put off till the next day by nine in the morning Collins against Thoroughgood AN action of Covenant was brought against the Executor and the breach assigned for default of reparation committed in the time of the Executor and damages were assessed And the question was moved by Atthow whether the Iudgement shall be de bonis propriis or de bonis Testatoris And upon view of presidents it was adjudged that it shall be de bonis Testatoris For this is the Testators Covenant and obliges the Executor as representing him And therefore he ought to be sued by that name Waters against Thomson IN an action of slander for calling him Bankrupt Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff And it was afterwards moved in arrest of Iudgement Because that in the Declaration it is said that he was a seller of Wool And Serjeant Ward said because he did not allege that he was a Merchant that it would not hold But the Court over-ruled him Tomkin's Case A Man cannot plead a former Iudgement had against the Plaintiff in an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant But Outlawry he may Which was not denyed Baker against Webberly THat if a mans Dog runs at the Sheep and kills them not with his consent there will no action lie But otherwise if with his consent Recovereis suffer per gardens of the lands of the Infant MEmorandum That the 26 Decemb. 21 Iac. that letters under the privy signet and sign Mannual came unto the Iudges of the Com-Pleas importing that the King had been humbly petitioned by Mountioy Blunt being under the age of 21 yoars as well by himself as his kinred and Feoffees into whose custody the late deceased Earl of Devonshire did commit his estate in trust that he would declare unto us his liking that he might be permitted to suffer a Common recovery of the Mannor of Wansled for payment of his debts and further advancement of his means to the use of the Duke of Buckingham which his Majestie by his said Letter did accordingly Now although the Iudges did never hold such Recoveries unlawfull or void in Law yet divers motions in the like kind have been refused as holding it very inconvenient But inconveniencies are best discerned by circumstances and therfore my L. Chief Iustice Richardson acquainting the other Iustices therewith it was determined that he should send for the young Gentleman and examine him sole and secret of the reasons of this Recovery and of his own free-will Which I did and being of 18 years of age or thereabouts suffered me of his own good liking that he did conceive it to be necessary for his estate yet not therwith contented the Chief Iustice caused the Earl of Southampton the L. Davers and Mr. Wakeman the persons to whom the world knew he his Estate was committed in trust and that they had worthily performed and calling them in an open Court and questioning with them they confessed to us all that it was necessary for the young Gentleman and for his good to part with this thing and that therefore they had made means to his Majesty for this Letter in that behalf whereupon the Recovery was passed openly at the Bar the last day of Michaelmas Term against Mr. Blunt in person and the Earl of Southampton the Lord Daverâ—… and Mr. Wakeman were admitted his Guardians Brownlow and Moyle Prothonotaries shewed Presidents of the like Recoveries against Infants M. 23 H. 8. rot 441. et P. 38 H. 8 rot 128. Tr. 28 El. rot 17 et M. 26 et 27 El. rot 45. 572 P. 42 Eliz. rot 1. 5. 63 44. 45 69 70 89 91 94 P. 32 El. rot 60 T. 38 El. rot 41 44 40 El. rot 62. 124 112 M. 40 et 41 El. rot 13 M. 34 et 35 El. rot 166. per Zouch M. 39 40 Eliz. rot 82. 173. M. 41 42 El. rot 24. 106. et 72 T. 42. El. rot 20. M. 42 et 43 El. rot 173. Chamberlines Case HE brought an Action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry and after Issue joyned and entred The Record was that the Robbery was done 30 Octob. It was ordered by the Court of Common Pleas that the Record shall be amended and made the 30th of September upon the Affidavit of the Attorney for the Plaintiff that he had given direction accordingly And shews to the Court the Book of the Office Male against Kett. HE brought an Action against Kett for these words Thou hast stollen my Corn out of my Barn and verdict was given for the Plaintiff And after verdict it was moved in arrest of Iudgement That perchance the Corn was not of the value of a penny Yet Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff For it is felony although it is not great Hitcham against Cason before NOw they urged 5 Eccles If thou see the oppression of the poor and perverting of Iudgement Perverting of Iudgement is the Oppression But then he did not again manifest Injustice It was objected that he might give erroneous Iudgement and that is Injustice If they are taken all alike it is clear that they are actionable and the party himself ought not to interpret but the Iudge The Case between Palmer and Boyer M. 37 38 El. He hath as much Law as a Iackanapes spolton of Palmer being a Lawyer and adjudged actionable And they were spoken to disgrace him in his profession 7 Iac. Thou a Barrester thou a Barrettor and thou durst not shew thy face Thou study the Law thou a Dunce actionable upon he same reason Mich. 14 Iac. Com. Banc. Beck against Barneby Spoken of an Attorney Thou art a Common maintainer of Sutes and a Champerter c. It was objected there that it was lawfull for an Attorney to maintain sutes Yet because he said Champertor it was actionable And Trin. 12 Iac. Com Banc. Yeardlies case He said of the Plaintiff being an Attorney Your Attorney is a bribing Knave and hath taken 10 l. of you to cousen me Answered that the words shall be intended of him as Attorney and so actionable One exhibites a Petition where it was first against the Lord chief Baron In which he said Tanfield is a great Oppressor of the Country and did remove the Boundaries between his Land and mine And it was adjudged actionable Pasc 4 Iac. Banc. Roy. Master Kebbe is a Basket Iustice and a partial Iustice and I 'll give him 5 l. a year for all Gifts that are brought to him for Injustice done And adjudged actionable And the word Partial Iustice bears an Action Hil. 40 Car. Kings Bench. Denson is a sweet Iustice of peace who gave a Warrant to apprehend I. S. and sent him notice of it Is actionable For it is a misbehaviour in a Iustice of Peace to do so H. 6. Iac. Com. Banc. rot 1159. Lonsman against Peck The Plaintiff shews that he had been impannelled upon several Iuries upon life and death and the Defendant said Thou art a Iury man and
Fifthly that he retained one Steveson in one of the Chapels of ease who was a man of ill life and conversation scilicet an Adulterer and a Drunkard Sixthly that he did not catechise according to the Parish Canon but only brought many of Dr. Wilkinsons Catechisms for every of which he paid 2 d. and sold them to his Parishoners for 3 d. without any examination or instruction for their benefit And that he when any Commissions were directed to him to compel any person in his parish to do penance he exacted mony of them and so they were dismissed without inflicting any penalty upon them as their censure was And that he and his servants used divers menaces to his Parishioners and that he abused himself and disgrac'd his function by divers base labours scilicet He made mortar having a leathern a prou before him and he himseif took a tithe Pig out of the Pigsty and afterwards he himself gelded it And when he had divers presents sent him as by some flesh by some fish and by others ale he did not spend it in the invitation of his friends and neighbours or give it to the poor but he sold the flesh to Butchers and the ale to Alewives again And that he commanded his Curat to marry a couple in a private house without any licence and that he suffered divers to preach which peradventure had not any licence and which were suspected persons and of evil life It was said by Henden that they cannot by the Statute of primo Eliz. cap. 1. meddle with such matters of such a nature but only examine heresies and not things of that nature and that the High-Commissioners at Lambeth certified to them that they could not procéed in such things and advised them to dismiss it But they would not desist and the Iudges Richardson being absent granted a prohibition if cause were not shewed to the contrary Note it was said by the Iustices a discontinuance could not be after verdict Humbleton against Bucke THeophilus Humbleton was Plaintiff in an Assumpsit against Bucke and declares that whereas there was a controversie between one Palmer who pretended to be Lord of the soyl and the Inhabitants of such a Village concerning Common in ripa maritima which Palmer claimed to be his own soyl The Tenants claim common there and a liberty to cut grass and make hay of it and to carry it away Palmer incloses the soyl Humbleton enters upon the place enclosed and also takes the grass being one of the Tenants And Palmer brought a Trespass against him and then Bucke assumes to the Plaintiff in consideration of a Iugg of Beer and in consideration that the Plaintiff in the Trespass hanging against him would plead a Plea in maintenance of their title of Common he immediatly would pay to him the half of his expences or if he failed of that he would pay him forty pounds And further he said that he pleaded not guilty in that action of Trespass which was found for him and that he expended so much money the half of which the Defendant refused to pay to him c. The Defendant pleads non defendit sectam in maintenance of their Common which was found against him And Davenport moved in arrest of Iudgement because that he ought to have pleaded such a Plea by which the title of Common might come in question but when he pleads not guilty he disclaims the matter of Common And also the word immediatly is not to be taken so strictly that he should pay the money in the same instant c. But the Plaintiff must declare what costs he had expended and then he shall have reasonable time by the Statute to pay the money But Athowe answered that the verdict which was in the Kings Bench helps him For it was there found that that land was the Kings wast and that Palmer was not owner of the soyl and therefore for that his plea was good for the title of Common cannot come in question Richardson Chief Iustice said that that is not a maintenance of the title of Common against Palmer First he cannot give that verdict in evidence in a prescription for the Common and the maintenance by that Plea of not guilty is for the soyl and not for the Common and whoever is owner of the soyl the title of Common is not specially against Palmer but it is general against every one in the world And so was the opinion of Harvey and Crook And Crook said that although the verdict had found the Assumpsit and so admitted that that plea was for maintenance of the title yet that shall not bind us For if a verdict finds matter which is repugnant or a thing which cannot come in question it shall not bind us But by Iustice Yelverton it was said That because the Iury have found the Assumpsit they have admitted all the residue And for that we do not doubt of it no more than the Iury have decreed As in an Ejectione firm If they be at issue upon the collateral matter it shall be admitted that there was an ejectment and so it was adjudged But this cause was deferred to another time to be argued more c. Meridith Mady against Henry Osan aliis MEridith Mady brought debt against Henry Osan for that he and 5 others were bound to perform the Arbitrament of thrée elected by them and the Plaintiff concerning all tithes and all other matters of controversie between them and that they still and all the Parishioners should perform and stand to the award made c. And upon breach of the award made was the action brought For the award was that when any of the Parishioners clip their sheep they ought to give notice to Mady the Parson to the intent that he or his Servants may be there And the Defendant did not give notice c. The Defendant by rejoynder pleads that Allen and others that they were Deputies to receive the Tithe-wool and that they or one of them were present at the clipping and so they demur Athowe said that notice ought to be given to the Parson himself for perchance he would be there himself had he notice And for that the breach alleged is not answered And also he said that they or some of them were present and does not name him as he ought for he may come in issue c. Richardson If the Arbitriment was made for some things within the submission and some things without It is good for those things that are within and void for the residue And although the Parishioners did not submit yet it is good because the six are bound for them Hutton said that the Award for the notice is not good for it is not well assigned where the notice should be given And an Arbitrement ought to be reasonable but it is unreasonable that he ought to inquire Mady wheresoever he is to give him notice as Cook 77. Salmons Case Crook said that the Award is
tender a Rent seck upon the Land The Grantee cannot demand it upon the Land in the absence of the tenant that it ought to be to the person upon the land For what can the tenant do more than he hath done already And the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 9. gives ease to the Tenant When the Lord distreins immoderately and unnecessarily For an immoderate distress may be the ruine of a tenant And therefore the Statute says Nec habeat Capitalis dominus potestatem distringendi tenentes in dominico suo dum praedict Tenens offerat ei servitia debita consueta 30. Ass Fitzher N. B. 69. G. If Cattel be distreined damage feasant and tender of sufficient amends is made The Distreiner is liable to damages for the detinue although not for the distress And to the same purpose is Cook lib. 8. 140. Carpenters Case 5. rep 76. Pilkintons Case c. The second question is whether a Bayliff without command of the Lessor when he had refused to take the Rent upon a Lawfull tender may distrein And it seemed that he cannot And the second resolution in Pilkintons Case came to that question That a tender of amends to a Bayliff amounts to nothing And the question upon a Herriot is Whether the Lessor may distrein without declaring his election and it seemed that he cannot For that is no Heriot which may be seized As the Case in one Woodland and Mantles Case there it is certain And because the Law vests it in him immediatly after the death of the tenant But so it is arbitrable and cannot vest before Election and also the Tenant does not know which he ought to provide before and declares his election And it was demanded for that it is not reasonable that he shall be lyable to a distress and cannot by any possibility prevent it 2 Rep. 36. Sir Rowland Howards Case I cannot finde any president where an Avowry is made upon a disjunctive reservation without allegation that he had declared his Election Although that the Lessor in that Case may distrein without declaring his election yet the Bayliff cannot for he cannot justifie as Bayliff for an Arbitrable thing without express command Acceptance of Rent by a Bayliff cannot alter the Tenancy For although that he had power in Law to receive the Rent yet he cannot by Law alter the Tenency by his acceptance without the Lords Command Dyer 222. A Bayliff may demand Rent but cannot enter for non-payment without express command And when he avows he cannot avow any thing which doth not appertain to his office And for that that it is an arbitrable thing which cannot be transferred from the person of the Lessor his Heirs or Assigns that distress is well taken c. If a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and the day of the return is long to delay the party as if it be more than the next Term the Court may award Execution quod nota c. Gammons Case ONe was obliged in the Ecclesiastical Court not to accompany with such a woman unless to Church or a Market overt And afterwards he was summoned to the Ecclesiastical Court to say whether he had broken his Obligation or not And Ayliffe moved for a prohibition which was granted For that that the forfeiture is a temporal thing And it does not become them in the Ecclesiastical Court to draw a man in examination for breaking of Obligations or for offences against Statutes Dame Chichley against Bishop of Ely DAme Dorothy Chichley brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Ely and Marmaduke Thomson And declared that Thomas Chichley was seized of the Advowson of the Church of Whiple in Cambridgeshire And presented Marshall and died seized and the Advowson descended to Thomas his son who by Indenture granted it to East and Angel and to their use and the use of the Plaintiff for life And he being seized of the Church it became void c. But Thompson pleads that he is Parson imparsonee ex praesentatione of the King And confessed that he was seized as aforesaid but that he was seized also of other Lands in Capite and dyed and that his son Thomas was and now is within age which is found by Office And so the King by his Letters Patents after avoydance presents Thompson who was instituted and inducted Absque hoc that Thomas Chichley granted by his Indenture to the use of his wife c. And the Plaintiff replies null teil record Vpon which the Defendant demurs Atthowe for the Defendant Although the Plaintiff may have a Writ to the Bishop when his Title is traversed And admit there be no Inquisition Yet the King may present before Office found 20 E. 4. 11. An Advowson being void is not but a Chattel and for that it is vested in the King without any Office And you may see many Cases to that purpose Richardson said If it be not by the Statute 32 H 8. The King may grant Wardship of Land before Office Atthowe Also there is Traverse upon Traverse which should not be Hendon argued for the Plaintiff And he says he is Parsona imparsonata and does not say before the purchase of the Writ For the Incumbent by the Statute of 25 E 3. cap. 7. cannot plead unless he be Incumbent ante diem impetratitrationis brevis unlesse he be Incumbent pendente lite he cannot plead c. Hutton If one be presented instituted and admitted before the Writ and inducted after and before his Pleader He may plead well And it was resolved by the whole Court That the pleading of the Parson was good without the words Ante diem impetrationis brevis And that all the Presidents are according to that But more afterwards c. Alice Readngs Case ALice Reading brought an Action upon the Case against I.S. And de-declared whereas she was a Maiden and had many Suitors the said I. S. said That Alice Reading was with childe and did take Physick to kill the Child Vpon which words divers men refused her And upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff Finch Recorder moved that those words were not actionable For that that it is not said precisely that she took Physick to kill the childe and that the Physick might have such an operation without her desire or purpose and also there is not any Suitor in special named And as it is in Anne Davyes Case 4 Rep. 16. 6. where it ought to be proved precisely to the Iury that such a one was Suitor and refused her But here there was no such proof And he alleged in the Case of Sell which was adjudged Where one declares that he endeavoured to mary a Woman and that she refused him upon slanderous words And it was adjudged against him For that that a Conatus is not sufficient but yet Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff without any reason alleged Cook lib. 4. 16. 6. The Lady Cockins Case The Case of a Recusant
the Civil Law And it was resolved First that the King by his Charter deprives the subject of his Liberty and Priviledge of Tryal As he cannot by his Letters Patents alter the nature of Gavelkinde Land but by prescription he may alter it in particular places As 9 H. 6. 44. In corpus cum causa to the Chancellor of Oxford was certified that the prisoner Pro extensione detentus fuit convictus And an exception was taken for that that he should have been indicted and convicted and it was answered that it was Mos Universitatis And by Hutton Iustice That custom was to be intended to be by prescription But so the Charter is confirmed by Act of Parliament it is as good Secondly that there is a good cause of action in the Chancellors Court. For Wilcocks who is one of the parties is a Scholar and the Charter was only made for the ease of Scholars that their Studies might not be interrupted by Sutes in other Courts But then he ought to be a Scholar resident in the Vniversity at the time of the Sute commenced there And he ought to be only one of the parties And for that if another be joyned with him he shall not have the priviledge or benefit of the Charter as it is 14 H. 4. 21. and by Richardson chief Iustice that is not a priviledge which may be waved for every person may Recusare jura introducta pro se But that it was an exempt Iurisdiction and differs where the priviledge goes to the person As if a Clerk in his Court will sue in another Court or suffer himself to be sued that is a Waver of the Priviledge Thirdly that a Proeedendo shall not be granted for that the Charter is not pleaded for the Iudges give Iudgement of the Record and the cause of their Iudgement ought to appear by pleading of the Record And also a prohibition is granted where by Demurrer or by Pleading and not by verbal surmise there ought to be a discharge And in the case of a prohibition It is not like the Case of 35 H. 6. 24. Where Conusans is one time allowed by Charter shewn and another Record there should be allowed without demand without other shewing But Yelverton Iustice to the contrary That it might be remanded upon pleading of the Charter And he said that there was a difference where the suggestion was upon matter of Fact as prescription c. Where an issue may be taken there it ought to be pleaded in writing which appears fully by the mean of the Court and not by suggestion Fourthly it was resolved that a prohibition may be granted in case where the Court cannot give other remedy for the ease of the Subject who is the party as it was adjudged in the Court of Requests Vpon the custom of London concerning Orphans a prohibition was granted and yet no remedy at Common Law was afterwards to be expected Trin 5. Car. Fawkner against Bellingham FAwkner against Bellingham in a Replevin The Avowry was for that that the Defendant was Lord of a Mannor and of Lands which were Chauntry Lands and held of him by Rent and other Services And after coming to the Crown by the Statute of 10 E. 6. cap. 14. Who granted it then over by Letters Patents c. And now the Lord distreins for Rent and avows that he had not seisin within fourty years And whether seisin was requisite for him who made the Conusans was the sole question in the Argument First for that that it is a new Rent created by the Statute of 1 E. 6. For when that Land is granted to the King by Parliament yet the King hath operation upon it and may dispose of it Secondly that the Land passed from the Priest and others by their assent confirming it And it is a Grant of the Seigniory by the Lord himself unless the saving hinder it But so by the Grant the Rent is extinguished And the saving is so a creation of a new Rent 1. rep 47. Altomeoods Case And there is diversity between a Rent-service viz. where the Tenant grants Land to the King and he grants that over He cannot distrein upon the Patentee for it is distinct from a Rent charge Stamford prerogat 75. Mich. 20. E. 3. 17. And so it is ordered by the Statute de Religione when he enters by Mortmain that he ought to revive the Services Stam. 27. If the King enters upon my Tenant there a Petition of Right lies Dyer 313. 10. rep 47. By the saving in the Statute of Wills c. A primer Seisin is given to the King de novo where he ought to have it before And then being a new Rent no Seisin is requisite Secondly the second reason is for that there is a new remedy and then no matter whether it be old Rent or new Rent Finchden A Rent granted out of White-acre and a distress out of Black-acre the Rent yet remains and there is one thing part of the Rent another of the remedy Because the Rent is only altered in quality Dyer 31. There our Case directly Now the Statute of Limitations is a Statute for the good of the Common wealth to settle inheritances and possessions And it should be expounded liberally Then if a scruple be of the Act it ought to be expounded benignly And so it is of all other Statutes which settle possessions Always shall be expounded favourably for the ease and benefit of the Tenant and Lord. And for that adjudged That a Copy-hold and Leases for years are within that Statute And the Statute of 32 H. 8. 11. rep 71. binds both King and Realm because it is for the publick good Owen against Price before BRamston argued for the Defendant I agree that Lease to be a Lease in remainder and I admit also that that Lease is warranted by the Statute 10 Eliz. For that that he is not punishable of waste And the case admits two questions whether it be a void Lease at Common Law And First In respect of the limitation Secondly there is not any Livery in the Case Wherefore first of all it had been said a Frank Tenement cannot pass from a day to come in case of a Grant 38 H. 6. 34. 8 H 7. Claytons Case 5. rep It had been agreed that a Livery made the first day by himself or by his Attorney should not be good And moreover if by his Attourney after the day if his Grant may be granted the same day it is not good And then I hold that the date of the Grant of Attourney is not material Trin. 43 Eliz. rot 402. Conibar It was resolved in such a Case as that is That the Livery is not good And the reason was that the Livery had not relation to the Deed which was void in Law Bucklers and Binsluns Case The release was made 1 May as this and executed by Attourney and by Attourney authorised the same day the second of May. And it was adjudged
the evidence of the party or by others by his procurement in the same manner As it was in an appeal upon a fresh sute at the Common-law It was said by all That although the custome was of Burgage lands in soccage Yet if the Lands came by gift or otherwise to tenure in Chief or service of Chivalry That that now changes not the Custome which alwaies goes with the Land and not with the tenure As the Lands in Gavelkind by the Custome are soccage tenure Yet if they are changed to service of Chivalry the Custome is not altered But that all the heirs shall inherit It was agreed by all That if sir persons compass and imagine to levy war against the King And there is an agreement betwéen them that two shall do such an act in such a Country and the other two another act in such a County And so divers acts by divers in several Counties for to assemble the people against the King And after two do the Act according to their purpose and assemble the people and the other do nothing Yet the Act done by two upon the agreement is Treason in all But otherwise it is if there had been only a compassing c. and not any agreement and afterwards one of them does the act unknowing to the others there it is not Treason but in those that doe the fact and not in the others As it happened in the Case betwéen the King and an other Wilkins against Thomas IT was adjudged upon good advise That if an Infant he impleaded by any precipe of his Lands And loses by defending Now he shall have a Writ of Error And because that he was within age at the time of the Iudgement it shall be reversed And the Infant shall be restored to all that he lost As it happened in the Case of John Ware against Anderson and others in the County of York lost while they were infra aetatem Where it appeared that they appeared by their Guardian admitted to them by the Court to the Grand cape and that they were within age But there was an inspection by Nurses and Friends and they were found not to be within age John Symons against Thomas Symons NOte it was said by all the Iustices That if the Disseisee enter upon the Feoffee or Lessee of the Disseisor That he shall not have an Action of the Trespass for the same Trespass against the Feoffee or Lessee Because that they come in by a Title And at Common law before the Statute of Gloc. No dammages for mean occupation against the Feoffee or Lessee Bromleys Case IF a man steal goods and be arraigned upon an Indictment of felony and the goods are valued to 6 s. and the Iury upon their verdict say That he is guilty of the said goods but that the value was but 6 d. That is a good verdict And the Iustices shall vanish him as for patty Larcenny In the same manner it is If a man be arraigned for willfull murther and the Iury find it but Manslaughter That is a good verdict by all the Iustices Pease against Thompson A Man seised of Lands in see makes a feoffment from that day to divers to the use of his Wife for her life and after to the use of the heirs of the body of the Feoffor The Feme dies and the Feoffor makes a Lease for years and dies Now her Issue shall not avoid that Lease because a man cannot have Heirs in his life So that at the time of the death of the Feme there was none to take by the remainder And for that the Feoffor had the fee the Lease is good and shall bind the Heir As if a Lease be made for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. and I. S. dies in the life of the Lessee then the remainder is good otherwise not but it shall revert But otherwise it shall be peradventure in such a Case in a demise Hillary 3 Car. Com. Banc. Skore against Randall SKore brought Debt against Randall and recovered and had execution by Elegit and it was found by the Inquisition that the Defendant was seised of the moyety of a Messuage and Lands for life and other Lands in right of his Wife And the Sheriff returns that virtute brevis et deliberat feci meditatem omnium praemissorum cum pertinentiis c. Nec non duo pomaria nec non unum clausum vocat c. And that he had delivered the moyety of the Lands in right of his Wife and his Chattells and recites them and that Elegit was filed And the Question was whether he might have a new Elegit Because that the Sheriff ought to have delivered to him the moyety of the moyetic of the Lands held in Ioint-tenancy So that the Tenent by Elegit might be Tenant in Common for a fourth part with the Ioynt tenants as it was agreed But also by that Delivery he had but in effect the eighth part For the other Ioynt-tenants may occupy the Land delivered with him in Common Richardson said For part of the Lands and goods in right of his Wife the return is good And being filed he cannot have a new Election For if part shall be evicted you cannot have a new Extent upon the Estate But if it had been in the Genitive Case Duorum pomorariorum c. it had been good But it was granted by the Court That the Plaintiff makes a surmise that the Sheriff male se gessit in the Execution of that Elegit and then he may have a new Elegit at his peril c. Edward Thomas against John Morgan et al. EDward Thomas brought an Ejectione firmae against Morgan Kemmis and others and upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was given to this effect for Morgan and Kemmis for the other some were dead before issue and the other not guilty and they found a Iudgement dated 12 Sept. 23 Eliz. and deliver'd the 15 Iunii next ensuing Which was between the then Bishop of St. Davids of the one part and Richard Thomas of the other part And it was in consideration of a Marriage to be had between him and the Daughter of the Bishop That before the end of Hillary Term next ensuing he would levy a Fine of all those Lands and all the other lands in Mountmouth and that should be to Thomas Morgan and Roger Sise of Lincoln-Inne And that he suffered a recovery with double voucher to the uses in the Indenture But the words are that the Conusees should stand seised to the use And by Atthowe the Recovery is idle for the uses shall be executed and then there shall be no Tenant to the Precipe viz. That of all the Lands mentioned in the Indenture Morgain and Sise shall stand seised to the only uses hereafter c. that is to say They shall be seised of in part of the Lands and Tenements that is so much thereof as shall amount to the clear value of
it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to reenter without any demand of the Rent The Rent is in arrear by 40 daies after the Feast of Saint Michael and no demand of the Rent made by the Lessor Whereupon the Lessor entred If that Entry were lawfull was the Question And by Hutton it is not For a demand of the Rent is given by the Common law between Lessor and Lessée And notwithstanding the words without any demand it remains as it was before And is not altered by them But if the Rent had béen reserved payable at another place than upon the Land There the Lessor may enter without any demand But where no place is limitted but upon the Land otherwise it is Richardson to the contrary For when he had covenanted that he might enter without any demand The Lessée had dispensed with the Common law by his own Covenant As the Lessor might by his Covenant when he makes a Lease Sans impeachment dl waste He had dispenced with the Common law which gives the Action of Waste Harvey of the same opinion If a Man leases Lands for years with a Clause That if the Rent be in Arrear by forty daies after the day of payment That the term shall cease If the Rent be in arrear by the said forty daies after the day of payment The Lessor may enter without request Conyers's Case ONe Thompson makes a Lease for forty years to Conyers by Indenture and in the same Indenture covenants and grants to the Lessee That he shall take convenient House-boot Fire-boot and Cart-boot in toto bosco suo vocato S. wood within the Parish of S. And those Woods are not parcel of the Land leased but other Lands Atthow I would fain know your opinion if that Grant of Estovers out of an other place than was the Lease be good Also what Estate the Grantée of House-boot and Fire-boot shall have by that For the words are from time to time and hath limited no time in certain And lastly If the Lessée be excluded to have House-boot and Fire-boot in the Land leased or if he shall have in both places Also if the Executors by that Grant to the Lessee shall have House-boot and Fire boot And it was agreed by Hutton and Harvey That that Grant was good and that the Grantee shall have it during the Term. And that that grant does not restrain him But that he shall have house-boot and fire-boot in the land leased also Atthowe If there be no great Timber upon the land leased and the houses are in decay if the Lessor ought to find and allow to the Lessée sufficient Timber for the making the reparations or if the Lessée at his own costs ought to find the Timber for the reparations of the house Hutton said That the great Timber shall be at the costs of the Lessor if no Timber be upon the land leased nor no default be in the Lessee in suffering the great timber to go to decay or to putrifie And it was agréed if the Lessor cut a tree and carry it out of the Land That the Lessee may have an Action of Trespass And if Stranger cut a tree the lessee shall have an action of Trespass and recover treble dammages As the lessor should recover against him in an action of waste Wakemans Case A Man seised of a Mannor parcell demesn and parcell in service devises by his Testament to his wife during her life all the demesn lands also by the same Testament he devises to her all the services of chief Rents for 15 years And moreover by the same Testament he devises the same Mannor to another after the death of his wife And it was agreed by all the Iustices That the devise shall not take effect for no part of the Mannor as to the stranger untill after the death of the wife And that the heir after the 15 years passed during the life of the wife shall have the services and chief Rents Jenkins against Dawson IN a Formedon the Demandant makes his Conveyance in the Writ by the gift of I. S. who gave it to ◠D. er haeredibus de corp suo legitime procreat And shewes in the Writ that he was heir to the Son and heir of I. D. Son and heir of W. D. the Donee And Hitcham demanded Iudgement of the Writ for this Cause And the Court said that the Writ was not good for he ought not to make mention in the Writ of every heir as he does here But he ought to make himself heir to him who dyed last seised of the Estate Tayl as his Father or other Ancestor Also that word procreat ought not to be in the Writ but Exeuntibus But the Court thought that it might be amended And Harvey said If false Latin be in the Writ it shall be amended as if in a Formedon the Writ be Consanguineus where it should have béen Consanguineo Hutton and all the other Iustices said that that might be amended by the Statute Saulkells Case IN an Attaint the grand Iury appeared and the petit Iury and the parties also and one Rudstone Master of the Servant in the Attaint came to the Bar and there spoke in the matter as if he had been of counsell with his Servant Crawley said to him Are you a party to this Suteor for what cause do you speak at the Bar And he answered that he had done this for his Servant And if he had done any thing against the Law he knew not so much before Hutton You may if you did owe any mony to your Servant for his wages give to his Counsel so much as is behind of it and that is not maintenance Or you may go with your Servant to retein Counsel for him So that your Servant pay for his Counsel But that that you have done is apparent maintenance And the Kings Sergeant prayed That he may be awarded to the Fleet and pay a Fine And Hutton upon advise sent him to the Fleet. Wiggons against Darcy DArcy was in Execution upon a Statute Merchant and his Body and Goods were taken And the Conisee agreed that the Conisor should go at large and he went at large Atthowe moved If that were a discharge of the Execution or not And Richardson said it was For his imprisonment is for his Execution And if he release his imprisonment he releases his Execution And so if two men be in Execution for one Debt and the Plaintiff releases to one of them That is a release to both And so if one had two acres in Execution and the Plaintiff release the Execution of one of them It enures to both Harvey on the contrary opinion Yet I will agree That if a man be one time in Execution The Plaintiff shall not another time have an Execution For after a cap. ad satisfac an Elegit does not lye But in the Case where the Conisee does release the imprisonment only and not the Execution for it is
appear gratis if he will Warner against Barret ELizabeth Warner libells for a Legacy in the Spiritual Court against one Barret who moves for a Prohibition Because he had there pleaded plene administ and proved that by one Witness and they would not allow it Richardson before the Statute of E. 6. The proper Sute for Tithes was there and they allow one Witness to prove payment a Prohibition shall be granted And he put Morris Eatons Case in the Bishop of Winchesters Case Where it was ruled if the Spiritual Court will not allow that plea which is good in our Law a Prohibition shall be granted as in Case of Tithes And he said that the Case of a Legacy is all one Crook When one comes to discharge a thing by due matter of Law and proves it by one Witness If it be not allowed no Prohibition shall be granted there Richardson Our Case is proof of plene Administ pleaded which goes in discharge But if there be enough pleaded which goes in discharge and proves that by one Witness and not allowed A Prohibition shall be granted Hutton said that properly for a Legacy the sute is in the Ecclesiastical Court although they may sue in the Chancery for it yet the proper Court is the Ecclesiastical Court And they said they used to allow one Witness with other good circumstantial proofs If they be not in some criminal Causes where of necessity there must be two Witnesses In one Hawkins Case Farm or of a Propriation libells for Tithes of Lambs for seven years And there he proved payment by one Witness and a Prohibition was granted for not allowance Yelverton There may be a difference where the Sute is meerly Ecclesiasticall for a sum of mony as for a Legacy there the payment of the legacy is of the nature of the thing And the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction of the proof and matter But if one gives a legacy of 20 Oxen And the other pleads payment of as much mony in satisfaction there they cannot proceed but upon Common law For that that the legacy is altered And if a proof of one Witness is not accepted a Prohibition shall be granted For now it is a legal Tryall 35 H. 6 If the principal is proper for their Court the accessory is of the same nature Also the Sute is commenced for a Legacy and the other pleads plene administ There they proceed upon the Common law For they sometimes take that for Assets which our Law does not take It was adjudged in the Kings Bench that a proof by one Witness of a Release of a Legacy was disallowed a Prohibition shall be granted Crook In this Case a proof of setting out of Tithes by one Witness a Prohibition shall be granted Hawkeridge's Case IT was agréed by all in Hawkeridge's Case That in a forcible entry or Trespass brought against one If the Defendant is found guilty by verdict and before Iudgement the Plaintiff releases to him Because that by that the Plaintiff is barred The King is also barred of his Fine Falkners Case ATthow Sergeant said That if these words were wanting in a Déed In cujus rei Testimon That the Déed is not good And he said that all Covenants Grants and Agréements which came after those words in a Déed are not of force nor shall be pleaded as parcell of the Déed It was observed by the Court That the Wife of a Duke Earl or Baron in all writings they shall be named Ladies But the Wives of Knights shall be named Dames And it was likewise observed that if a Wife of a Duke Earl or Baron takes a new Husband of a more base degrée That she loses her name of Dame or Lady and shall be named in every Writ according to the degrée of her Husband As it happened in the Case of the Lady Johnsons Case IT was said if a Parson leases his Rectory for years or parcel of his Glebe reserving a Rent and dies his Successor accepts she Rent That acceptance does not make the Lease good Because by his death the Franktenement is in abeyance and in no Man And also a Parson cannot discontinue And by consequence That that he did without Livery is determined by his death And it is not like to the Case of an Abbot Prior or Tenent in tayl Joyce Norton and Thomas Ducket against Harmer IOyce Norton and Thomas Ducket Plaintiffs against George Harmer the Vicar of c. In a Prohibition the Libel was for Wood imployed in Hedging and for Fire-wood Issue was joyned that there was in the Parish a great quantity of Land inclosed And that they used to take Wood for Hedge-boot and Fire-boot and they were discharged of Tithes in consideration that he payed Tithes in kind of Hay and Corn c. And it was found for the Defendant Crowley moved That a Consultation cannot be granted for that that they ought to be acquitted of Tithes for those of Common right And for that although prescription was alleged it is nothing to the purpose Atthowe For Fire-wood it was proved that Tithes alwaies were paid Richardson There is no doubt but the discharge also ought to be by Custome and to be grounded upon modus decimandi Yelverton and Crook otherwise that it is not upon modus decimandi But by the Common law And the reason is for that that when a man is Owner of arable Land and he pay tithe-milk and Corn And for that they are discharged of things consumed in the House Which are to make Masters and Servants fit to manure the Land c. Richardson said It is seen that it shall alwaies be discharged in consideration it is alleged how a small consideration will serve Crook It is not modus decimandi but the discharge is for that that the Parson for them had a benefit for he had by them better means of Tithes Hutton If a man had an House of Husbandry and demises all the Lands but the House He shall pay tithes for them absumpt in the House Crook not No profit is made by them to the party but the Parson had a benefit by him And a day was given to search Presidents Bibble against Cunningham BIbble brought an Action upon the Case against Cunningham and declares That there was a Communication between him and the Defendant of the sale of a Banck and an acre of Land And that in consideration thereof and that the Plaintiff would assure and deliver to the Defendant possession of all the Banck assoon as he could and that at all times upon request to be made to the Plaintiff by the Defendant the Plaintiff would become bound in a Statute Merchant to make the Assurance to the Defendant The Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 72 l. at the end of 3 years from Michaelmas next ensuing And that in the mean time for the forbearance he would give after 8 l. in the 100 l. and that he became bound in a Statute Merchant for the
of the Demand cannot be made parcel of the Issue 31 Eliz. rot 1137. Com. Banc. Dennis Varneys Case There the Book was agreed If it be to be demanded generally it may be at any time if it be tunc petit otherwise For otherwise it would be a Rent-charge at one time and a Rent-seck at another And the Distress it self is the Demand As it is in Lucas Case If one be obliged to pay mony upon Demand The Action brought is a sufficient demand And Barkley Sergeant He shews in the Avowry that such a one was seised of 20 acres and grants a Rent out of them and others by the name of all his Lands in Rustock and Ollerton For that he said that Ollerton is not charged Because that it is not pleaded that he was seised of that But the whole Court on the contrary And that it is an usual manner of pleading And that it shall be intended that he was seised of Ollerton First the words are per scriptum c. he granted a Rent and then he pleads that per scriptum suum he gave a power to distreyn And then it shall be taken that it was not made by any other Deed and the Distress given by the second Deed shall not make the Rent a Rent-charge And he cited Buts Case Then if it be a Rent-seck and the Distress gives a nomine paenoe There ought to be an actual Demand and that upon the day as it appears by Maunds Case And Pilkintons Case 5 Rep. 5 Eliz. Dyer If it was a Rent-charge the Distress it self serves for a Demand As it was many times adjudged Secondly The words are If the Rent be in arrear any day of payment or 14 daies after The last instant of the 14th day is the legal time for demand of it And the words existent legitime petit ought to refer to the daies expressed immediately before As 39 H. 6. A man obliges that his Feoffees shall do such an Act si quisuerunt Those words shall have reference to the Feoffées And Dockwrays Case If a Man be obliged that his Children which he now hath so also existent Being words of the Present tence refer to the days now mentioned and otherwise there would be a great inconvenience For it cannot be intended the same tenant to be alwaies upon the Land Barrows Case 20 Eliz. A Feoffment upon Condition to re-enfeoff upon demand at such a place It cannot be demanded without notice to the Feossée For that that he shall not be compelled to be there alwaies expecting And the same inconvenience alwaies would follow If the demand should not be upon the day of payment by which c. Richardson If the Rent had béen granted out of 20 acres in Rustock and then he had granted by another Déed that he should destreyn in other Lands being in the same County or not and is the same That that is but a Rent-seck 10 Assise 21 Ass And the Distress is not but a penalty And if that Rent is granted by one Deed and the distress upon the Land by another Deed If it be not delivered at the same time then there shall be a Rent-charge and there shall be also a Rent-seck And when also it is said that ulterius he grants per scriptum suum and does not say praedict It shall be intended another Deed then without averment that it was delivered at the same time It shall be intended at another time But admit that it be a Rent-charge and that it issue out of Ollerton where the demand of it was Yet he ought to maintain that actually In Maunds Case The distress is a sufficient demand For it is not but to inable him to destreyn and that is where the demand is limitted generally But if a Rent be granted and if it be demanded of the person of the Gruntor he may destreyn Then there may be an actual demand that was adjudged As in the Court 15 Jac. Com. Banc. Iackson and Langfords Case and in one Armerys Case And in another upon the same point So if you will grant a Rent-charge demandable at a special and particular place If it was at another place than the Land charged Without doubt there ought to be an actual demand So if it be upon a special place from the Land charged or demanded for the distress ought to be pursued as the Grant is And that is upon such a demand But where it is restrained by the words of the Grant And the same Law is where you will limit the time of the demand If the Rent be granted payable at such a day and grants over that ad tunc being demanded there a legal and general demand will not serve But there ought to be an actual demand And also it is as much although not in express words for the sence and meaning carries it If it be arrear at such a day existent petit The demand ought to be at the day mentioned before If I be bound in Obligation the Condition to pay mony at such a day being demanded There ought to be a demand at the day of payment or there shall not be a forfeiture And now then there is not a demand at the time so no cause of distress And although the Verdict be found if it be collateral matter yet it will not help For when it appears upon the whole matter that there is not any Title to distreyn the Tryall will not help it And so Iudgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Hutton Harvy and Yelverton agreed That if it was a Rent-seck and the distress a penalty there ought to be an actuall demand at the time limited But in case of a Rent-charge although the demand is limited to be made upon parcell Yet they all held that a generall demand will serve And that shall be at any place at any time For Harvey said There is no oddes whether it is limited to be demanded generally or to be demanded upon Dale If it be material it ought to be observed in the one Case as well as in the other Stanleys Case IN one Stanleys Case in an Action of Battery Sir Thomas Crew moved for mitigating the dammages Where the Iudgement was given upon a non sum informatus and afterwards a Writ of enquiry of dammages But the Court said That in such Cases they never will alter the dammages And Crook said that he was once of Councel in an Action of Trespass pedibus ambulando in the Kings Bench in such a Case upon a Writ of enquiry of dammages 10 l. was given That he could never have a mitigation by the Court c. Outlary NOte it was said That an Outlary in the same term for error may be reversed in the Common Bench Or in any term if it be void upon any Statute As for want of Proclamations c. And an Outlary was reversed for that the Writ was praecipimus tibi where it should have been vobis to the Sheriffs of London
it may be against the Bayle otherwise it is Hill 4 Car. Com. Banc. Plummers Case IF a Recusant bring an action c. and the Defendant pleads that he is a Recusant Convict and then the Plaintiff conform which is certified under the Seal of the Bishop And upon that orders that the Defendant plead in chief and then the Plaintiff relapses and is convicted again The Defendant cannot plead indisabilitity again As it was adjudged by the Court. Sir John Halls Case SIr Iohn Halls case in a quare impedit It was given for the Plaintiff who was presented by the King to a Church void by Symony That it was apparently proved that the Plaintiff had a writ to the Bishop of Winchester who returns before the writ accepted scil Such a day which was after the Iudgement the Church was full by presentation out of the Court of Wards because that a livery was not sued These returns that the Church was full before the receipt of the writs are always ruled to be insufficient For the Bishop ought to execute the writ when it comes to him 9 Eliz. Dyer in a scire fac c. 18 E. 4. 7. The difference here is That the King presented If the presentee of one without title is admitted and instituted the Patron may bring a quare impedit with presentation for it is in vain for him to present when the Church is full But if a common person recover and had a writ to the Bishop if the Ordinary return that it is full before of his own presentment it is good As if one recover he may enter if he will without a writ of execution to the Sheriff And in this case the second presentation does not make mention of the other presentation or revoke it But if the Ordinary had returned an other presented by Symony under the great Seal And that the other in that was revoked that is good For it is an execution of the Iudgement may be pleaded in abate of the Writ But if this return should be allowed by this trick all the recoveries in a quare impedit should be to no purpose Harvey only present agreed that the Iudgement ought to be executed and that that is a new devise And if the presentment under the seal of the Court of wards was returned then the question would be whether the great Seal or this Seal should be preferred but the presentation is not returned Whereupon they two agreed That the Bishop should have a day to amend his return And not that a new writ should be taken against him Hill 4. Car. Com. Banc. Andrews against Hutton Hutton Farmer of a Mannor Andrews and other Churchardens libels against him for a tax for the reparation of the Church Henden moved for a prohibition because that first the libel was upon a custom that the lands should he charged for reparations which customs ought to be tryed at the Common law And secondly he said That the custom of that place is that houses and arrable Lands should be taxed only for the reparations of the Church and meadow and pasture should be charged with other taxes But the whole Court on the contrary First That although a libel is by a custom yet the other lands shall be dischargeable by the Common law But the usage is to allege a custom and also that houses are chargeable to the reparations of the Church as well as land And thirdly that a custom to discharge some lands is not good Wherefore a prohibition was granted Sir Iohn Halls case again IT was moved again and Henden endeavoured to maintain that the return was good And he said where the King had Iudgement upon the Statute of Symony The King may choose if he will have the Writ to the Bishop For if he present and the Bishop admits his Clerk it is a good performance of the Iudgement And admit that the King had a former title this title remains notwithstanding that Iudgement And it is not necessary to return it For if the title be returned it is not traversabe Henden If the return was that the Church was full by presentation of a stranger it is clearly void Richardson in Bennet and Stokes case there was a rule and adjudged that if a Clerk be admitted pendente lite ex praesentatione of a stranger who is not a party at all to the sute Yet such a plenarty returned is not a good return And upon superinstitution their titles ought to be tryed Yelv. The King presents one under the great seal of the Court of Wards this second presentation is not a revocation of the first but it is void Richardson And so is the second void because the King is not fully informed of his title but if he be then perhaps it would be otherwise Henley One is Patron and a Stranger presents who has not title by Symony all is now void But the King is not bound to present by Symony but may present as Patron Yelverton and Richardson The Bishop ought to obey the Writ of the King And when the Clerk is instituted that the incumbents may try their rights in trespass in Ejectione firm or otherwise the parson who recovered should be shut up Dawthorn against Sir Iohn Bullock IN a Replevin for taking of his goods and Cattel The cattel and goods were delivered in pawn to the Defendant for mony and the Plaintiff did not pay the money at the day yet in the absence of the Plaintiff coming with the Sheriff who replevyed them The Defendant avows for the cause aforesaid And Atthow demurred upon the avowry generally For that that it appeared that the Defendant had a special property in the goods and therefore he ought not to avow but justifie the same Richardson and Yelverton being only present awarded that judgement should be for the Defendant because that now by the Statute they may give Iudgement upon the Right and the Avowry is but a form upon which the Replevin is barred But he cannot have a returno habendo The Countesse of Purbecks Case HEnden moved for a prohibition for the Countesse of Purbeck who was censured in the High Commission Court for Adultery with Sir Robert Howard son to the Countesse of Suffolk and the sentence there was that she should be imprisoned without bayl or mainprise until she found security for to perform the sentence and she was fined 400 marks But Henden alleged that they had not power to inflict such punishment For the offence is spiritual and the punishment temporal And the High Commission had not power to impose a fine and imprison for Ecclesiastical causes For the liberty of the Subject is Precious And therefore the censure in the Ecclesiastical Court ought to be only by excommunication before the Statute of 1 Eliz. there was not any question of it as appears by Articuli Cler. And the Statute does not make alteration of it but only in the things there named Hil. 42 Eliz. Smiths Case
agreed clearly that a Covenant to stand seised of as much as should be worth 20 l. per annum is méerly void And so by the Court it was lately adjudged Flower against Vaughan FLower sued Vaughan for tithes of hay which grew upon Land that was heath ground and for tithes of Pidgeons And by Richardson If it was mere waste ground and yeeld nothing it is excused by the Statute of payment of tithes for 7 years But if sheep were kept upon it or if it yeeld any profit which yeeld tithes then tithe ought to be payed As the case in Dyer And for the Pidgeons which were consumed in the house of the Owner he said that for Fish in a Pond Conies Deer it is clear that no tithes of them ought to be paid of right wherefore then of Pidgeons Felony to take Pidgeons out of a Dove-coat quod nemo dedixit and a day was given to shew wherefore a Prohibition should not be granted And the Court agreed that it was Felony to take Pidgeons out of a Dovecoat And afterwards a Prohibition was granted but principally that the Pidgeons were spent by the Owner But by Henden they shall be tithable if they were sold Clotworthy against Clotworthy IN Debt upon Obligation against the Defendant as Heir to Clotworthy scil son of Clotworthy without shewing his Christian name And Iudgement was given against the Defendant upon default and upon that Error brought and that assigned for error and after in nullo est erratum pleaded But Henden moved that it might be amended and he cited one Wosters and Westlys Case Hil. 19. Iac. rot 673. where in a Declaration in Debt upon an Obligation there was omitted obligo me haeredes and after was amended And he said that in this Case the Plea roll was without Commission of the Christian name then by the Court the Plea roll may be amended by the Imparlance roll but not è converso And the Case of the Obligation is the misprision of the Clark But here there was want of instructions Dennes Case IN Dennes Case of the Inner Temple issue was joyned in a Prohibition whether the Will was revoked or not and for a year the Plaintiff does not prosecute nor continue it upon the Iury roll And by the Court now it is in our discretion to permit it to be continued or not which the Prothonotaries agréed Mosses Case IN one Mosses Case in an Assumpsit for debt which was out of the 6 years limited by the Statute of 21 Iac. part within the time If the Iury found for the Plaintiff and taxed dammages severally The Plaintiff recovered for that that is within the time and not for that that was without But if dammages are intirely taxt the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgement of some part Which was granted by the Court. And by Richardson where an Action is brought upon an Assumpsit in Law and the Request is put in which is not more than the Law had done the Request there is not material But where a Request is collateral as in Pecks case there it is material Hutton said that in Pecks Case it was agréed by the whole Court that a Request was material but they conceived that the postea requisitus was sufficient For which afterwards it was reversed in the Kings Bench. Richardson said if one sells an Horse for money to be paid upon Request and no Request is shewn he can never have Iudgment which was not denied Boydens Case BOyden Executer of Boyden brought a scire facias to execute Iudgment given against Butler for the Testator which was directed to the Sheriff upon nihil habet returned testatum a scire fac is directed to the Sheriff of S. who returns Ployden terretenant of the Mannor which Butler was seised of at the time of the Iudgement Ployden appears and demands Oyer of the scire fac and of the return and pleads that long time before A. B. and C. were seised of the Mannor in fee and before the first return makes a feoffment to the use of one Francis Boyden for life who makes a Lease to the Defendant for 80 years And because that Francis Boyden aforesaid is not returned terretenant demanded Iudgement of the writs aforesaid Bramston said that the conclusion here to the writ is naught for a writ shall never be abated where we cannot have a better The matter here is the return of the Sheriff that Mr. Ployden is terretenant to which he makes no answer but by Argument And in all Cases where a special non tenure is pleaded it is used to be a Traverse upon which issue may be taken 8 E. 4. 19. 7 H. 6.16.17 But in our case no issue was taken and here all the matter alleged may be found c. For the matter although general non tenure is no plea yet a special non tenure may be pleaded 7 H. 6. 17. 25. 8 H. 6. 32. In real actions non tenure of a Franktenement is good But here a Chattel is only in question 2ly he may plead non tenure of Franktenement where the Lessee shall be concluded and bound But here here Edw. Boyden is not bound Crawly said that the plea is good and for the matter the difference is between the general and the special non tenure The general non tenure is no plea but in a praecipe quod reddat as it is But a special non tenure is a good plea in a scire facias nomina praecipe 31 H. 6. non tenure 21 Statham scire fac The Plaintiff in a scire fac does not demand Land but execution Yelverton In Holland and Lees Case in the Kings Bench this point It was adjudged that the Writ shall abate Richardson This Writ is a judicial Writ and by that Plea a better Writ given you For where before it was against the Terre-tenants generally he might have now a particular scire fac against Francis Boyden and both waies are good either to demand Iudgement of the Writ or Iudgement of the Court if execution ought to be against him quod concessum per totam curiam And agreed also by the Prothonotaries that a special scire facias might issue against Francis Boyden Turner against Disbury TUrner against Disbury in Trespass Where the Writ was quare domum clausum fregit but the Declaration was quare domum clausum canem molossum cepit which was found for the Defendant And it was moved by Hitcham for the Plaintiff in arrest of Iudgement to prevent costs for it That there is not a material difference between the Original and the Declaration For that that there is more in the Declaration than in the Original And then here is no Original to warrant part of the Declaration But this variance was between the Original it self which remained with the custos brevium and the Declaration For the Original as it was recited in the Declaration according to the usage in this Court agreed with the Declaration
himself from all rights as concerning himself yet the Donor shall by force of this Statute which at the Common law he could not And if the Donor will release all his right in the Land to the Donee after a discontinuance by Feoffment his release though it will extinguish no right to the very Land yet it will extinguish Rents which proves that the Donee by his Feoffment cannot dismiss himself of all his right but that by the Statute of West his alienation is disabled as to that but that the Donor may avow for the Rent But wheresoever Tenant in tayl suffers a Recovery or levies a Fine the Rents together with the entayl ceases And the answer as to that is imperfect to resemble it to the Case of tenant in see simple doth alien and yet the Lord may avow upon him for the Cases have no resemblance for as Littleton well distinguisheth when Tenant in fee hath departed with his whole Estate he is no more Tenant to the Lord to avow upon though the Lord if he Will may avow upon him for the arrerages and if the Lord after future alienation release to him all his rights in the Land the Release is void to release the Rents and Services in all which it differs materially from the other Case and it is an equall proportion of the Law That when the Lord aliens his signory the Tenant is to he acquainted that all Arrearages may be paid that he may have no after-reckonings for after notice and the Arrerages paid the avowrie vanisheth Now for the Heir in tayl claiming from his Ancestor after his Feoffment by descent from him thereby allowing a right to remain in him against his Feoffment The Case is more difficult because during the Feoffor there can be no motion of that right neither by the Feoffor who hath hard himself nor his Issue because his Right is not yet come yet let me put this Case upon the Statute 11 H. 7. upon the opinion of Mountague Chief Iustice If Tenant in tayl Iointress make a Feoffment the person to whom the land doth belong after her death may enter and hold it according to his right Now till such Entry there is a discontinuance but when the Issue enters he is an Heir intayl et quasi eins per discent But now generally when Tenant in tayl hath made a Feoffment and dies the Heir shall bring a Formedon in the Discender and shall count that descendere debet from that Ancestor that made the discontinuance performam doni and therefore the Writ saith discendit jus it is as much devenit jus It is true that regularly a Feoffment bars all former rights and future rights yet respect to be had to Estrangers Albanies Case 2 Rep. Archers Case 1 Rep. 66. 9 H. 7. And therefore in Archers Case Lands were demised to one fore life remainder to his first Heir male Tenant for life made a Feoffment in fee and died his next Heir was barred of his right for ever by the Feoffment A man seised of Land by right of his Wife makes a feoffment in fee and then the Estate is made back to the Wife she is thereby remitted and her Husband shall never be Tenant by the Courtesie and therefore well resolved if Tenant in tayl discontinue and levy fine with Proclamations is no bar to the Estate tayl Now this Case is irregular because it standeth by Act of Parliament which is able to make the same Act good to one purpose or person and void or voidable to another as the Statute of Ecclesiastical persons and binds the party but is void or voidable against the Successors and shall nevertheless when they enter be in by succession And that there is still a right remaining in the Tenant in tayl appears in that he hath still in him a power to bind it more finally and totally by fine and recovery if he pursue them rightly and therefore note Cuppledikes Case If Tenant in tayl with divers remainders over make a Feoffment and Feoffee vouch not the Feoffee Tenant in tayl in possession but the first in Remainder by the Statute the Feoffees are not bound but are remitted and Maunsells Case there is cited where one recovery is a bar to 3 several Intayls with double voucher And this is called jus extinguendi which he could not extinguish and discharge if not in him and in his power and therefore there is no cause to frame Abeyances needless and in vain but the Law allows not nor admits not but in Cases of necessity as in the vacancy of Bishops Parsons and other Ecclesiastical persons or the like Remainders to right Heirs upon Freehold abeyances are not allowed but where the original Estate required them or where the consequences of Estates and Cases do require them As for the first in Case of single Corporations Bishops Deans and Parsons which must dye and a vacancy of freehold or a Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. yet living Or Secondly in Case of congruity as if a man gives a Warranty and die his Heir in ventre sa mere may not be vouched but if there be Heir he may be vouched and a Vouchee may take and plead a Release quasi tenens or may lease a Fine to the Defendant of the Land in Question But for Estates that of their own nature and origination creation are perfect and intire as this Estate entayl is the Law permits not vain affected abeyance or fictions by the voluntary Act of the party as this to no good which should preserve a right to serve the Heir and to defraud the King which was one of the principal reasons for the making the Statute 27 of H. 8. for the transferring of uses into possession Vses being but a kind of abeyance and shift to kéep the profits to the use and defraud the King and Lords of their Escheats and them that had a right to know against whom to bring their Actions Littleton was confounded in himself when he made an abeyance of totum statum suum and yet made an Estate for life which is condemned in Walsinghams Case by the Iudges Again though fictions take place amongst common person the King is not bound by fictions and therefore the King is not bound by his remainders by recompence feigned upon a common recovery warrant collateral binds not the King but warranty with real and actual Assets nor the King is not bound by Estoppels of his own recitall certa scientia as it is in Altenwoods Case And I hold plainly that as the Land in possession is distinctly and literally given to the King so the right is as literally directly and plainly given to the King by discharge of that ancient right whereof formerly it was bound for when the Statute saith that the King should have the Lands saving the right of all persons other than the Offenders and their Heirs and such as claim to their use it is plain that the eye of the Statute was not
only upon the Land in possession but also the rights to the same the one in point of Giving The other in point of renouncing The Land in possession could be but in one that is in the Offenders and so it was given but the rights to the same Lands might be in sundry persons in the Offendor or in his Heirs or in Strangers Now when the Statute saith the King shall have the Land without saving the Rights of the Offendors or his Heirs or any claiming to their use Tenant in tayl discontinues and after disseiseth his Discontinuee and is attainted of Treason he forfeits his Estate gained by the Disseisin and also his right of Entayl for he cannot take benefit of his ancient Right against the King by force of the Statute of 26 H. 8. and 32 of H. 8. and this agrees with the reason and the rule in the Marquess of Winchesters Case for if the Traytor have right to a Strangers land that shall not be given to the King for the quiet of the Stranger being Possessor for the quiet of his possesion but such right shall be given to the King being Possessor for the quiet of his possession and the word Hereditament in the Statute 26 H. 8. are both sufficient and fit to carry such right in such Cases and no man will dispute but they are sufficient to save naked rights to the Lands of strangers therfore it is not for the count of words but because it is alleged it was not meant so it was said in Digbies Case and so hath Antiquity expounded it for the good of the Subject against the King and against the letter of the Law But can any man imagine that the Parliament that gave the Land to the King should leave a right in the Traytor in the same Land to defeaf him again of it since the Statute gives the right and the Land and this gives a forfeiture of all rights belonging to the Person attainted of Treason and their Heirs for the benefit of the Kings forfeiture is of so great importance that if it be not taken as large as I take it it is an avoiding of all the Statute even that 33 H. 8. cap. 20. for though they have the word Rights in both Statutes even that of 33. doth not include the right of Action to the Lands of Estrangers by an Equity against the Letter So for this time the Case was abruptly broken off by reason the King had sent for all the Iudges of every Bench. Springall against Tuttersbury IN Springall and Tuttersburies Case It was agreed by the Court If a verdict be given at a nisi prius and the Plaintiff or Defendant die after the beginning of the Term yet Iudgement shall be entred for that relates to the first day of the term Overalls Case ONe Overall was sued in London and for that that he was of the Common Bench a Writ of Privilege issued which is a Supersedeas and staid the Sute wholly and not removed the Cause And if the Plaintiff had cause of Action he ought to sue here And then by the course of the Court a Clark shall not put in bayl Foxes Case THe Lord Keeper in the Star-chamber cited one and Butchers Case to be adjudged 38 Eliz. An Vnder-Sheriff makes his Deputy for all matters except Executions and restrained him from medling with them And it was adjudged a void Exception So if it be agreed and covenanted between them that the Deputy should not meddle with matters of such a value It is a void Covenant And that was agreed by Richardson to be good Law Hil. 5 Car. Com. Banc. Overalls Case IT was agreed at another day in Overalls case by all the Clarks and Prothonotaries of the Court that the Course always was that if an Atturney or Clark be sued here by bill of Privilege he needs not put in bail But if he be sued by original and taken by a Capias as he may be if the Plaintiff wil Then he ought to put in bail quod nota MEmorandum that on Sunday morning in the next term ensuing which was the 24. day of Ianuary Sir Henry Yelverton puisne Iudge of the Common Bench dyed who before had been Attourney general to King Iames and afterwards incurring the displeasure of the King was displaced and censured in the Star-chamber and then he became afterwards a practicer again at the bar from whence he was advanced by King Charls to be a Iudge He was a man of profound knowledge and eloquence and for his life of great integrity and piety and his death was universally bewailed Termino Hill 5 Car. Com. Banc. Honora Cason against the Executor of her Husband HOnora Cason sues Edward Cason Executor of her Husband and declares by bill original in nature of debt pro rationabili parte bonorum in the Court of Mayor and Aldermen of London and alleges the custom of London to be That when the Citizens and Fréemen of London die their goods and chattels above the debts and necessary funeral expences ought to be divided into three parts and that the wife of the testator ought to have the one part and the Executors the second part to discharge Legacies and dispose at their discretion And the children of the Testator male or female which were not sufficiently provided for in the life of the Father to have notwithstanding the Legacies in the will the third part And the custom is that the Plaintiff in this action ought to bring into the Court an inventory and sue before the Mayor and Aldermen And that she had here brought an Inventory which amounted to 18000 l. so that her third part was 6000 l and demanded it of the Executor who unjustly detained c. And it was removed to the Common bench by writ of Privilege And now Hitcham Serjeant moved for a procedendo And the Court séemed to be of the opinion to grant it Because that the custom is that the sute ought to be before the Mayor and Aldermen and then if they retain the action here the custom would be overthrown But they agreed that a rationabile parte bonorum may be remanded here and that they may proceed upon it in this Court And that there be divers presidents to this purpose And they agreed that a rationabile parte bonorum is the original writ by the Common Law and not grounded upon the Statute of Magna Charta But that it does not lie but where such a custom is which custom they ought to extend to all the Province of York beyond Trent Richardson chief Iustice said that in the principal case The Plaintiff in London might have declared without alleging the custom As it is in 2 H. 4. Because that the custom is well known But otherwise Where custom ought to be shewed and where not where an action is upon the custom in a place where the custom does not extend There it ought to be shewn And afterwards at another