by Wray Chief Iustice We all agree That the first Lease ought to be recited and the reason which hath been urged against that point hath reduced us to be of that Opinion scil That the second Lease was made to the first Patentee and the King doth not make the recital but the party ought to inform the King of all former Estates of the said Lands and that he might well do for he is well knowing of them and although that the Reversion after the first Lease made hath been conveyed to a Subject the same is not material here forasmuch as the second Estate is made to him who had the first Estate and might know whether the first Estate were determined or not Also by the re-purchase the King is in Statu quo prius Gawdy Iustice although that the former Term be drowned by the taking of the second Lease yet it was in being at the time of the taking of it as it is holden by Bromley in the Case of Fulmerston and Steward It is determined by the second Lease and yet it was in being at the time of the making of it Fenner Iustice to the same intent Clench Iustice If the Grant of the Queen shall enure to two intents then the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Revenue It was agreed by all the Iustices That the general words in as much as they are restrained to a certainty would pass the thing si caetera essent paria contrary if they had remained in the generalty and afterwards Iudgment was given Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCCXXXVIII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 4 Len. 233. A Man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son and his Heirs The Father and the Feoffees before issue for Mony by Deed granted and enfeoffed J.S. and his Heirs who hath not notice of the first use The Tenant for life hath issue and dieth the issue entreth Glanvil the use limited to the first Son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and it is gone by their Livery See the Case in Plowden 349. and also he vouched the Case of the Earl of Kent where by the Release of the surviving Feoffee 2 Roll. 797. Plow 347. a Sleeping-Vse was destroyed and could not after be revived Harris the use may rise without entries of the Feoffees and he put a difference between an
to all Quietness seeking all means to disquiet his Neighbors and hath used himself as a Lawless person and having Process to serve upon one in the Parish viz. the Parson did keep the Process and would not serve it but on the Sabbath day in the time of Divine Service not having regard to her Majesties Laws or the Quiet of his Neighbours Vpon which Bill the Iustices to whom it was exhibited awarded Process against the Plaintiff to find Sureties for his good behaviour It was the Opinion of the Iustices That upon this matter an Action would not lie CLXXVII Mason's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. MAson Leased certain Lands to one R. for years and afterwards leased the same Lands to one Tinter for years Tinter Covenanted with the Defendant That if the said R. should sue the said Mason by reason of the later Lease that then he would discharge or keep harmless without damage the said Mason and also would pay to him all the Charges which he should sustain by reason of any suit to be brought against the said R. in respect of the said former Lease And Mason by the same Indenture Covenanted with Tinter That the said Land demised should continue to the said Tinter discharged of former Charges Bargains and Incumbrances And now upon the second Covenant Tinter brought an Action of Covenant and shewed That the said R. had sued him in an Action of Ejectione Firme upon the said first Lease and had recovered against him c. And Mason pleaded in Bar the said second Covenant intending that by that later Covenant the Plaintiff had notice of the said former Lease made unto R. so as the first Lease shall be excepted out of the Covenants of former Grants for otherwise there should be circuity of Action But the Opinion of the whole Court was to the contrary For the Covenant of Mason shall go to the discharge of the Land but the Covenant of Tinter only to the possession CLXXVIII Knight and Beeches Case Pasch 27 Eliz. Rott 1127. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 173. Coke 5. Rep. 55. 1 Len. 12. 2 Len. 134. WIlliam Knight brought Ejectione Firme against William Beech. The Case was That the Prior of St. Johns of Jerusalem 29. H. 8. with the assent of his Covent leased by Indenture divers Houses in Clarken-well in the County of Middlesex for fifty years to one Cordel rendring Rent 5 l. 10 s. and 11 d. at four Feasts of the year usual in the City of London viz. for such a Messuage called The High-House 14 s. for another House 3 s. 11 d. for another House xx s. c. Et si contingat dictum annualem redditum 5 l. 10 s. 11 d. a retro fore in parte vel in toto ultra aut post aliquem terminum solutionis in quo solvi deberet per spatium trium mensium c. quod tunc ad omnia tempora deinceps ad libitum c. liceret dicto Priori Successoribus suis omni tali personae personis quam vel quas dictus Prior Successores sui nominarent appunctuarent sine scripto in omnia dicta tenementa totaliter re-entrare c. And afterwards 32 H. 8. the said Hospital of St. Johns was dissolved and the possessions of it granted to the said King and afterwards the said King 36 H. 8. gave the said House upon which the said Rent of 20 s. was reserved to one Audley c. in Fee And afterwards the now Queen being seised of the residue a Commission issued out of the Exchequer bearing Date 8 Maii 23 Eliz. Ad inquirendum Utrum the Defendant to whom the Interest of the said term did appertain perimple visset performasset omnes Provisiones fact reservat in super praedict Indenturam necne Office was found before the Grant and after 25 August following the said Queen by her Letters Patents gave the said House called The High-House to Fortescue the Lessor of the Plaintiff and afterwards Tres Mich. the Commission was retorned by which it was found all as aforesaid Et quod Termini Festi Solutionis in London are Michaelmas Christmas Annunciation and Mid-summer and that at the Feast of Michaelmas such Rent was behind for the space of three Months c. It was argued in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant on the part of the Plaintiff That here are several Rents for the entire Sum by the viz. is distributed into several Portions which make several Rents and to that purpose he cited Winter's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 308. A Lease for years is made of the Mannors of A.B. and C. rendring for the Mannor of A. xx s. and for the Mannor of B. x s. and for the Mannor of D. x s. with a Condition for the Non-payment of the said Rents or any of them or any part or parcel of them within one Month c. then a Re-entry Here are several Rents And he conceived That a Condition in the Case of the King might be apportioned For a Rent-charge and a Condition are in the King in better Condition than in a Subject for the thing may distrain for a Rent-charge in all the Lands of him who is seised of the Land out of which such a Rent is issuing and if a Rent-seck be due to the King he may distrain for the same and the King shall never demand his Rent which he hath reserved with Clause of Re-entry and it appeareth in the Register That if before the Statute of Westm 3. the King purchaseth parcel of the Land holden of him the Rent shall be apportioned which was not in the Case of a Common person and there are in the Exchequer divers Presidents to that effect scil If A. be bounden in a Recognizance to B. and afterwards enfeoffeth the King of part of his Land and C. of the other part If B. be afterwards attainted of Treason so as the said Recognizance accrueth to the King that now notwithstanding that he hath part of the Land lyable to the Recognizance he shall have Execution of the residue And see F. N. B. 266. If after the Recognizance acknowledged the Conusor enfeoffeth of certain parcels of his Lands several persons and of the Residue enfeoffeth the King that Land which is assured to the King is discharged of the Execution but the residue shall be charged So that the possession of the King doth alter the Nature of the Rent Condition and Execution Fenner Serjant Contrary And he said That this Grant before Office retorned was not good for without Office the King cannot enter multo minus his Patentee and that the King by the Grant hath interrupted the Relation of the Office As if a Man by Indenture bargaineth and selleth his Lands and afterwards makes Livery to the Bargainee and afterwards the Deed is enrolled Now the party shall not be said to be in by the Bargain and Sale but by the Livery for the Livery hath interrupted the