held and have accustomed to have in the aforesaid two hundred acres of pasture and a hundred of wood parcel of the aforesaid Tenements called the Mannor of Colwick belonging to the said Mannor of Colwick enclosing ditching and hedging at their will and pleasure with all liberties priviledges and Franchises to the said Park belonging and in the said Park from the time aforesaid have used to have and to keep Deer and from time to time to constitute and appoint a Keeper of the said Deer in the said Park who from the aforesaid time have used to keep the same ac ad venandum fugandum occidendum capiendum asportandum omnes omnimodas damas in eodem parco de tempore in tempus existentes ita quod nullus forestarius Domini Regis Forestae praedictae nec aliquae aliae personae quaecunque intromittantur ad venandum fugandum in parco praedicto sine licentia praedicti Johannis avi And set forth that the said John the Grandfather died seised whereby the said Mannor c. descended to Sir John Byron his Son And that Hillary 3. Jacobi a Fine was levied between Sir Peter Leigh and other Plaintiffs and Sir John Byron the son Defendant of the said Tenements to the use of the said Sir John for life the remainder to the Defendant in tail And that the seventeenth of December 10. Jac. did let the Premisses to the Defendant for eighty years if the Lessee should so long live wherby the Defendant the 26. Mar 11. Jac was and is thereof possessed did aver that the Mannor of Colwick in the information and the said Messuage a hundred acres of Land two hundred of Meadow three hundred of Pasture and a hundred of Wood to be the same and did also aver the life of the Lessor The Attorney Generall for the King did reply that before the information sc 9 Octobr. 19. Jacobi and long before and continuing after untill the exhibiting of this information the Defendant the Park and Tenements aforesaid with Ditches Hedges and Fences had so sleightly inclosed that the Kings Deer of the aforesaid Forest for defect of sufficient inclosing of the Park and Tenements aforesaid through the default of the Defendant did enter and the Deer of the King into the said Park and Tenements aforesaid for the cause aforesaid entring the Defendant did very unjustly kill the said Deer in the said Park and Tenements aforesaid The Defendant did maintain his Bar and traversed without that that the Defendant the Park and Tenements aforesaid with such sleight Fences Hedges and Ditches inclosed did keep the same Quod Damae Regis de forresta praedicta de tempore in tempus intra tempus praedictum in parcum tenementa praedicta pro defectu sufficientis inclusurae parci tenementorum praedictorum in defectu defen intraverunt absque hoc quod Defendens Damas Regis de forresta praedicta in parco tenementis praedictis pro defectu sufficientis inclusurae parci tenementorum praedictorum in defectu defendentis minus juste interfecit modo forma prout c. Whereupon the Attorney demurred And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the King First Because the plea in Bar and the Rejoynder made by the Defendant is altogether insufficient for divers causes Secondly As to matter in Law And as to the first The Quo Warranto doth suppose that the Defendant did use the liberties there mentioned within the Mannor of Colwick being within the meets and bounds of the Forest of Sherwood and within the Reguards of the said Forest and the Defendant did know this to be within the meets and bounds of the said Forest but does not answer whether it be within the Reguards or not for it may be within the meets and bounds of the said Forest and yet not within the Reguards as if the Mannor were disforested by Carta forestae because it was a Subjects Mannor and not the Kings yet it remains within the meets and bounds of the said Forest but not within the Reguards for now by the disforesting it is made purlue and not subject to the Reguards and Lawes of the Forest as to the Owner of the Mannor Vide Carta Foresta fol. 1. and yet notwithstanding this Statute if the King had granted this Mannor to be free of the Reguards or out of the Reguards yet is it still within the meets and bounds of the said Forest Secondly The Dendant makes Title to the liberties whereof Sir John Byron his Grandfather was seised in Fee viz. of a Messuage a hundred acres of land two hundred of Meadow three hundred of Pasture and a hundred of Wood in Colwick now and time out of mind called the Mannor of Colwick Quodque ille omnes illi Quorum statum idem Johannes habuit in tenementis praedictis habuerunt tenuerunt habere consueverunt in praedictis 200. acris pasturae 100. acris bosci parcellis praedictorum tenementorum vocat mannerium de Colwick praedictum parcum tenementa praedicta vocat mannerium de Colwcik spectant pertinent c. So that the Defendant doth not prescribe but doth alledge only that Sir John Byron and those whose estate he hath have used to have a Park the which is no Title to the Park for that ought to be time out of mind Thirdly The Defendant doth claim to have a Park in the aforesaid two hundred acres of pasture and a hundred acres of wood whereas there is no speaking of two hundred acres of pasture before and therefore he ought to have said in two hundred acres of pasture parcell of the said three hundred acres Fourthly The Defendant doth not answer to the killing of the Kings Deer of the Forest but doth only justifie the killing of all Deer time out of mind being in the said Park Fifthly The Rejoynder is a manifest departure from the Bar for in the Bar he claimeth to have a Park ditched and hedged Per voluntatem eorum inclusum so that by this pretence he may keep the Park with such low Hedges as he will and yet in his Rejoynder he doth traverse absque hoc that he kept the Park adeo parvis sepibus Fossatis quod Damae Regis de foresta praedicta in parcum praedictum pro defectu inclusurae intraverunt absque hoc c. So that the Defendant by his Rejoynder doth make an Issue upon that which he doth justifie in his Bar and doth upon the matter deny in his Rejoynder the matter alledged by him in his Bar. And as to the matter in Law I conceive that the Defendant cannot prescribe to have a Park in such manner as he pretendeth for that such prescription is quite contrary to the nature of his Royall Franchise of his Forest and is to the destruction of it for a Forest is a Royall Franchise so that regularly none can have it but the King as it was adjudged in this Court in a Quo Warranto
Common tâ—â—ne and the Term to another and dies and the Executor payes the Rent or suffers the Devisee of the Common to put in his Cattell this is no assent as to the Term for the Term is one thing and the profit out of it is another thing but there in the principall Case the assent of the Executor of the Devise to occupy the Land was a sufficient assent to the Remainder of the Term because the occupation of the Land and the Land it self is all one and Comment 541. the same agreed and that the first assent doth go to all And it is no assent to the Term neither can it be taken by Implication to be any assent to the Devise of the Rent for every Act that does enure to another Act by Implication ought to be such as of necessity ought to enure to the other Act which cannot be taken to be otherwise and therefore 2 R. 2. Attornment the 8th A Woman grants a Reversion to which a Rent was incident and afterwards marries the Grantee to whom the Tenant payes the Rent this is no Attornment for it is indifferent whether he payes the Rent to him as Grantee or in right of his Wife Dyer 302. Vivors Case que recover Rents of severall Tenants as Bayly and then they be granted to him and after the Grant they be paid to him this is no Attornment for they may be paid to him as he is Baily as well as he is Grantee But if the Lessee do surrender to him in the Reversion then it is a good Attornment for a Surrender cannot be to any but to him that hath the Reversion And so in our Case it is cleer that the assent to the Legacy of the Land it self is not any expresse assent to the Rent nor any implyed assent for there may be an assent to the one and not to the other and where the Wife had assented to the Devise of the Term she hath utterly dismist her self of the Term as Executor notwithstanding the assent to the Rent but having once assented to the Devise of the Term she hath no more to do with it and therefore in such Case the Legatee of the Rent ought to sue in the Court Christian for his remedy against the Executor in the same manner as if a Term were devised to one and the Executor will not assent to it but sells the Term to another And in this case if the Testator were indebted after this assent to the Devisee of the Term the Term cannot be put in execution for this Debt but the assent of the Wife is in her a Devastavit 21 Ed. 4. 21. 37 H. 6. 30 2 H 6. 16. Also here is no Rent devised out of this house for the Devise is Ex omnibus aliis terris suis which word all excludes all the Lands wherof any mention was made before And Coke Rep 1. Mildmayes Case There Sir H.S. did covenant for a Ioynture for his life and for the advancement of his Issue Male if he had any and for advancement of his three Daughters and for continuance of his Land in his blood to be seised to the use of himself for life and then of part to the use of his Wife for her life with other remainders to his Issues Males and Females Proviso that it should be lawfull for him to limit any part to any person for life or years for payment of Debts or Legacies preferment of his Servants or other reasonable considerations And then he did limit the part of one of his Daughters to another for the term of a thousand years and this was adjudged a void limitation and one principall reason was because that the word other cannot comprehend any consideration mentioned in the Indenture before the Proviso and the advancement of his Daughter was mentioned before Object 2 But it may be objected that other Lands shall be understood such as shall be demised after her marriage and so will not relate to the house whereof there was mention made before Answer That this Obligation is against the recited resolution for it may as well be said in this Case that other considerations shall be other then what are mentioned in the said Proviso but it was resolved that other shall exclude all considerations mentioned before the said Indenture and so he excludes in this case all mention before in this Writ And this Case was argued at the Bench Pasch 14. Jac. And all the Iustices did agree that all the exceptions taken by the Counsell of the Defendant as well to the matter as to the pleading to be of no force saving the principall point sc If the Rent shall be determined by the death of the Wife or not and herein the Court was divided viz. Haughton and Crook held that it was determined but Coke and Doderidge on the contrary Et sic pendet c. Hillar 12. Iac. Iohn Harry and Lewis Howell against Grace Harry IN a Writ of Errour brought to reverse a Judgment given in a Writ of Dower brought by the said Grace of the endowment of Richard Harry her Husband And the Error assigned was because the demand amongst other things was De tertia parte de uno Horreo uno pomario and the Tenants pleaded Ne unques accouple in legall matrimony which was certified against them whereupon Judgment was given against them whereupon the Demandant did surmise that her husband died seised and so prayed her Dower with damages Et petit breve tam de habere facias seisinam quam de inquirendo de damnis and the Writ of Error was purchased before the return of the said Writ or any Judgment given thereupon And I conceive that it is Error for the Demand ought to be as certain and formall as a Writ for the Writ of Dower being generall De libero tenemento the Demand ought to make it certain and therefore it is of the same nature as the Writ is 8. Ass 29. 13. Ass 2. 13. Ed. 3. br 265. A Chappell or an Hospitall shall not be named but by the name of a Messuage and 8 H. 6. 3. Praecipe quod reddat does not lye of a Cottage and Cokes 11. Rep. Serbes Case in an Ejectione firmae of a Close called Dumote Close containing three acres adjudged insufficient for the name and quantity will not serve without the quality and certainty ought to be comprised in the Court because the possession is to be recovered And it was adjudged that the Error would not lye Loyde against Bethell HUmphrey Loyde brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench against Bechell and others to reverse a Recovery had at Cardiff in the County of Flynt by Nicholas John ap Robert Loyde to whom the Defendants are Heires against John ap De ap Robert Loyde for the now Plaintiff of Land in the County of Flynt which Assise did begin in the time of Queen Mary and did continue untill the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the third year
bargain and sell 10 l. Land parcel of the Mannor no use is changed for the incertainty Trinit 18 Jacob. Ponesley against Blackman IN an Ejectment upon a Lease made by Richard Perriam the 19 of May 18 Jacobi of a Messuage and Land in Thacham and Colthrop in the Parish of Thacham Habendum from the Annunciation last past for three years whereupon the Plaintiff entered and was possest until the Defendant the 20 of May in the same year did Eject him ad dampnum c. The Defendant pleaded Not guilty The Iury gave an Especial Verdict viz. That before the Ejectment John Curre was seised in fee of the said Lands and the seventh of January 10 Jac. for 300 l. did bargain and sell the same to William Perriam and his Heirs upon Condition that if the said John Curre his Heirs Executors or Assignes should pay to the said William his Heirs or Assignes at the house of C. B. in Westminster 300 l. in manner following viz. 10 l. the 9 of July then next coming 10 l. the 9 of January next after which shall be in the year 1613. 10 l. the 9 of July 1614 10 l. the 9 of January next after 10 l. the 9 of July 1615. 10 l. the ninth of January next after 10 l. the ninth of July 1616. 10 l. the 9 of January next after 10 l. the 9 of July 1617. and 210 l. the 9 of January next after that then the Indenture should be voyd Proviso semper And it was agreed by the said Indenture and the said parties that the said William Perriam his Heirs and Assigns shall not take and intermeddle with the actual possession of the said Tenements or with the receit of the Rents issues or profits thereof until default were made of the payment of the said 300 l. or any part thereof contrary to the limitation in the said Indenture And they found likewise that the said William Perriam did not enter into the said Tenements And that afterwards and before the first day of the payment the said Curre did demise the said Tenements to William Dibley and Richard Carter by two several Demises habendum for six years and an half rendering Rent That the said Dibley and Carter by vertue of the said several Demises did enter and take the profits during the said term claiming nothing but by the said several Demises and that they payd the Rents during all that time to Curre and that at the end of the said term they surrendered the Estate to Curre That 11 Octob. 16 Jacobi William Perriam made his Will in writing and thereby did Demise the said Tenements c. to Richard Perriam and dyed That the said Richard Perriam the 19 Maii 18 Jac. did enter and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who entered and was possest until the Defendant did Eject him That the said Richard Perriam was yet living But whether the Defendant were guilty or not they prayed the advice of the Court and if it seemed to the Court that he was guilty then c. It was argued on behalf of the Plaintiff That this agreement by Indenture that the Bargainee shall not meddle with the possession is a Lease for years to the Bargainor Admitting it to be no Lease for years yet is the Bargainor Tenant at will and when he makes a Lease for years and the Tenant enters he is a Disseisor and then when the Bargainor enters he is Tenant at will again and so the Bargainee may very well Demise the Land And as to the first point to make a Lease the Law does require but the agreement of the parties that the Lessee shall enjoy the Land and take the profits and it is not necessary to have any precise words of a Demise or Grant as in 5 H. 7.1 by Frieux If I make one Bayliff of my Mannor for certain years and that he shall have the profits without interruption this is a Lease for years But it was objected that there is no express words that the Bargainor Object 1 shall have the Land or the profit but onely that the Bargainee shall not have it But it was answered that the words did amount to so much Respons for when the Land is sold to the Bargainee by the Law he ought to have the possession and profits but when by the same Deed it is agreed that he shall not intermeddle with the Land it follows that the Bargainor shall have it for he had it before and there was nothing to exclude him but onely this Deed and although by the Deed the Land is conveyed to the Bargainee yet when by the same Deed it is agreed that he shall not have the possession it follows that the possession shall remain in the Bargainor in whom it was before the making of the said Deed for no alteration is made thereof as to the possession As in the 8 Assis 34. one made a Feoffment on condition that if such an act were not done that the Land should return c. and the Feoffor re-entered for the condition broken and there it was objected that his entry was not congeable because he must recover the Land by Action but it was adjudged that his entry was good and the same Law if the words were that for not performing the Feoffor should retake the Land But it was objected That it could be no Lease for the intertainty Object 2 of the time It was answered that notwithstanding it was a good Lease Respons for first it is certain to continue until the time limited for the first payment and if that be done then it is a good Lease until the second payment and is like to the Case where one lets Land for a year and so from year to year as long as both parties shall please this is a good Lease for one year and for every year after when he hath entered before any disagreement And as to the second Point it is clear that the Bargainor is in at the will of the Bargainee because he enters by his agreement and then when the Tenant at will makes a Lease for years and the Lessee enters he is the onely Disseisor but if the Tenant at will infeoffs a stranger then both are Disseisors by the Statute of Westm 2. Cap. 25. And in the 12 Ed. 4. 12 B. If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years this is a Disseisin And the reason hereof is apparent for the Tenant at will hath no Estate in the Land and therefore he hath nothing to transfer to another And in the 23 H. 8. B. If I let anothers Land for years and the Lessee enters he is a Disseisor And 21 H. 7. 26. a. If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years and the Lessee enters this is a Disseisin to the first Lessor And if the Tenant at will be outed by the Disseisor and re-enters he hath reduced the Estate to the Lessor as in the Lord Abergevenies Case reported briefly by the Lord Dyer
Defendants Father was seised in Fee of divers Lands and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the remainder to the Defendant his Son in Tail with divers remainders over with power of revocation by writing under his hand and Seal and publisht in the presence of three Witnesses And then for the consideration of four hundred pounds did enter into this Recognizance to the Plaintiff and dies And whether this Land were extendable or not against the Son was the question And I conceive that by the Statute of the 27. Eliz. this Recognizance may be extended against the Son the words of which Statute are And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid that if any person or persons have heretofore sithence the beginning of the Queens Majesties Reign that now is made or hereafter shall make any conveyance Gift Grant or Demise Charge Limitation of Use or Uses or Assurance of in or out of any Lands Tenements or Hereditaments with any Clause Provision Article or Condition of Revocation Determination or alteration at his or their will or pleasure of such Conveyance Assurance Grants Limitation of Uses or Estates of in or out of the said Lands Tenements or Hereditaments or of in or out of any part or parcell of them contained or mentioned in any Writing Deed or Indenture of such Assurance Conveyance Grant or Gift and after such Conveyance Grant Gift Devise Charge limitation of Use or Assurance so made or had shall or do bargaine sell demise grant convey sell or charge the same Lands Tenements or Hereditaments or any part or parcell thereof to any person or persons bodies Politick or Corporate for money or other good consideration paid or given the said first Conveyance or Assurance Gift Grant Demise Charge or Limitation not by him or them revoked made void or altered according to the power and authority reserved or expressed unto him or them in and by the said secret Conveyance Assurance Gift or Grant That then the said former Conveyance Assurance Gift Grant or Demise as touching the said Lands Tenements and Hereditaments so after sold bargained conveyed demised or charged against the said Bargainees Vendees Lessees Grantees and every of them their Heirs Successors Executors Administrators and Assigns and against all and every person and persons which have shall or may lawfully claim any thing by from or under them or any of them shall be deemed taken and adjudged to be void frustrate and of none effect by vertue and force of this present Act. So that this Statute doth not only aide Purchasors of the Lands but those who for a valuable consideration have any charge out of the Land or upon the Land But it may be objected that the Statute doth make the revokable Conveyance void only against the Bargainees Vendees Grantees Object and Lessees but does not speak of any Conuzee But I answer that it appears by the foregoing words Respons that the Statute intends to aide not only Bargainees c. but also all that have any charge out of the Land or upon the Land and although the last words of the Statute doe not speak expresly of Conuzees yet the Statute shâ—ll be expounded to extend to them and the Statute of West 2. cap. 1. Quod illi quibus tenementa data sunt in Taile potestatem alienandi c. which words seem only to restrain the Dâ—nee in Tail yet in the 5. Edw. 2. Form 52. the issue is thereby restrained and 3. Edw. 3. Formedon 46. that Tenant in tail cannot charge the Land no more then alien can forfeit the Land so that if he grant a Rent or acknowledge a Statute or Recognizance or commit Felony or Treason and dies the Issue shal have the Land discharged And this Statute hath alwaies been taken as to the equity thereof to releive Purch sors and those who have and therefore in Coke R. 3. 82. B. Standen and Bullocks case Mich. 42. 43. Eliz. where a man had conveyed his Land to the use of himself for life and then to the use of divers others of his blood with future power of revocation as after such a Feast or after the death of such a one and after and before the power of revocation commenc'd he for a valuable consideration did bargain and sell the Land to another and his Heirs this bargain and sale is within the remedy of the Statute for although the Statute saith the said first Conveyance not by him revoked according to the power by him reserved which seems by the literall sense to be intended of a present power of revocation for no revocation may be made by force of a future power untill it comes in esse yet it was holden that the intention of the Act was that such a voluntary Conveyance which was originally subject to the power of revocation be it in present or in future shall not be good against a Purchasor bona fide upon valuable consideration and if other construction be made the Act will signifie very little and it will be easie to evade such an Act. And so if A. hath reserved to him a power of revocation by the assent of B. and then A. bargains and sells the Land to another this bargain and sale is good and within the remedy of the said Act. The King against Sir John Byron Knight IN a Quo Warranto for that the Defendant for a year past hath used and yet doth use without any Warrant within the Mannor of Colswick in the County of Nottingham within the bounds of the Kings Forest of Sherwood and within the reguards of the said Forest to have a Park within the said Mannor with a Pale Hedge and Ditch inclosed being two hundred acres of Pasture and a hundred acres of Wood within the said Park Et ad venandum capiendum occidendum apportandum in the said Park and two hundred acres of Pasture and a hundred acres of Wood omnes omnimodas damas Domini Regis Forrestae suae praedict in parcum praedict praedict 200. acr pasturae 100. acr Bosci aliquo tempore venand occidend Ita quod Forrestini Domini Regis forestae praâ—dict nec aliquae aliae personae quaecunque intromittantur ad venandum fugandum intra parcum praedictum 200. acr pasturae 100. acr Bosci sine licentia defendentis The Defendant pleaded that John Biron Knight the Defendants Grandfather was seised in Fee of a Messuage of a hundred acres of land two hundred acres of Meadow three hundred acres of pasture and a hundred acres of wood in Colwick in the County aforesaid now and time out of mind called the Mannor of Colwick within the meets and bounds of the Forâ—st aforesaid And that the said John Byron the Grandfather and all those whosâ— Estate the said John Byron hath in the aforesaid house and a hundred acres of land two hundred of Meadow and three hundred of Pasture and a hundred of Wood in Colwick aforesaid have had
But in our Case the act being done by the issue in Tail himself shall not enable him to make voyd the Lease made by his Mother no more then if a Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for years and levies a Fine with proclamations to the Donor and dyes having issue yet the Donor shall not avoyd the Lease Vid. Lord Aberganies Case Cook 6 Rep. And although that the Wife were a Ioyntress within the Statute of 11 H. 7. yet is this Lease clearly out of the Statute because that it is no bar or discontinuance to the Estate in Tail as it is in Sir George Browns Case Cook 3 Rep. for this Lease was voydable by the issue unless he had bar'd himself by his own Fine And I conceive this Lease is also good against the Devisee for when a Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for years or grants a Rent common c. or acknowledgeth a Statute or doth in some other manner charge the Land this is a good Lease Grant or Charge to binde the Tenant in Tail and all other except the issues in Tail and those in Reversion And the reason of this is because the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 1. that was made to avoyd such charges does not ayd any persons except the issues in Tail and those in Remainder and Reversion And therefore if Tenant in Tail grant a Rent or acknowledg a Statute and dyes the issue shall not be charged with it and so shall his Feoffee but if the Tenant in Tail himself after such charge infeoffs another and dyes the Feoffee shall hold the Land charged and if a Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for years and dyes and the issue doth accept the Rent the Lease is made good and is absolute but if he dyes seised of the Estate-Tail the issue hath his election either to make the Estate good by his acceptance of the Rent or to avoyd the Lease by his entry and if he infeoff a stranger before entry the Feoffee shall never avoyd the Lease and if the issue doth accept the Rent he maketh the Lease good for his time and as the Feoffee of the Tenant in Tail and all those who come to the Land by any assurance made be the Tenant in Tail whereby the Estate in Tail is barred or discontinued shall hold the Estate charged with the Leases and charges made by the Tenant in Tail so shall all those in like manner who come to the Land under the said Tenant in Tail although the Estate-tail doth remain not barred or discontinued saving the issues in Tail who are ayded by the Statute of Westminster the 2. And therefore if Tenant in Tail grants a Rent in fee and takes a Wife and dyes the Wife shall hold charged with the Rent and so if a woman Tenant in Tail grants a Rent and marries and hath issue and dyes the Husband being Tenant by the curtesie shall hold the Land charged for they are not ayded by the said Statute and so if Tenant in Tail grants a Rent in Fee and makes a Lease for three lives warranted by the Statute of the 32 of Hen. the 8. and dyes the Lessee shall hold the Land charged Cooks Rep. 9. Count. Bedfords Case And in the said Case of the Lord Abergeveny it is said that the surviving Ioyntenant by acceptance of the Lease hath deprived himself of the way and means of avoyding the charge for vis accrescendi was the onely means of avoyding it and the right of survivor is gone by the Release And so in our Case the issue in Tail might have avoyded this Lease by his entry but he hath quite barred himself by his Fine And as to the Statute of the 11 H. 7. cap. 20. I conceive that nothing is prohibited by this Statute but onely such Acts as are a bar of the Estate-tail or a discontinuance thereof for so are the words of the Stature viz. If any woman shall discontinue alien release or confirm with Warranty c. And in Sir George Browns Case in Cooks Repor fol. 350. it is there argued Whether a Discontinuance without Warranty be within that Statute but it was resolved that these words with Warranty doe refer onely to Releases and Confirmations which make not discontinuance without Warranty for the intention of the Statute was not onely to prohibit every bar but also every discontinuance but here in this case there is no bar or discontinuance for the woman hath made a Lease for years rendering Rent by which the Estate-tail is neither bound nor discontinued but she remains Tenant in Tail as she was before and so dyed seised of such Estate and therefore if it had not been for the Fine levyed by the issue in Tail himself she might have entered and have avoyded the Lease and this is not like the Case there put by Anderson where Feme Tenant in Tail in Ioynture within the Statute does accept a Fine sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and therefore does grant and render the Estate for 1000 years for though this be no discontinuance of the Estate-tail yet is it a bar of the Estate during the time And Hillar 22 Jacob. I argued this Case again and all the Court viz. Doderidge Jones and Whitlock did agree That the issue in Tail was barred by the Fine to avoyd this Lease and that although the Estate-tail was barred yet is it not extinguished but remains in esse to support the Lease so long as any issue in Tail does remain alive and so they agreed the Lease to be good Wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Judicium George Bishop of Chichester Plaintiff John free-Free-land Defendant 1 Caroli Rot. 607. THe Case was That a Bishop was seised in fee of a Park to which there was the office of a Keeper belonging with a fee of five marks with a Livery granted from time to time by the Bishop And the Bishop does grant the said Office together with the fees necnon cum pastura pro duobus equis in eodem Parco which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter The Bishop dyes and another is made Bishop And whether this Grant was good to binde the Successor was the Question And I conceive that this is a good Grant against the Successor and will binde him And first I conceive it will not be denyed but that if a Bishop hath a Park he by the Common Law may grant the Office of the Keeper of that Park to whom he will with such fees and wages and for such an estaâ—e as he will and this being confirmed by the Dean and Chapter is good to binde the Successor and therefore it is to be considered Whether any alteration of the Law be made in this point by reason of any Statute In the Bishop of Salisburies Case Cooks 10 Rep. it is there resolved that by the Statute of the first of Elizabeth Bishops are thereby generally restrained from making any estate or interest of
been granted with a fee of five marks from time to time by the Bishop grantor and his Predecessors to whom they pleased Cooks 9 Rep. Earl of Shrewsburies Case The Earl of Rutland was made Steward of a Mannor for life without any words to make a Deputy yet it was resolved that he might make a Deputy because it was not convenient for him to exercise such an Office So if an Office doth descend to an Infant he must of necessity make a Deputy And so if a Bishop be seised of a Mannor he may ordain a Steward of the said Mannor and may grant to the Steward a fee for the execution of the said Office according to the resolution in the said Case of the Bishop of Chester Object But it may be objected that here is a greater Fee granted then was before viz. Pasture for two Horses and therefore the Grant is not good to bind the Successor Respons And I do agree that the Grant of the said Pasture is void yet that shall not at all prejudice the Grant of the said Office with the ancient Fee for they are severall and distinct Grants so that the one viz. The Grant of the Office with the ancient Fee is good by the Law against the Successor and the other void against the Successor but it cannot hurt the grant of the Office and ancient Fee no more then if a Bishop should grant an old Office with an ancient fee and also a new Office which was never granted before and all this by one Deed of Grant and this is duely confirmed although this be void against the Successor as to the new Office yet it is good for the ancient Office and the ancient see for although these fees are contained in one Deed yet are they severall and distinct so that one may be good and the other void 33. H. 8. Dyer 48. One seised of a Mannor to which a Villain was reguardant did grant one acre and also the Villain the Villain did pass in gross and the reason there given is because there be severall Gifts contained in one Deed. Also the Averment of the Plaintiff is insufficient viz. That the pasture was never granted by any of the Predecessors of the Grantor so that it may be that they were granted by himself being Bishop many times before the said Statute and then the Successor may well grant it and in the said case of the Bishop of Salisbury it is averred that the Grant was not by the Bishop Grantor nor any of his Predecessors William Whitton Clerk Plaintiff Sir Richard Weston Defendant in an Action of Debt The Case THe Pryor of S. Johns of Jerusalem did hold certain Lands discharged of Tythes by reason of their order Quandiu propriis manibus excolebant the Statute of 31. of H. 8. for discharging of Tythes is made the 32. of H. 8. it was enacted that the King should have to him his Heirs and Successors all the Lands Priviledges and Hereditaments of the said Pryory the King dies and the Lands by Mesne descents doe come to Queen Elizabeth who grants the Land to Sir Henry Weston Grandfather to the Defendant who died seised and the same descended to Sir Richard Weston Father to the Defendant and so from him to the Defendant And If the Land should be held discharged of Tythes as the Pryor held it was the question And I conceive that the Defendant shall hold the land discharged of Tythes in the same manner as the Pryor held the same For the argument of which two things are to be considered 1. Whether the King or his Patentee shall have the same priviledge which the Pryor had by the Statute of the 32. H. 8. or not 2. Admitting that they shall not have this priviledge by generall words of this Statute then Whether they be discharged by the clause of the Statute of 31. of H. 8. of Monasteries or not And I conceive that by each of these Statutes or at least by one of them the King and his Patentees shall hold this Land discharged of Tithes Quamdiu propriis manibus c. And as to the first point I conceive that the Statute of the 32. of H. 8. hath sufficient words to give this priviledge to the King for it gives to the King not only all their Mannors Lands and Tenements but also all their Priviledges belonging to them or to their Religion or Order and this discharge of Tythes is a Priviledge belonging to their Religion or Order for whereas Pope Pascall did order that no Monk or religious Order should pay Tithes afterwards Pope Adrian did grant this priviledge Solis Hierosolimariis Hospitulariis Cistersiensibus Templaribus and did take away that priviledge from all other Orders And I conceive it will not be denied but that the Pryor himself hath this priviledge and if he had it then it will follow that the King and his Patentee hath it also for all their priviledges are given to the King But it may be objected Object that these priviledges are given in respect only of their Order and the Order bring gone the priviledge is gone also I do agree that all personall priviledges concerning their Order are gone by reason of their dissolution Respons but such priviledges as concern the Land and will make the Land most profitable to the King are remaining and are given to the King for the intent of the Statute was to give it to the King in as ample and beneficiall manner and with all such priviledges concerning the Land as they themselves had And although Tythes are not issuing out of the Land nor shall be extended for unity of possession of the land as in the 42. Ed. 3.13 Where a Pryor having Tythes did purchase the Land and made a Feoffment yet shall he have the Tythes and so if a Parson makes a Lease for yeares of his Glebe-land yet he shall have Tythes thereof yet the priviledge to hold the Land discharged of Tythes is a priviledge concerning the land and is not like to the case of the appropriation of a Rectory to the Templars which was disappropriate by the dissolution of their Order for the reason there is because the appropriation was made to a body corporate which body being dissolved it is impossible they should retain the same and no body else can have it without a new appropriation or an Act of Parliament and for Appropriations to Abbeys c. the clause in the 31. of H. 8. was necessary for otherwise the Patentees of the King being Lay-people and not capable of an Appropriation they cannot have it but by speciall provision by Act of Parliament but any man may hold Land discharged of Tythes But it may be again objected that in the same Parliament an Act was made to revive temporall Liberties Priviledges and Franchises Object 2 of Monasteries and therefore all those had been lost if it had not been for this Statute and Sprituall priviledges are not revived by
the Statute and therefore they are gone The reason of making of this Act was Answer because divers priviledges which they had as Bona Catalla Fellonum c. were extinct by the accession to the Crown and therefore it was necessary to revive them but if the Statute had not been made yet shall the King have all those Priviledges which were not extinct as Parks Chases Warrens Markets Fairs c. And that this priviledge is given to the King may be proved by a Proviso in the Statute whereby it is provided that all priviledges of Sanctuaries before used or claimed in houses or other places commonly called S. Johns Hold and all other Sanctuaries before used and appertaining to the said Hospitall shall be void and of none effect whereby it appears that if that Proviso had not been made the priviledge of Sanctuaries had been in the King and his Patentees in the same Mannor as had been used before the dissolution and that by force of this word Priviledge and yet this priviledge of Sanctuary does not concern the Land as discharge of payment of Tythes doth Object 3 But it may be again objected that the Statute of the 31. H. 8. hath an expresse clause for discharge of the payment of Tythes which needed not to have been if the generall words would have served Answer I answer that there were two reasons to put this Clause into the said Statute 1. To induce purchasers to buy the said Land and at a greater price 2. For the infinite manners and means of discharge which the Abbots had so that it would be very hard for Purchasers to know them and this appears in Coke Rep. 2. Bishop of Canterburies Case but in our Case the means is very well known and therefore such clause was not necessary And as to the second point I conceive that the clause for discharge of the payment of Tythes doth extend to the possession of this Pryory and yet I do agree that their Lands are given to the King not by the Statute of 31. of H. 8. but by the 32. of H. 8. And to prove this the Statute of 31. H. 8. does extend to all Abbies Pryories Hospitalls and other Religious and Ecclesiasticall houses and this Pryory was Religions and Ecclesiasticall for they vowed Obedience and Chastity and the case in the 27. H. 8. 16. in the case of Martin Dockwray where it is holden that Fryers are dead persons in the Law be they of an Abby or any other Pryory and that appeares by the Statute of 32. of H. 8. of their dissolution by which it is enacted that the Fryers shall sue and be sued by their proper names and that they shall have such capacities liberties and freedomes as were given to other Religious persons in an Aâ—â— at the first Session of this Parliament And in further proof hereof divers Rectories were appropriate to them and Tythes given to them and they enjoyed them and the Statute gives them to the King by which it does appear that they were Religious and Ecclesiasticall Object 4 But it may be likewise objected that the Statute of the 31. of H. 8. does not discharge Chanteries or Colledge lands given to King Edward the sixth of Tythes Answer I answer That the reason of that is that because Colledges although they were Ecclesiasticall yet they were not regular And Coke 2. Rep. 48. B. but the Fryers of S. John of Jerusalem were Ecclesiasticall and Regular And it is not inconvenient that the King and his Patentees should have the benefit of the clause of the Statute of 31. of H. 8. in those lands given to the King by the Statute of the 32. of H. 8. as the Statute of Acton Burnell does provide that if the Extender upon a Statute Merchant does extend the Lands too high they shall answer this to the Conusee and the Statute of 23. H. 8. does order a new form of Recognizance to be taken before any of the cheif Iustices yet the Conusee shall have the said benefit of the Statute of Acton Burnell although it was made two hundred years before the other Statute And for Authority in this point Dyer 277. The Pryor of S Johns of Jerusalem with the Fryers two or three years before the dissolution did make a Lease of a Mannor for years which Lessee did pay Tythes to the Church of Rochester proprietary and after the dissolution the King did grant the reversion of the Mannor to one Stathome and to his Heirs in such ample manner as the Pryor had the same c. the Lease does expire If he and his heirs having the Mannor in their own possession shal be discharged of Tythes or not was the question in Chancery and on consideration had of the Statute of the 31. of H. 8. cap. 13. it seemed by the Lord Keeper Sanders Southcott and Dyer that they be discharged untill they let the same out to others to Farm And Pascha 11. Jac. in the Common Pleas in the case of Weney this case did come into question and argued by Coke Warburton Winch and Nicholls and they were divided in their Opinions Saturday the sixth day of June in the ninth year of the Reign of King Charles Between Francis Townley Esquire Plaintiff Edward Sherborne Executor of Richard Mountford deceased Executor of Thomas Challoner deceased Defendant Vpon hearing and debating of the matter as well on the fifteenth as the eighteenth of June last the Court being assisted with Mr. Iustice Hutton and Mr. Iustice Jones upon the Plaintiffs Bill of Review for the reviving and reversall of a Decree made in a Cause wherein the said Richard Mountford deceased Executor of Thomas Challoner was Plaintiff against the now Plaintiff and Thomas Foster Esquire concerning the summe of one thousand seven hundred pounds raised out of the Rents and Profits of certain Lands and Tenements in Linsted Ardingley and Worth in the County of Sussex in trust for the said Thomas Challoner during his Minority and which the now Plaintiff by the Decree of this Court was to pay in case the said Foster should fail to pay the same severall matters were offered by the Plaintiffs Councell for the reversall of the said Decree as namely that the now Plaintiff was decreed to pay the summe of one thousand seven hundred pounds as raised out of the profits of the Infants Lands settled upon an account made up by the said Forster with the said Thomas Challoner the Infant after he came to age whereto the Plaintiff Townley was neither party nor privy nor ever consented nor ought to be bound thereby And secondly that the said Plaintiff is by the said Decree made lyable to the payment of all the profits raised out of the said Infants Estate whereas he never received any profits at all and although he gave some Acquittances yet the same were onely for the three first half yeares and no more and were but to ballance an account the monies disbursed amounting to as much as
himself his boy and his horse Item The Defendant is to deliver the said house to the Plaintiff with all the appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining Tenantable and in good repair Item The Defendant is to make as good a Lease as can be devised by Councel unto the Plaintiff and his Assigns And the Defendant pleaded performance of these Articles Plea Replication The Plaintiff did reply that the said 23 of April 1610. there was not any Demise made by the said John Sowdley of the said Mannor-house and of the houses called Sowdley Hall and of the Land lately in the Tenure of the aforesaid Reynold Sowdley and that the Plaintiff since the making of the said Articles viz. 9 Maii 10 Jacob. at great Sowdley aforesaid did require the Defendant to make a Lease of the said Mannor-house and houses with the aforesaid Land late in the Tenure of the said Reynold Sowdley scituate in great Sowdley aforesaid in the Parish aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to one Walter Welden Thomas Welden and John Welden for their lives according to the effect of the said Articles and that the said Walter Thomas and John were there and then ready to accept of the said Demise of the premisses of the Defendant and yet the Defendant did refuse to make the said Demise of the premisses to the said Walter Thomas and John Demurrer Vpon which the Defendant demurred in Law And I conceive that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment And fist to answer the Objections that are made against the Plaintiff upon the Articles Object 1 That the Lease ought to have been made to the Plaintiff himself for three lives and not to any other Answer I answer The words are plain That the Lease shall be made to the Plaintiff or his Assigns in the disjunctive and therefore it is in his election either to take the Lease to himself for three lives or to take it to his Assigns for three lives and so should it be if the words were to the Plaintiff and his Assigns as it is resolved in the Comment fol. 288. Chapman against Dalton where a man did let Land to another and did covenant at the end of the term to make such another Lease to the Lessee and his Assigns the Lessee made his Executor and dyes and the Executor does make his Executor and dyes and there it was adjudged that the Lease ought to be made to the Executor of the Executor for he is the Assignee in Law to the first Testator and the word and shall be taken for the word or and there it is clearly agreed that if the Lessee had named any in his life-time to take the said Lease it ought to be made to him and so as it is there said if I be obliged to make a feoffment to you or your Assigns such as you name to take the feoffment are your Assigns indeed and so in our Case these three persons named by the Plaintiff are his Assigns to whom the Lease ought to be made 21 Ed. 3. 29. Object 2 The other Objection is that the Lessee named by the Plaintiff ought to be ready upon the Land to take the Lease for a Lease for life cannot be made off the Land Answer I answer That when a man is bound to infeoff the Obligee and no time is limited he ought to do this upon request 27 H. 8. 6. B. and the same Law of a feoffment upon condition to re-infeoff him 44 Ed. 3. 9. 14 H. 8. 21. 18 Assis 18. 17 Assis 20. but yet the Obligor at his peril ought to do it during his life otherwise the condition is broken So in our Case the Plaintiff ought first to require the Defendant to make the Lease and this of necessity ought to be done where he can finde the Defendant for it is impossible to do it on the Land unless the Defendant be there and the Plaintiff cannot compel him to be there But when the Plaintiff hath made his request the next action is then to be done by the Defendant and therefore he ought to go to the Land and to be ready there to make the Lease And in the 22 Ed. 4. 43. A. is bound to B. on condition that C. shall infeoff B. by such a day and did shew that C. was there ready on the Land and B was not there to receive the Feoffment and there it was argued whether the issue should be upon the being of C. upon the Land who ought to make the Lease or of B. who was to take the Lease and in fine it was adjudged that the issue should be whether C. were there or not for he ought to be there or else the Bond was forfeit So that the Defendant upon request ought to go to the Land and there to attend a convenient time to make the Estate and then if the persons named do not come thither he is excused but when he goes not to the Land but does utterly refuse to make the Estate it is to no purpose for the Assigns to come to the Land and admitting the Law would enforce them to attend there then I demand how long they ought to attend for in all places where the attendance of one is required in a place certain by the Law the time of his attendance is limited 18 and 19 Eliz. Dyer 354. The third Objection is that the Article for making of the Lease Object 3 is to make a Lease of the said Mannor whereas no Mannor is mentioned before and the request is to make a Lease of the houses and of the Land late in the Tenure of Randolph Sowdley To this I answer That the Demise in the first Article Answer is of the Mannor-house and all the Lands which were in the Tenure of Randolph Sowdley with all the appurtenances thereto belonging then when he agrees to make a Lease of the said Mannor it shall be intended the Mannor mentioned before and although it be not in verity a Mannor yet in reputation it may be a Mannor and that is enough to make it to be put in the agreement 22 H. 6. 39. a. where one pleaded a Feoffment of eight Acres of Land by the name of the Mannor of D. and adjudged by the Court to be a good Feoffment although the acres were not set forth and in the 27 of H. 6. 2. a Plough-land may pass by the name of a Mannor The request is made too late for the time limited to enter is the Object 4 Anunciation 1612. and the request is not until the ninth of June next after and that is too late for the Lessor ought to have 20 l. fine upon the entry and making of the Lease and therefore the request ought to be made at the time that the entry was to be made and for that purpose Andrews Case and the Lord Cromwels Case in L. Cooks Rep. were cited To which Objection Cook and all the Court did seem to incline But I
13. H. 4. 17. B. If one makes a Feoffment in Fee rendring Rent upon condition to re-enter for non-payment and dies the Rent being arrear the Heir cannot demand the Rent or enter for non-payment because that the Rent is not due to him and as he cannot dispence with the Condition for acceptance of the Rent so cannot he enter for non-payment thereof And I argued this Case again on Fryday being the first day of Trinity Term 14. Jac. 31. Maii at which day Daston did also argue for the Defendant but the Court did not then give any direct Opinion but seemed to incline very much for the Plaintiff And Hil. 14. Jac. the case was argued by Chilborne Serjeant for the Plaintiff and Davenport for the Defendant at which time all did agree that the Lease continued But Davenp took exceptions to the replication For he said that the marriage of Jane with Rob. Hawkins is alledged to be 21. of No. 39. Eli. and the death of William Agborrow her first Husband the 20. of Febr. 39. Eliz which is after the marriage but that was held not materiall for it is said that William Agborrow died the twentieth of Febr. 39. Elizab. and that atferwards viz. the one and twentieth of Novemb. 39. Eliz. Jane did marry Thomas Hawkins so that the afterward is sufficient Trin. 37. Eliz. Rot. 206. Butler against Wallis In a Trespasse the Defendant justified by vertue of an Extent upon a Statute and did shew the Extent and that the 28. of Febr. a Liberate was awarded by vertue whereof the Sheriff the 27. of Octob. delivered the land to him c. yet adjudged sufficient for when he said Virtute brevis the mistake of the day afterward is not materiall And at last in the said Term of S. Hillary Judgment all the Court agreed that the Lease continued good against the Survivor and cannot be avoided by him and that the acception to the pleading was not materiall And thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Rot. 668. Pasch 11. Jacob. Between Thomas Palmer Knight Plaintiff Richard Greenwill and Edward Greenwill Executors of John Greenwill Defendants IN an Action of Debt on a Bond of fifty pound entred into by the Testators the 20. of Novemb. 5. Jac. The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Bond and Condition which was that if the Testator his Heires Executors and Assignes did perform all the Covenants comprised in certain Indentures bearing date with the Obligation made between the Plaintiff on the one part and the Testator of the other part that the Obligation shall be void And the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff by the said Indenture did let to the Testator a House and the moyety of his land amounting to about thirty Rods of land in Pollicote to have c. from Michaelmas last past for seven years rendring twenty pounds Rent and shewed that the Testator did covenant by the same Indenture for him his Executors and Assignes with the Plaintiff his Heires and Assignes within two years after the beginning of the said Lease to deliver or cause to be delivered to the Plaintiff or his Assigns a Map or Plot made in distinct manner by men of skill as well of all the land in little Pollicot as was then in his occupation and in the occupation of Thomas Cocker and John Crooke parcell of the Demise of the Plaintiff in Pollicot aforesaid as of all the land in the occupation of the Testator by a lease of Lincoln Colledge in Pollicot aforesaid which are all the Covenants c. And pleaded that the Testator in his life time and the Defendants after his death had performed all the Covenants c. Replication The Plaintiff replied that the Testator within two years after the beginning of the Lease did not deliver or cause to be delivered to the Plaintiff or his Assignes a Map or Plot made in distinct manner by Surveyors and men of skill of all the land in little Pollicot aforesaid in his occupation and in the occupation of the said Thomas Cocker and John Crooke parcell of the aforesaid Demise of the Plaintiff in Pollicot aforesaid Secundum formam effectum Indenturae praedict Vpon which Replication the Defendants demurred in Law And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given for them against the Plaintiff First the Plaintiff replies that the Testator did not deliver the Plot and it may be that it was delivered by the Defendants who were his Executors which is a good performance of the Covenant and if so then the Plaintiff has no cause of action and where the matter is left doubtfull in the Replication it shall be taken most strongly by the Plaintiff who pleads it And in the Comment 104. a. Fulmerstone against Steward If a man be bound to pay twenty pounds about Christmas it is no plea for him to say he hath paid it but he must shew when or otherwise it shall be intended that he paid it after the Feast and before the Suit And so in a Dum fuit infra aetatem if the Tenant do plead a Release of the Demandant it is no plea without saying that he was of full age for the plea shall be taken most strong against himself and that is that it was made when he was within age and 3. H. 7. 2. If the Defendant in a Trespasse does plead a release it is not sufficient without shewing that it was made after the Trespasse for otherwise it shall be taken to be done before And 26. H. 8. Pleading 147. If in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant does plead Warranty collaterall of the Ancestor of the Demandant and he replies that he entred and so does avoid the Warranty it is not good without saying that he entred in the life of the Ancestor for otherwise it shâ—ll be intended that he entred after the descent of the Warranty and in Dyer 89. and 96. The Plaintiff in an Ejectment declared on a Lease for years to begin at Michaelmas after the death of Thomas Boydon and M. his Wife and set forth that they died and he entred and adjudged insufficient for it might be that he entred after this death and before Michaelmas and Dyer 28. H 8. 27. A Covenant that the Lessee and his Assigns shall pay all Rents pleading that the Lessee hath paid them is not sufficient because the Assignes are omitted In his Occupation are words uncertain sc whether they shall be referred to the Plaintiff who iâ— last named or to the Testator 7 H. 7. 7. Ed. 6. Dyer 84 a. In a Trespasse brought by the Husband and Wife for breaking their Close bona sua capt and pleaded of a Trespasse made to the Woman Dum sola fuit for which the Writ abated The Plaintiff ought to shew that â—ome land was in the possession of Kocker and Crooke for otherwise it is impossible that a Map should be made thereof 12. H. 7. 8. a. 6. H. 7. 6. a. If I am bound to
Taverners Case The Lord is but an instrument to make admittance and he that is admitted shall not be subject to the charge of the Lord. And 4 Rep. Buntings Case who surrendered out of Court and dyed before the surrender was presented yet it was resolved and adjudged that the surrender was good and that it may be presented after his death but if it be not presented according to the custom then it becomes voyd And so in Kite and Queintons Case If he to whom the surrender was made dyes before the admittance yet his Heirs shall be admitted And Periams Case The Feoffment is not good unless it be presented in Court according to the custom yet if the Feoffor or Feoffee dye and after it is presented this is good as in case of a Deed delivered as an Escroul upon condition The second is that the two Tenants to whom the surrender was Object 2 made are dead also But this will not avoyd it for nothing at all does pass from them Answer for they are but only witnesses of the surrender and therefore it may as well be presented after their deaths as in their life-time as in 1 H. 7. 9. If a Iustice takes a note of a fine although he dyes before it be certified yet may it be certified by his Executors and the Fine shall be good and it is also resolved in Buntings Case that thâ—ir death shall not hurt the surrender but upon good proof it may be surrendered after their deaths as in 27 H. 6. 7. If a Feme sole does make an Obligation and delivers it as an Escroul to a stranger to be delivered upon condition and she marries or dyes and then the Condition is performed and the Bond delivered it is a good Bond and so it is resolved in Brags Case and Butlers Case also and it is not like to a Feoffment with warranty of Attorney to make Livery or the Grant of a Reversion and the Feoffor dyes or takes husband before Livery or Attornment for there nothing passeth until the Livery or Attornment according to Littleton and the Feoffee if he enter is but Tenant at will and it lies in the power of the Grantor to countermand it but so cannot he that makes a surrender out of Court Note Perimans Case was here objected That if the Tenant would not present the Feoffment the Feoffee should have his Action on the Case and the same Law if the Lord will not hold his Court within the time but there is no such matter in the Book But in our Case no Action can be against the two Tenants to whom the surrender was made having done no wrong for they can make no presentment before a Court be held neither can any Action be brought against the Lord for the not holding his Court because he is not limited to a certain time to hold his Court neither does the custom refer the presentment to any time but onely to the next Court and admitting he may have an Action on the Case yet is not that any reason that he should lose his customary Inheritance and be contented onely with a personal Action wherein he shall onely receive damages and it may be also that the party is insufficient or may dye whereby the Action will become fruitless And it shall be a very great inconvenience if the not keeping of a Court by the Lord shall hinder the surrender when no time is limited when the surrender shall be but onely at the next Court for then those who argue against this surrender ought to limit another time then the custom doth limit to make this presentment and what time will he limit peradventure he that made the surrender will say that the next Court ought to be holden the next day or within a month but this lies not in his power for when the Custom which is the very being and life of a Copyholder hath limited the next Court no man can shorten that time and the length of time cannot be material and no time is material until the time be past that is limited by the Custom And although it hath been said that Customs shall be taken strictly yet not so strictly but they shall have a reasonable time of exposition according to the reason of the Common-Law as in the 9 Rep. Sir Richard Lerchfords Case where the custom was that if the Heir of the Copyholder did not come to any of the three Courts upon proclamation to claim his Copy it should be forfeit And Thomas Copley did dye the 27 of Elizabeth William his son being then beyond the Seas and the three Courts were holden and the proclamations made and he came not into England until the first of King James But in our case we are within the Custom and although the surrender here is not perfect until the presentment made in Court yet the Plaintiff being Heir to him who made the surrender is bound as his Ancestor was for he cannot countermand or avoyd the surrender and therefore his entry was illegal And therefore Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff And upon the Argument of this Case Michaelm 14 Jacob. Crook Doderidge and Haughton did agree that the Estate did remain in him who made the surrender until he to whose use the surrender was made be admitted by the Lord and this they agreed the Lord might do out of Court and Haughton said that the acceptance of the Rent by the Lord that was found by the Iury does amount to an admittance but the other on the contrary Judgment Wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Rot. 832. Trinit 12 Jacob. John Gouge Plaintiff Nicholas Hayward and Jane his wife Defendants IN an Action of Trespass wherein the Plaintiff declared that Stephen Bishop of Winchester the 13 of March 24 H. 8. did demise to Thomas Windham two houses one now in the tenure of the Plaintiff and the other in the tenure of the Defendant in the parish of St. Saviours in Southwark Habendum from Michaelmas last pâ—st for the term of 99 years And that the 16 of March the 24 H. 8. the Prior and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of St. Swithin in Winchester in the life of the Bishop did confirm the said Lease that the 10 of May 10 Eliz. Thomas Windley assigned over to Francis Westby who assigned to William Fryth who assigned to John Butler who the last of September the first of King James by his Will did Devise to Ellinor his Wife all his Lands and Tenements in the said Parish and all Rents arising out of the premisses to come from the day of the date of the said Will for 28 years if she shall so long live unmarryed and after devised it to Thomas Butler his Nephew to have to him and his Children from the day of the death of the said Ellinor during the whole term And further devised that in case his Wife Ellinor should marry then during the residue of the said 28
Also the Bar is not good because the Defendant says he was possessed of five Steers and doth not say of the aforesaid 9 H. 6. 16. In a Quare Impedit brought by the King of a Chantery in the Chappel of St. Thomas in D. and made title to it and the Defendant pleaded that there was a Chantery in the said Chappel and made title to it and traversed the title of the King and adjudged to be no plea because he did not answer to the Chantry whereof the King had declared And Pasch 14 Elizab. Downing against Hayward In a false imprisonment in Suffolk the Defendant did justifie as servant to A. to whom a Commission of Rebellion of Chancery was directed and the Plaintiff pleaded De son tort Demesne and found for the Plaintiff and reversed again by Error in the Star Chamber because that when the matter of justification is upon matter of Record and matter in fact or of matters done in two Counties that cannot joyn the Issue ought to be upon one only And Pasch 15 Jac. Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff by the opinion of Mountague Crook and Doderidge because that all that was done after Sir Thomas Buriets Warrant was illegall but they agreed that the Plaintiff might have an Action for the charging of Felony and for all that was done before the said Warrant But Haughton disagreed who conceived that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff because the Plea of the Defendant was no justification for what was done before the warrant but at last Iudgment was given for the Defendant Judgment Mills against Marshall IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given for the now Defendâ—nt against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas upon an Action of Debt on a Bond of twenty pounds Hil. 11 Jac. Ror 1109. And the Bond was made the twentieth of Jan. in the sixth year of King James and it was on Condition to stand to the Award of George Cockrell Edward Sureton and William Wasse to arbitrate of and concerning all matters then depending between â—hem so that the said Award be made and delivered to the parties under the hands and Seals of the said Arbitrators before the twenty ninth of January next The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators the twenty fourth of January in the sixth year of King James did make their Award of the Premisses by Indenture under their hands and Seals 1. That all Controversies and Suits between them unto the date of the written Arbitrement should cease and that the Plaintiff should have liberty to drive his Cattell to the River Eâ—ke c. and that the Plaintiff and Defendant should work and maintain at all times from thence forward a sufficient Hedge by the top of the Scar Sicut terrae praedicti Querentis Defendentis extendunt Anglice as their own Ground goes for security of the Cattell and Sheep which said Hill doth extend to the Land of Henry Facherly unto the Pale which then was between the Land of the Defendant and if any Trees or Woods growing in or neer the Woods of either party shall fall in controversie at any time that it shall be arbitrated by the said Arbitrators three or two of them which Arbitrement was delivered to the parties the same day and the Defendant pleaded that he had performed c. The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant did not make a sufficient Hedge upon the top of the Scarr Prout terra sua extendit the Defendant said that before the Writ purchased viz. the fourth of April 12 Jacob. at Eshdayle in the County aforesaid he did make a sufficient Hedge upon the top of the Hill aforesaid prout terra sua extendit and so they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given and the Defendant brought this Writ of Error And I conceive Iudgment ought to be affirmed Coke 5 Rep. Slingsbles Case If one let white Acro to I.S. and B. Acre to I. D. and covenant with them Et quemlibet eorum that he is Owner each of them may have an Action and Coke 5. Rep. Hurgots Case Submission to an Award so as it be delivered to either of the parties ought to be delivered to each of them 39 H. 6. 7. And all the Court did agree that each of them ought to inclose against his own Land only and so the breach was well assigned wherefore the Iudgment was well assigned wherefore Iudgment was affirmed Hilar. 13 Jac. Crawley against Marrow IN an Ejectment upon a Lease by Robert Faldoc dated the one and thirtieth day of August the thirteenth year of King James of two Houses two Orchards forty acres of Land ten of Meadow and fifty of Pasture in Bridgenorth Habendum from the tenth day of the said month for three years whereupon the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant the eighth of October in the same year did enter and eject him ad damnum c. Vpon not guilty pleaded The Iury found the Defendant not guilty for all except one House and five acres of Land and found further that before the said time the twentieth day of Decemb. 11 Eliz. Rowland Hayward Knight was seised in Fee of the said one house and five acres of Land and ten of Meadow and being so seised thereof did enfeoff John Day and Robert Marshall in Fee to the use of John Whitbrooke and Margaret his Wife in Taile the remainder to the right Heirs of John Whitbrooke and that the last of January 12 Eliz. John Whitbrooke did enter into a Recognizance of a thousand pounds in the Chancery to Richard Faldoe which money was not paid to Richard in his life time That John Whitbrooke and Margaret had issue John Whitbrooke Knight and after and before the fourteenth of January 8. Jacob. died and before the said day Richard Faldoe made his Will and did make Amphillis his Wife his Executor and died and Amphillis did make Robert Faldoe Esquire and Thomas Shepheard Knight her Executors and died who undertook the Executorship 14. Jan. 8. Jac. Robert Shepeard and Faldoe had a Scire facias to the Sheriff of Middlesex to have execution of the Recognizance whereupon John Whitbrook was returned dead whereupon they had a Scire facias against the Heir and the Ter-tenant whereupon John Whitbrook was returned Heir and Ter-tenant who pleaded that he had no Land that was the Conusors at the time of the Recognizance or ever since by hereditary descent from the Conuzor in Fee and said that he ought not to be charged as Ter-tenant because he hath no Freehold that was the Conusors The Plaintiff replyed that the said John Whitbrook had divers lands by descent from the said Conuzor viz. A house called the Hospitall thirty seven Tenements or Messuages five Cottages one Tost one Dove-house thirty nine Gardens six Barns fifty four acres of Land thirty nine of Meadow and thirty six of Pasture in Bridgnorth and that the said John Whitbrook was Tenant of the Premisses
of age or not 29 Assise 67. In an Assise against Husband and Wife the Husband did answer as Tenant and the Wife would not but the Husband said that his Wife was within age and that she was taken away but did not say by whom and he did appear for himself and his Wife as her Guardian and pleaded in Bar and one of the Counsell said that the Wife had made default which is the default of the Husband and because that he answered as Guardian without Warranty by Record in this Court to do the same Iudgment c. And there Thoâ—â— said that he ought to have a Warranty in such case wherefore the Assise was awarded 35 H. 8. 56. In a Writ of Right by the Husband and Wife the wife being within age and she appeared by her next of Kin and was admitted by the Court. New Book of Entries 256. In a writ of Error to reverse a Fine by Maurice Pierce and Joane his wife and John Pierce and Elizab. his wife the three first appeared in person and Elizabeth being within age by one Laurence Gibson her Guardian and admitted by the Court. And so in this Case forasmuch as the Land is the Inheritance of the wife which is demanded which she will lose by this Recovery she ought to appear by her Guardian notwithstanding the full age of the husband who is joyned only for form sake with his wife 30 31 Eli. Morseby against Charnock The husband and wife levied a Fine and after this was reversed by Error because that the wife was within age the husband shall not have the Land for all the Estate passeth from the wife and the husband joyned only for conformity Coke 2. Rep. Cromwels and Beckwiths Case But it may be objected also Object that this Error concerning the nonage of the wife is so appropriated to her person in privity that no stranger can take any advantage thereof I conceive not so Answer for the constituting of an Attorney is utterly void as to the wife and therefore every stranger shall take advantage there as is not like the Case where an Infant makes a Feoffment which is but voidable and therefore the Lord by escheat nor any stranger shall not avoid it 22 H. 6. 31. The Plaintiffs within age did sue by an Attorney and there it was ruled that the Defendants might have a Writ of Error and placit 37. Eliz. Rot. 253. Bartholomew brought a Writ of Error against Dighton for that Dighton recovered against him in an Action of false Imprisonment in which he being within age did sue by an Attorney and adjudged that Iudgment should be reversed And this Case is not to be resembled to the Case of a Fine levied by an Infant which cannot be reversed by any but by the Infant himself and the same Law is of a Recognizance by an Infant and the reason of these Cases is because it is the Act of the Court to admit him to levy a Fine or to acknowledge a Recognizance and therefore this ought to be reformed by the Court and that must be by inspection of the Infant and therefore it ought to be done during nonage But the nonage in this Case ought to be tryed per pais as it was adjudged in the said cases of Bartholomew and Dighton and the case of Hobbs in which case the Infant was brought to the Bar to be inspected but adjudged by the Court that it should not be so because the matter was tryable per pais and 10. Rep Mary Portingtons case A common Recovery against an Infant although he appears by his Guardian shall not bind him for an Infant hath not such a disposing power of his Land as the Husbands wife have but is utterly disabled by the Law to transfer or convey his Inheritance or Freehold to others during his minority And of late daies a common Recovery does appear to be a common conveyance and assurance of Land The third part of the Case is If the two matters pleaded in Bar of Part. 3 the Writ of Error or any of them be sufficient or not I conceive not And first as to the Fine with Proclamations levied before the Recovery had which is the Plea of Mary Taylor one of the Ter-tenants I conceive that it is utterly insufficient as well for the manner as the matter of the Plea for she hath disabled her self to plead this Plea for she sets forth that the twentieth of May 31 Eliz. Thomas Leigh and Katherine his wife did let to the said Mary a Cottage and three acres of Land parcell of the Tenements expressed in the Fine and Recovery for life but doth not shew in what Town the said Cottage and three acres do lye wherefore the Plea is altogether uncertaine and insufficient for the Tenements in the Recovery do lye in two Towns viz. In Alkington and Prestwick and it doth not appear by this Plea in which of these the Cottage and three acres do lye 5 Ed. 4. 116. b. In a Formedon in Discender of a house and forty acres of Land and six of Wood in three Towns and the Issue being to be tryed the Tenant said that the Demandant had entred into the house and thirty acres of Land and three of wood And by the Court the Plea was naught because it did not appear in which Town the Entry was And in Moore and Hoskins case in the Exchequer 8 Jacob. In an Ejectment of Land in Overkiddington and Netherkiddington the Defendant pleaded not guilty and when the Issue came to be tryed by Nisi prius in the County of Oxon the Defendant pleaded an Entry of the Plaintiff in three acres of the Land contained in the Declaration since the last Declaration whereupon the Plaintiff demurred and adjudged that the Plea was insufficient and thereupon the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover Secondly for the matter this Fine being precedent to the Recovery whereby the cause of this Action is given cannot extinguish it for it is a Rule in Law that one cannot give or grant that which one hath not 22 H. 7. Kelway 84. If the eldest Son in the life-time of his Father infeoffs another it is void as to bind the Land and Littleton Releases 106. These words in a Release Quae quo vis modo in futuro habere potero are void in Law for no Right doth passe but only the Right which the Releasor had at the time of the Release as if the Son release to the Disseisor of his Father all the right which he hath or may have and the Father dye the Son may enter because that he had no right in the life of his Father but only a descent to him after the Release by the death of his Father 13 Ed. 1. 10 Ed. 2. and 4 H. 7. cap. 24. It is enacted that Fines with Proclamations shall conclude as well Privies as Strangers saving to the strangers such right claim and interest as they had at the time ingrossed so as they
him and his heirs for ever if B. shall have issue of his body and if he die without heirs of his body that the Land shall revert to the Donor and his heirs B. had issue which died without issue and it was adjudged that B. had but an Estate in tail and because he died without heirs of his body it was adjudged that the Donor should recover against the collaterall heire of B. And if the Law be so in Deeds or Grants executed in the life of the Donor a fortiori in a Devise which is to be taken more favourably then an estate made by Deed and therefore it is sufficient in a Devise to have the intention of the Devisor understood either to make an estate in fee or in tail although proper words to make such an estate be not used and the intent of the Devisor cannot be more manifest to have an estate in tail then in this case As to the second Point the question will be whether the younger Son hath an estate in Tail or in Fee determinable by this limitation and it seemed to them that he shall have but an Estate in tail In which the question is to which estate these words of limitation to wit living the elder Son shall be referred viz. Whether to the Estate made to the younger Son or to the Estate given to the elder for if they be referred to the Estate made to the younger there is no question but these words do abridge restrain the estate but if to the elder then they make no restraint or restriction as to the estate of the younger Son but onely limit the remainder to the elder Son on this contingency only viz. If he be alive at the time of the death of the youngest Son without issue And to prove that these words shall be referred to the estate devised to the elder brother They said That if the land had been devised to the younger Son and the heirs of his body and if he dyed without issue living the elder that the elder should have the estate to him and his heirs it is clear that the younger hath an absolute estate tail and that then the remainder to the elder shall be on this contingency viz. If he be living when the younger dies without issue And so is Frenchmans Case 1 2. Eliz. who demised land to his wife for life the remainder to Charles Frenchman and the heirs males of his body and if he died without heirs males of his body the remainder to Arthur Frenchman and the heires males of his body Charles had issue a Daughter and died without issue male and it was adjudged that the Daughter should not have the land for this contingency does not alter the Estatetail that was first limited to Charles and although the Devise in the case at Bar be to the youngest Son and his Heirs without any limitation of his body yet the limitation afterwards to wit if he die without issue does explain well enough that the heires of his body are intended and then the subsequent words living the Eldest Son cannot alter the estate first given to the younger Son And Hil. 40. Eliz. in the Kings Bench by Walmesly If one deviseth land to his Son and his heirs and further deviseth that if he die without issue that the land shall be sold yet the Son shall have an estate in fee and not in tail but otherwise if he devised that if he died without issue that the lands should remain over for in the first case he disposeth of no more of the estate by the last words then he did at the first but in the last case he disposeth of the estate it self in remainder And this was agreed by Owen 18 19. Eliz. Rot. 354. and 15. 16. Eliz. Rot. 330. where the case was That one Edward Clark being seised in fee of two houses had issue Henry and two Daughters Alice and Thomasin Henry dyed before the two daughters living the Father the Father devised one house to his daughter Alice and her heirs for ever and the other to Thomasin who was at that time but eight years of age and her heirs for ever and if she died before the age of sixteen years Alice then living Alice should have it to her and heirs and if Alice should die having no issue living Thomasin Thomasin should have the house of Alice to her and her heirs and if both of them died without issue he devised the two houses to the two Daughters of his Son Henry and their heirs and if they died without issue he devised the remainder to a stranger Proviso That if Alice should marry I. S. that Thomasin should have her part to her and her heirs and if Thomasin should dye having no Child that the daughters of Henry should have all and if they died having no Child the remainder to a stranger as aforesaid The Devisor dies then Alice marries N. but not I. S. and enters into her house Thomasin after sixteen years of age dies without issue And if Alice or the daughters of Henry should have the estate of Thomasin was the question And it was holden by three Iustices that the daughters of Henry should have it because that Thomasin did not die within the age of sixteen years and that it being objected that there was no estate tail to any of the daughters but a fee simple conditionall upon a contingent it was at last adjudged 14. Eliz. Rot. 340. that they were Tenants in tail by this Devise in Mich. 37 38. Eliz. 42. Mich. 14 15. Eliz. And Michaelmas 18. Jacobi Judgment This Case was argued by Montague cheif Iustice Doderidge Haughton and Chamberlain who all agreed that by this Devise the youngest Son had not an Estate-tail but a limited see so that by his dying without issue living the elder Son his estate was quite determined and all except Doderidge agreed that the Recovery could not hurt the future Devise But Doderidge was much against this opinion by reason of great mischeif that might ensue by making of Perpetuities in Devises and cited Archers Case and Capels Case but notwithstanding Iudgment was affirmed as aforesaid De Termin Trinitat 18 Jacob. Rot. 1198. Dawtree against Dee and others IN an Action on the Case wherein the Plaintiff Declared That he the fifth of July 16 Jacobi was and is seised in Fee of a Capital Messuage called Moor-place with the appurtenances and of 600 Acres of Land meadow and pasture in Petworth with the said Messuage used of the annual value of 100 l. which Messuage he and those whose Estate he hath in the said Messuage and Tenements therein Farmors and Tenants have time out of minde used to keep good hospitality for the relieving of the Poor in Petworth aforesaid and that in the Church of Petworth aforesaid on the said fifth of July and also time out of minde there hath been and is a little Chancel on the North part of
the day is excluded by this word Quousque Crook contra Who said that the Declaration was insufficient for it ought to have been Tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso because here is a contempt to the King But upon full debate of the Case and upon shewing a President to the Court which was Plt. Jacobi Rot. 308. in the Common Pleas between King and Monlenax where the Declaration was for the party onely and all the Prothonotaries did certifie the Court that the greater part of Presidents of such Actions brought in the Common Pleas were for the party only and not Tam pro Domino Rege quam seipso whereupon it was adjudged that it was good either way Judicium and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And note that in this case the Iudgment was Quod Defendans sit in misericordia and not Quod capiatur vide 27. Assise 11. 42. Assise 17. Dyer 238. 40 41. Eliz. New Book of Entries 44 45. Bassett against Jefiock and Johnson IN an Ejectione the Iury gave a speciall Verdict to this effect That Queen Elizabeth was seised in fee in Jure coronae of the Mannor of Watton in the County of York and that King James the 15. Martii 2. Jac. did grant the same to William Brown and Robert Knight and their Heirs who the twenty seventh of April 3. Jac. did bargaine and sell the same to Michael Feilding and his heirs who entred and died seised and after whose death the same descended to Basill Feilding as his Brother who made a Lease to the Plaintiff Bridgman It seemeth to me that the Plaintiff hath made a good Title But it was objected that there was no good Title for that it is not found that the Queen died seised or that the Lands descended to the King But it was answered that when the Queen was seised in Fee in Jure Coronae that shall be intended to continue untill the contrary be shewed for when an Estate of Inheritance is once alledged it shall be intended still to continue till the contrary be shewn Plow Com. 193. 43 1. and 202. Judicium And afterwards viz. 19. Jacobi Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff without any argument at the Bench. Trin. 19. Jac. Samborne against Harilo IN an Action of Trespasse for that the Defendant 10. Octob. 44. Eliz the Plaintiffs free Warren at Mouldford in certain places there called Harecombe Harcombe Coppice and the Down did break and enter and did therein hunt without the license of the Plaintiff and three Hares and three hundred Conies did take and carry away Continuando as to the said Hunting and taking and carrying away the said Hares and Conies from the said tenth day of October to the first of November And further declared that the tenth of April 1. Jac. the Defendant the said Warren in the said places did break and enter and therein without the license of the Plaintiff did hunt and twenty Hares did take and carry away continuing the said hunting untill the first of March next after c. And further declared that the tenth of April 2. Jac. the said Defendant the said Warren in the said places did break and enter and therein without the license of the Plaintiff did hunt and forty Hares and four hundred Conies did take and carry away continuing the said hunting untill the first of March following contra pacem c. ad damnum c. The Defendant as to the Vi armis and to the first Trespasse except the entring and hunting in the said place called the Down and the taking and carrying away the three hundred Conies pleaded not guilty And as to the entry hunting and carrying away the said Conies he saith that the said place called the Down is and hath been time out of mind Communis fundus containing by estimation two hundred acres of Land and Pasture and that before the said tenth day of September and before the said Trespasse and at the said time the Defendant was seised of a Messuage and six Yard Land containing a hundred and sixty acres called the Mannor of Southbery in Mulford aforesaid and that the Defendant and all those whose estate he hath in the premisses time out of mind have had Common of Pasture in the said Down for 200. and 40. Sheep Levant and Couchant upon the said Messuage and six Yard Land and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. have used for preservation of the said Common as often as the said Common hath been oppressed and troubled with Conies have used of custome to have liberty to hunt and to take the Conies wherefore the Defendant the aforesaid time of the aforesaid first Trespasse and for preservation of the said Common from such oppression and diminution aforesaid into the said Down did enter and there hunted and the said Conies did take and carry away according to the said custome and continuing the said hunting all the said time And as to the second Trespasse besides the entry and hunting in the said places called Harecombe Harecombe Coppice and the Down and the taking and carrying away two hundred Conies he pleaded not guilty And as to the entry and hunting in the said places c. he saith that the said places called Harecombe and Harecombe Coppice are Woodland containing by estimation ten acres and that he was seised in Fee of the said Messuage and six Yard Land and made the same prescription as aforesaid for all his Horses Cowes Heifers Bullocks and two hundred and forty Sheep levant and couchant upon the said Tenements viz. for the Horses Cowes c. at the Feast of S. George and from that time untill the Corne growing in the Feilds of Moulford were carried away and after the Corne carried away for the Sheep untill the fourth of March next after and made the former prescription for the Sheep in the Down And the same prescription also for hunting and taking away the Conies as abovesaid and so did justifie the taking of the said two hundred Conies And as to the third Trespasse besides the entry and hunting in the said places and the taking and carrying away of the said four hundred Conies he pleaded not guilty and as to this plea he made the same prescription as before upon which plea the Plaintiff demurred in Law And if this matter pleaded in Bar was sufficient to bar the plaintiff of his Action was the question And it seemeth to me that there is nothing in the Defendants plea to hinder the Plaintiff from having Iudgment And the better to argue upon this matter I will first endeavour to shew what interest a Commoner hath in the Soile and what things he may do upon the Soile for preservation of the said Common 2. Whether this be a good usage and custome to enable the Defendant to hunt and kill Conies in the Plaintiffs free Warren And as to the first I conceive that he that hath Common in
173. Judicium And after many arguments in this Case Hillar 20 Jacob. the Court agreed that the Demise was good and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Periman against Pierce and Margaret his Wife TEnant in Socage had issue by his first Wife Joan Elizabeth and Agnes and Alice and Elizabeth by his second Wife Katherine Mary William and Joan by his third Wife and by his Will did Devise his Land to Joan the younger for her life rendering 13 s. 4 d. Rent to William the remainder to William in Tayl the remainder to Elizabeth and Mary for life the remainder propinquo sanguinitatis of the Devisor for ever William dyes without issue Joan the younger dyes without issue Elizabeth had issue William Stokes and dyes Mary had issue William Pierce and dyes Joan the elder dyes having issue John Periman and William Periman Agnes and Alice dye without issue John Periman had issue John Periman the Lessor and dyes Elizabeth and Mary dye Katherine dyes without issue Elizabeth had issue George Dean and John Dean Elizabeth deviseth her Land to John Dean and his Heirs and dyes John Dean hath issue John Dean and dyes the Lessor enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff who enters and is ejected by the Defendants by commandment of the said John Dean the son upon which the Plaintiff brought an Ejectment And it seemeth to me that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for all the Land or at least for part thereof And therefore in the first place I conceive that when William the son dyed without issue the remainder in fee did vest in John Perriman who was the eldest son of Joan the elder who was the eldest daughter of the Devisor for although the Devisor had many daughters yet his intent appeared in the Will to a single person and not to divers also it appears that he doth not intend that this remainder should vest in William his son for he deviseth to him a Rent during the life of Joan the younger and afterwards an Estate Tail cannot be in Joan the younger or any of her issues because that an express Estate for life is limited to her nor in Elizabeth or Mary for he deviseth a remainder to them for life nor in any other of his daughters for then he would have named them either by their proper names or as his daughters and not by such circumlocution as is pretended in this Case Also the words of Remainder in fee cannot extend to those daughters for they are proximae consanguinitatis which does clearly exclude his own sons and daughters for they cannot properly be termed to be of consanguinity of the blood of the father as it is said in Sir William Herberts Case Cooks Rep. 3. that filius est pars patris and this is proved by the usual pleading of a Descent for if the Plea be by any except son or daughter the form is to say That the Land descends to him as Cosin and Heir and shall shew how but if by the son or daughter then to plead as before And 30 Assis 47. Land was devised to one for life the remainder to another for life the remainder propinquioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum of the Devisor there it is agreed that the sons and daughters are excluded by that Devise And so here in this Case neither William the son nor any of the daughters of the Devisor can take any thing by this Devise for they cannot be said de Consanguinitate de sanguine of the Devisor but the Issues of the Children of the Devisor are comprized within these words And then I conceive that the limitation being in the singular number viz. proximo consanguinitat all the issues of those Children shall not take but one onely and that as I conceive shall be the eldest son of the eldest daughter of the Devisor which was John Periman father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff as in the 20 H. 6. 23. In an Account supposing the Defendant to be his Receivor from the Feast of St. Michael it shall be taken to be the principal Feast of St. Michael the Archangel and not the Feast of St. Michael in Monte Teneb And 13 H 4. 4. 21 H. 68. 37 H. 6. 29. If father and son be of one name scil of J. S. If J. S. be named generally in a Writ Recovery or Deed it shall be intended the father for that he is most worthy And so Pladwels Case in this Court Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. If a woman hath a Bastard and two legal issues and Land be given to one for life the remainder to the eldest issue of the woman the eldest legal issue shall take and not the bastard although he be the eldest issue for general words shall always be taken in the most worthy sence And so here the Devisor did dispose of his Estate to Joan the younger rendering Rent to William his son the remainder to William in Tail the remainder to two of his daughters scil to Elizabeth and Mary for life the remainder proxim consanguin c. in fee By which words it is apparent that the Devisor intended that for the default of the issues of William and after the death of Elizabeth and Mary the Estate should remain to one who was next of blood to him and that is John Periman the eldest son of his eldest daughter But admitting that all the issues of the daughters shall be in equal degree to take by this remainder as well as the eldest son of Joan the eldest daughter yet I conceive that those daughters who had an Estate devised to them by Will are excluded Cooks 8 Rep. 95. B. Always the intention of the Devisor expressed in his Will is the best Expositor and Director of his words and therefore if Land be devised to one in perpetuum this shall pass a fee although it be otherwise in a Grant So if one deviseth Land to another to dispose of or sell at his pleasure this is a fee to the Devisee Litt. 133. 19 H. 8 9. B. And so in our Case the intent of the Devisor appears to dispose of his Land among his Children and their issues as in Trin. 38 Eliz. Ewre and Heydons Case Heydon was seised of a Messuage in D and of three houses and certain Land in Watford did devise his Messuage in D and all his Land in Watford it was judged the houses in Watford did not pass in regard of the express mentioning the houses in D. and this was affirmed in a Writ of Error Edmund Meskin against John Hickford Administrator of Henry Machin IN an Audita Querela because that the 11 Ed. 1. it was Enacted That in regard that Merchants which heretofore had lent their goods to divers persons were fallen into poverty because they had not such speedy remedy provided for them for the Recovery of their Debts Ac ratione inde multi Mercatores desistebant venire in hanc terram cum Merchandizis
conceive that the request is made in good time enough Answer for two Reasons The Estate here is to be made by the Defendant and although he be not bound to do it without request yet may he do it or at least he may offer to do it without any request and therefore if there be any loss in the not doing of it it is his own fault because he did not offer to make the Estate and is not the Plaintiffs fault and if he had offered to make the Estate and the Plaintiff had refused he had been excused And therefore the rule is given in the Lord Cromwels Case aforesaid that when a woman or a Grantee upon condition is to make an Estate to the Grantor and no time is limited he hath time for his life unless the party who is to have the Estate do hasten it by request but if an advowson be granted on such condition the Regrant ought to to be before the Church becomes voyd so if the condition be to grant Rent payable at certain days the Grant ought to be before any day of payment for otherwise he shall lose the Presentation and the Rent which will incur before the Grant made And in the 14 Ed. 3. Debt 138. In a Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded the Condition viz. That if he granted twelve marks Rent the Bond should be voyd and demanded Iudgment c. because no time was limited so that he might do it when he would and said that he was always ready to grant the twelve marks Rent and because he demurred not issue was joyned c. If this not making request shall be any damage to the Plaintiff it must be because the Defendant suffers loss by it as in the cases above cited but in this case the Defendant hath the same remedy for the 20 l. although no Estate be made as he should have had if the Estate had been made for by the fourth Article it is agreed that if there be no Estate made of the Land the Plaintiff shall enter at the Anunciation 1612. And I conceive that this payment ought to be made at the time limited for the entry for it is a mutual agreement that doth binde both parties and therefore it lies not in the power of the Plaintiff for his want of entry to defeat the Defendant of his 20 l. agreed to be payd to him but when he enters it shall be intended that he entered when it was agreed he should enter viz. at the Anunciation 1612. And if he payd it not then the Defendant might have had his Action of Covenant whether any Lease were made or not And in Sir Andrew Corbets Case Cook Rep. 4. 81. certain Land is devised to A. B. until 800 l. pound be levyed that is until it may be levyed and so in case of a Lease or limitation of a use for otherwise it should be in their power to hold out the Lessor for ever and so in case of an Elegit upon the Statute of Westm the 2d. cap. 18. and of Retinue for the double value of a Marriage by the Statute of Merton cap. 6. Opinion of the Court. And the whole Court was of Opinion that the request came too late whereupon they were of Opinion to give Iudgment against the Plaintiff but I prayed that the Plaintiff might discontinue his Suit which was granted Rot. 609. Michaelmas 13 Jacob. Smalman Plaintiff against John Agborrow and Edmund Agborrow Defendants IN an Action of Trespass for that the Defendants the 13 Maii 13 Iacob six Heifers of the Plaintiff of the price of 20 l. at Dodenham in a place called Well-Marsh did take chase and drive away to the damage of 10 l. c. The Defendants to all except the chasing did plead Not guilty And as to the chasing they said that the place where c. is and at the time wherein c. was the Freehold of one Francis Agborrow and so did justifie as his servants for damage feasant c. Replication The Plaintiff replyed that before the said Francis Agborrow had any thing c. the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral of St. Mary the Virgin in Worcester were seised in fee of the Mannor of Aukerden and Dodenham whereof the place where c. is and at the time whereof c. was parcel c. And that the 25 of November 10 Elizab. the said Dean and Chapter by their Indenture did Demise the said Mannor to William Agborrow and Jane his Wife and to the said Francis Agborrow for their lives And that the 20 Febru 39 Elizab. William Agborrow dyed seised and that the 21. of Decemb. 39. Eliz. Jane did marry with Robert Hawkins And that the 25. Febr. 40. Eliz. Robert Hawkins and the said Jane by their Indenture did demise the said Mannor to William Hawkins and William Heaven for sixty years from the date c. if the said Jane and Francis Agborrow or either of them should so long live rendring twenty pounds rent and that the 25. of Mar. 13. Jac. William Hawkins and William Heaven did grant their Estate to the Plaintiff whereby he was possessed and put in his Cattel there to grase which were there untill the Defendant took them away c. And did aver the life of Francis Agborrow The Defendants rejoyn and say that the said Jane did die the 14. Rejoynder of Mar. 12. Jac. and that Francis Agborrow did hold himself in c. Per jus accresendi Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law A man and a woman are Ioynt-tenants for life the woman marries The Case the Husband and Wife by Indenture do let their moyety for years rendring Rent and after the woman dies And the question was whether the surviving Ioynt-tenant could avoid this Lease And I conceive he cannot And for the Argument of this Case I shall observe these two things thereof That if the woman who made this Lease had been sole at the time of the making this Lease had been good during her life and the life of her Companion the other Ioynt-tenant That this Lease being made by the Husband and Wife is not void but voidable And as to the first Point Littleton fol. 63. and 64. saies that if two Part. 1 Ioynt-tenants in Fee be and one grants a Rent-charge and dies the Survivor shall hold the Land discharged but if one makes a Lease for years and dies the Lease is good against the Survivor and in Hales Case in the Comment If two Ioynt-tenants be for years and one of them does grant to I.S. that if he payes twenty pounds at Michaelmas he shall have his moyety and the Grantor dies and I. S. does pay the money yet shall not he have the Land because the Condition precedes the Estate but if he make a Lease for yeares to commence at a day to come and dies before the day yet is the Lease good against the Survivor and so in Trin. 37. Eli. Harbury and
infeoff another of all the Lands whereof my Father died seised in an Action agâ—inst me I ought to set forth the certainty of the Land whereof he died seised And although the Executor does represent the person of the Testator yet the Act of the Executor is not the Act of the Testator not like to the Case of an Attorney 32. Ed. 3. Bar 264. If one be bound to enfeoff another it is sufficient if the Attorney be ready to make the Feoffment and so in the 19. H. 6. the same Law to confesse an Action but when an Executor does an Aâ—â— for the Testâ—tor it is otherwise as if the Executor sell Land it must be so pleaded for a dead person cannot sell Land And afterwards the Plaintiff discontinued his Suit Hillar 13. Jac. Norris Plaintiff against Henry Baker and Elizabeth Baker Defendants IN an Action of Trespasse for that the Defendants the 28. Octob. 13. Jac. by force and armes c. upon one Thomas Davis and Nicholas James Servants and Workmen of the Plaintiff did make an assaâ—â—t and them there labouring in the service of the Plaintiff did wound c. whereby the Plaintiffs lost their Service to his damage of forty pounds c. The Defendants as to the forme and according did plead not guilty whereupon issue was joyned And as to the residue of the Trespasse they say that at the time of the Trespasse the said Henry was and yet is possessed of an ancient House with the appurtenances in Worcester for divers years to come the which house doth joyn to a void peice of land in Worcester against the South and that at the time wherein c. and also time out of mind there were ancient Windows or Lights in and upon the South-side of the aforesaid house against the said peice of land through which the light did enter into the said house and the said Henry did enjoy great and necessary Easements and Commodities by reason of the open Ayre and light shining and entring into the said house by reason of the said Windows and Lights aforesaid and the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones maliciously plotting and intending to deprive the said Henry of all the Easement and commodity of the aforesaid Windows and Lights Et Messuagium illud horrida tenebritate obscurare the said day and year did intend to build a house upon the said peice of land and did there then erect divers peices of Timber for the building of the said house which house if it had been built the said Henry should have lost the said easements and commodities wherefore the said Henry and the other Defendant who was his Servant by his commandment the said time wherein c. being in the said house did hinder the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones from building the said house and the Defendants with a Staff did thrust down the said peices of Timber wherewith the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones would have built the said house and did thrust and put away the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones least they should build the said new house Prout eis bene licuit which is the same Assault and Battery of the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones whereof the Plaintiffs complain Vpon which Plea the Plaintiffs demurred in Law And I conceive the Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff Because the Defendants have made no answer to the first matter of the Action which is the losing of the Service for it is not shewne throughout the Bar that the said Davis and Jones did make the building as Servants to the Plaintiff or by his commandment and 2. H. 6. 13. In a Trespasse for cutting of Trees where the Defendant pleaded that the place where c. was the Freehold of I. S. who let the same to the Defendant at Will and adjudged no plea by the Court unlesse he had said by which he entred and cut the Trees and so justified the Action 3. H. 6. 54. In a Trespasse for beating of his Tenant the Defendant said he was his Servant and the Issue was whether he was his Servant or not 31. H. 6. 12. B. 5. H. 7. 3. 20. H. 7. 4. and 20. H. 7. 5. A Master shall not have an Action for beating of his Servant unlesse he saies Per quod servitium amisit The cause of Iustification is because the Servants did endeavour to erect a Building which is not issuable There is no cause of Iustification for how can the Defendant know that the building will be to his hurt or nusance to him untill the building be erected and if it be to his nusance he may abate the same by Law The Plea is double for first they set forth that they had Lights c. and then they alledge that the new house was built for the word if is wanting and 33. H. 6. 26. In an Action on the Case the Writ was good Cum ipse habeat quoddam Cheminum ratione tenurae c. the Defendant levavit murum per quod querens Cheminum habere non potest c. It was holden by Prisoit that the Writ was not good by reason of the Repugnancy And this Case was argued again by Barcley for the Defendant and by me for the Plaintiff Judgment Tr. 14. Jac. And all the Court held the Plea in Bar to be insufficient for which Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Rot. 256. Hillar 13. Jacob. Edward Smith for the King and himself against Stephen Bointon IN an Information because the Defendant between the twentieth of June 12. Jac. and the fourth of July next after at Westminster in the County of Middlesex did buy ingrosse and obtain into his hands by buying and contracting of divers persons unknown three hundred quarters of Barley of the value each quarter of twenty pounds a hundred quarters of Beans of the value of twenty pounds every quarter Ad revendendum contra formam statuti c. whereupon an Action accrued to the King and the Informer to have of the Defendant foure hundred pounds viz. the value of the Barley and Beans whereof the Informer prayed a moyety c. The Defendant as to the Ingrosment between the twenty second of May 13. Jac. and the said fourth of July next after pleaded not guilty And as to the Ingrosment between the said twentieth day of July 12. Jac. and the said twenty second of May next after The Defendant saith that before the exhibiting of the said Information sc the twenty second of May 13. Jac. one Robert Beadow did exhibite an Information in the Exchequer for the King and himself against the Defendant because the Defendant between the first of June last and the day of the said Information did ingrosse five hundred quarters of Wheat of price every quarter thirty pounds five hundred quarters of Barley of price every quarter twenty pounds five hundred quarters of Oates of price every quarter twenty shillings and five hundred quarters of Beans and Pease
and Iudgment was given therein whereupon the Tenant to the Assise brought a Writ of Error the 5. Eliz. in Easter Term which did abate by reason of his death and after in the time of King James the new Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error in Recordo quod coram nobis refidet which did also abate by reason of variety between the Record and the second Writ of Error whereupon Mich. 13. Jac. the said Plaintiff did purchase this new Writ of Error And the Defendants did plead in abatement of the said Writ of Error that the now Plaintiff before the purchasing of the said last Writ of Error and since the purchasing of the second Writ of Error viz. the 19th of September the 10. Jacob. did enter into the said Land and the same day and year at the place aforesaid did devise the said Tenements to one Thomas Alport Habendum from the Feast of S. John Baptist then last past for four years next ensuing by vertue of which Demise the said Thomas Alport into the said Tenements did enter and was and yet is possessed Vpon which Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendants joyned And I conceive that the Plea is insufficient Yet I do agree that if he who hath cause to have a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment of Land does make a good Lease for years he hath suspended his Writ of Error for the Term as he does quite extinguish it by his Feoffment But here it appears that there is no Lease made for it is pleaded only that the Plaintiff did enter into the Land and it appears by the recovery that his entry was taken away by the Iudgment in the Assise whereby he gains nothing by his Entry but the Freehold and possession does remain alwaies to the Defendants being Heirs to the Recovery as appears by Litt. Warrant 158. If one be seised of Land and another who hath no right doth enter into the Land and continues possession yet doth he gain nothing thereby but the possession doth alwaies continue in him that hath right and so in the 3. Ed. 4. 2. Woolocks Case and in the Comment 233. Barkleys Case Execution is taken to be no plea in Bar to an Ejectment because it was shewed that the Lord Barkley did enter as in his Remainder and was seised in Fee untill the Lessor of the Plaintiff did eject him and did demise to the Plaintiff which is not good because it is not alledged that he disseised the Lord Barkley for otherwise he had no Estate to make the Lease and the Entry doth not imply any disseisin or doth gain any possession and 11 Edw. 4. 9. B. 12 H. 6. 43. B. And the Court did agree that the plea was insufficient But then it was moved that the Writ of Error was nought for the Writ was that Quidem Recordum processus Dom. Regina Elizabeth nuper Regina Angliae causa erroris interven venire sec and it appears by the Record that although the Recovery was removed by Writ of Error the 5. Eliz. at the Suit of the Father of the Plaintiff yet the Plaintiff did purchase a new Writ of Error Mich. 9 Jacob. and had a Scire facias against the Heirs of the Recover or who appeared Mich. 10. Jacob. and also the Writs of Habeas Corpus tales Distringas wherefore the Writ is naught for all the Recovery was not in the time of the Queen but part in her time and part in the Kings time But I conceive that it is good enough for first the Recovery and Processe is satisfied by transmitting the body of the Recovery as it is proved by the usuall form of all Writs of Error which is to certifie the Record and Processe and yet they do certifie only the Declaration and the Pleas omitting the Writs Also the Record shall be intended the principall Record and not the Writ and Proces Coke Rep. 11. Metcalfes Case the words of the Writ of Error Si judicium inde redditum sit this shall be taken to be the principall Iudgment 39 Ed. 5. 1. In a Scire facias brought by John Duke of Lancaster and Blanch his Wife to execute a Fine levied to them in the time of Ed. 2. and the Writ did recite the Fine to be levied Tenendum de nobis c. but it was adjudged good by Iudgment of Parliament and 2 R. 3. 4. Bough brought an Action of Debt against Collins who pleaded a forreign Attachment in L. by custome and did mistake the Custome and it was traversed that there was no such Custom and the major certified it so and all this was in the time of King Edw. the first and it was adjourned over to another Term before which time the King died and resumed in the time of King Richard the third and Iudgment given whereupon Collins did bring a Writ of Error which was Rex Dei gratia c. quia in Recordo processu in redditione Judicii loquela quae fuit coram nobis per breve nuper inter B. c. error c. And the question was if it was good And some said that there was no Warrant for such a Writ and some said that the Writ ought to have been speciall reciting how c. But the Masters of the Office said that in a Writ of Error before the Iustices of the Bench there is but a generall form in the Writ And after it was adjudged that the Writ of Error was good John Vandlore Plaintiff Cornelius Dribble Defendant Trinit 14 Jacob. Rot. 1062. IN an Action of Debt on a Bond of two hundred pounds made the eleventh of Febr. the 12th of King James upon condition that the Defendant shall perform the agreement of William Holliday Thomas Moulson Robert de la Bar and Humphrey Burlemacke Arbitrators elected c. to arbitrate of and for all Actions Suits Accounts and Demands had moving or depending in variance between the parties before the date of the said Obligation so that the agreement of the premisses be made and put into writing before the twentieth of March next The Defendant pleaded that there was no such Arbitrement The Plaintiff replyed that the eighteenth of March 12 Jacob. they did make an Arbitrement c. of and concerning the Premisses that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff fifty pounds viz. twenty pounds at April next and twenty five pounds at _____ and the twentieth of July next twenty five pounds in full satisfaction and discharge of all such monies as the Plaintiff did claim or demand of the Defendant by reason of the administration of the Goods c. of John Stadsell or by any other means whatsoever And that each of the parties upon payment of the said fifty pounds shall make generall Acquittances one to the other of all Actions Debts and Demands unto the day of the making of the said Acquittances And alledged breach to be made in the payment of the said twenty five pounds the twentieth of
as of his Freehold whereupon Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiffs and adjudged that they should have execution against Sir John Whitbrook whereupon the Sheriff was commanded to deliver the said lands to the Plaintiffs in execution and the sixteenth of June 12 Jacob. the said Tenements were found to the value of eighty shillings and were delivered to the said Executors in execution The twenty seventh of March 11 Jacob. Hanging the Writ of Scire facias the said Sir John Whitbrook did demise to the Defendant one Messuage and ten acres of Meadow parcell of the premisses Habendum from the said twenty seventh day for the term of three years by force whereof he entred and was possessed The sixteenth of June 12 Jacob. the said Executors did enter into the Tenements in the Inquisition mentioned whereof the said Messuage five acres of Land and ten of Meadow are parcell and did out the Defendant The one and thirtieth of August 13 Jacob. Robert Faldoe made the Lease to the Plaintiff and they found the Ejectment and prayed the advice of the Court. And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff For that a Tenant in Taile cannot charge the Land no more then he can alien 3 Ed. 3. 46. so in the 18 Ed. 4. 5. 21. If Tenant in Taile do sell the Trees and dye the Vendee cannot have them and the 17 Ass 21. Tenant in Tail acknowledgeth a Statute and dies the Issue enters and the Conusee does sue execution and enters and the Issue brings an Assise and recovers because this is a Disseisin to him and 11 H. 7. 21. 31 Ed. 3. 22. 14 Ass 3. Tenant in Tail grants a Rent and dies and the Issue enfeoffs a stranger adjudged that he shall hold the Land discharged for it was discharged by the entry of the Issue and 26 Ass 38. If Tenant in Tail doth charge the Land and dye and the Issue enters and pâ—yes the Rent and then after confirms the Rent this is good But in Brook Grants 73. contrary for the charge was avoided by the entry of the Issue But admit that this Recognizance shall bind the Issue in Tail yet it shall not bind the Termer but he shall avoid it 1 H 7. 9 7 H. 7. 11. and in the 30 Assise 10. the Tenant pleads recovery by Action tryed against a stranger and did aver the Estate of the Ancestor of the Demandant to be between his Title and the Recovery the Demandant said that the stranger was enfeoffed with Warranty and did not plead this and so did Fauxesie and Iudgment was awarded for him And although that this Lease was made after the Teste of the Scieri facias it is not materiall because the Lessor had good power to make a Lease and the Land was not subject to the execution and therefore the Lease here is good and cannot be avoided but only by the default of the Lessor in not pleading the Estate-tail and that is especially aided by the Statute because the Statute does aid the Lessee against such fâ—igned Recoveries against the Lessor and it is no Recovery untill the Iudgment had at which time the Lessee had a good Lease not subject to the execution 21. H. 6. 13. 14. He who comes to the Reversion hanging the Praecipe quod reddat against the Tenant for life shall be received by the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 3. and 16 H 7. 5. In a Writ of Entry or Disseisin he in the remaiâ—der does pray to be received the Demandant traverseth that he hath nothing in Reversion at the time of the Writ purchased and could not for if he purchased the Remainder hanging the Writ he shall be received And Hill 14 Jacob. All the Court did agree Judgment that the Lessee for the Lease made after the Verdict against the Issue in Tail could not falsifie wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Penson against Mootham IN an Action of Covenant for that by Indenture Tripartite dated the fifth Decemb. 12. Jacob. It was between Abraham Baker by the name of Abraham Baker Owner of the moyety of a Ship called the Grissell of L. and of the Ship called the Peregrine of L. and of a Pinnace called the Hopewell of L. on the first part and the Plaintiff by the name of H. P. Owâ—er of the other moyety of the said Ships and Pinnace on the second part and the Defendant by the name of Ja. Mortham Nautestrategi dicti Itineris Anglice generall of the said Voyage N. N. B. W. and D. E. by the names of N.G. Naute magister dictae navis vocat le Peregrine B. W. Naute magister dict navis vocat the Grissell and D. E. Naute Magister of the said Pinnace and severall persons named in a Schedule annexed to the said Indenture on the third part It is testified and doth appeare that the said Owners had furnished and set forth and the said Victualer had victualed the said Ships as well for Trade as for Discovery and had delivered them to the said Generall Masters and Officers pro itinere faciend in such manner and to such an Island in the West-Indies or otherwise as it should be most profitable to the said parties at the discretion of the said Generalls and according to certain Articles of the Commissioners bearing date with the said Indenture and after their Voyage to return to the Port of London And that the said Generalls and each of the said Masters and Officers severally for each ones proper and severall part and not the one for the other did Covenant for themselves their Executors and Administrators with the said Owners severally and their severall Executors c. in manner c. and that they the said Generalls or the severall Masters and Officers their Executors or Assignes at any time during the said Voyage should go beyond the Cape of Good hope nor should do or commit any spoyle or losse to any of the Subjects of our Lord the King nor to any other person or persons being subject or in subjection to any Prince or Principality being in league or amity with our King nor shall do any thing whereby any detriment prejudice trouble or damage may come to the said Ships or Pinnace or any of them or to the said Owners or any of them respectively Breach 1 And that although the Plaintiff had performed all c. yet the said D.E. and the Commissioners aforesaid in the said Ship called the Hope-well during the said Voyage to wit the eighth day of March upon the high Sea neer the Isle of Saint Jago by force and armes did take and spoyle one Spanish Frigot laden with Rice c. which Sip and Goods were the Ship and Goods of divers persons who were Subjects to the King of Spaine the which King then was and yet is in amity and league with the King and the Defendant and the other Commissioners comming to the said Island did divide the said Goods amongst
themselves Breach 2 And that after Viz. the ninteenth day of June 13 Jacob. at a Port called Cape Corants beyond the Seas one Matthew Navale did joyne with the Defendant and the sayd Commissioners and they together did saile to the Coast of Champeach in the West-Indies and did there put a shoare the said Hope-well and three other Ships and there then upon the high Sea by force and arms did take and spoyl another Spanish Frigot laden with 100 Hides which Ship and the goods in her was the Ship and goods of divers persons subject to the King of Spain then and yet in league with the King And that after to wit the 20 Junii 13 Jacob. at the Town of River Breach 3 de Garta in the West-Indies the said Defendant and the others c. by force and arms did take and spoyl another Spanish Frigot laden with 150 Hides which Ship and goods were the Ship and goods of divers persons subject to the King of Spain then and yet in league with the King And that also then the said persons by force and arms did take and Breach 4 spoyl a certain Town beyond the Seas and from thence did take and carry away twenty Iars of Hony of the Goods and Merchandize of the Inhabitants of the said Town being subjects of the King of Spain and then and yet in league with our King And also there by force and arms did take and spoyl another Spanish Breach 5 Frigot laden with 63 Chests of Coucheneal and 700 Hens c. of the goods of divers persons being subjects of the said King of Spain then and yet in league with our King And that the Defendants did not come to the Port of London after their return c. And concluded that the Defendant did not keep his Covenant to make no spoyl or to do any act whereby any detriment should come c. ad damnum 3000 l. c. The Defendant as to the said five first Breaches did demur in Law because they were not alledged in such manner as any issue or tryal may be had And as to the other he pleaded that the Plaintiff did prohibit him from coming to London And it seems that Iudgment ought to be given upon the demur against the Plaintiff For first there is no covenant to binde the Defendant for the words are praedictus State-General doth covenant and there is no other name in the Covenant given to the Defendant and that is not sufficient to binde him 1. Because he is not named State-General before but Naute Stratageneral 2. This is no parcel of his name before or addition but is as his title or is a pronomen and that is not sufficient for the pronomen is but as an alius dictus 5 Ed. 4. 141. Alexander Cock Clericus alius dictus A. C. nuper de D. in Comitatu c. Clerico is no good addition because there is no addition but in the alius dictus And Dyer 119. Robert Thrower brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond by the name of Robert Thrower otherwise called Robert Throner Keeper of the Kings Gaol at Ludgate and the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. 1. And it was adjudged that it shall not be presumed that he was Gaoler for it may be false As a Bond of I. S. Son and Heir of I. S. yet he may be a Bastard and a Bond by A. the Wife of I. S. who is sole is good notwithstanding And Dyer 304. B. in an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of a Lease of 100 acres of Land by the name of the Mannor of D. habendum the Mannor and the premisses c. whereupon he entered into the Mannor and premisses Quaere If it be good and agreed to be sufficient by the word premisses There is no breach assigned for as to the first breach that is onely that D. E. and his company did take c. a Spanish Frigot and that is no breach of covenant in the Defendant for that the covenant is not several as in the 5 Rep. Slingsbies Case If a Lease be made of W. acre to I. S. and a Lease of B. acre to I. D. and the Lessor covenants with them and either of them that he is owner c. each of them shall have an Action of Covenant according to their several interests so in case of a warranty but otherwise where the interest is joynt Vide 5 Rep. Mathewsons Case And so here the Covenant of the Defendant doth extend onely to himself and his Ship and not to D. E. and his company and the allegation that the Defendant and his company did come to the said Island and divided the goods is nothing to the purpose for it may be they bought a moyety thereof or any part of them and so they might lâ—wfully divide them 27 Assis 69. In an Appeal for that one did receive stoln goods knowing of the Felony adjudged not good And as to the second breach it is not alledged that the spoyl was made during the Voyage and if it were not during the Voyage it is no breach and in as much as the Plaintiff hath not set forth that it was done during the Voyage it shall be taken most strongly against himself 26 H. 8. Pleadings 6. 3 H. 7. 2. Dyer 89. And so in all the other three breaches it is not alledged that it was done during the Voyage It does not appear that these goods thus taken were the goods of the Subjects of the King of Spain at the time of the taking of them but onely quod fuerunt bona which doth denote a time past and doth not import any present property and it may be very probable that they were their goods and that they were bought of them by some persons under the obedience of a King not in amity with our King and then it is no breach for fuerunt is so uncertain that it may be 20 or 40 years past Also it is declared Quod fuerunt bona diversarum personarum existentium subditorum Regis Hispaniae the which word existens doth refer to the time of the Declaration and not to the time of the taking for although in the 27 of H. 8. 15. and 28. that the word existens in Deeds may in respect of the subject matter be applyed to the future time yet in all course of pleading it shall be taken for the present time as in an Indictment upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. for forcible entry into Land Existens liberum Tenementum I. S. is not good because it doth refer to the time of the Indictment and not of the entry And so in the 21 H. 7. 30. A condition to discharge one of all Escapes of all Prisoners in the Goal this shall extend onely to Prisoners at the time of the Oligation made And it may very well be that they were the Subjects of one who was not in league with the King at the time of the taking and yet may be
a County of it self but because it was made a County since the Teste of the Writ the Writ was adjudged to be good 3. These Ter-tenants are estopped to plead Non-tenure because that they with the residue at first did plead that John Chatterton was Tenant of parcel of the Land by which Plea they have taken upon themselves to be Tenants of the Land and therefore they cannot afterwards plead Non-tenure 41 Ed. 3. 4. In a Praecipe quod reddat against I. S. who pleaded to the Writ and the Writ abated whereupon the Writ did abate and a new Writ brought for Jornies Accompts against I. S. he shall not plead Ioyntenancy with the other because he hath admitted himself sole Tenant by the first Writ 33 H. 6. 3. In a Formedon against the Husband who pleaded Ioyntenancy with his wife for which the writ a bated and a new writ was purchased against the husband and wife who pleaded non-tenure and adjudged a good plea for the benefit of the wife but if the last writ had been against the husband only he could not have pleaded non-tenure 22 H. 6. 54. B. In a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant pleaded Non-tenure the Demandant said that before he brought another Writ against the Tenant and I. S. who made default for which a Grand Cape was awarded upon which I. S. made default and the now Tenant said that he was sole Tenant and waged his Law of Non-summons which the Demandant did acknowledge whereupon the writ abated and this Writ purchased by Jornies Accounts and there it is argued if he shall have advantage of this because the first Writ did abate by his own default but it was agreed that if he could have such advantage the Tenant shall be estopped to plead Non-tenure and adjudged that the Tenant shall answer 42 Ed. 3. 16. In a Praecipe quod reddat one took the severall Tenancy on his part and the other of the other part and they were estopped because that a former proces was against them and others and they took the entire Tenancy upon them without that that the others had any thing and did gage their Law of Non-summons wherefore the first writ did abate and this writ purchased by Journies Accounts And so in our Case when all the Tenants have pleaded that I. C. was Tenant of parcell not named in the returne they have taken the Tenancy upon them and therefore they cannot afterwards plead Non-tenure And now the Writ being maintainable notwithstanding these exceptions Part. 2 it is to be considered whether there be any error in the Recovery or not And I conceive clearly that the appearance of the Wife within age by Attorney is Error for by the Rule of the Common Law in every Praecipe quod reddat whereby Land is demanded if the Tenant appear he ought to appear either in person or by one lawfully authorized by him and that is the reason that if Iudgment be given against one upon an appearance by the Attorney where the Attorney had no Warrant to appear that this is Error untill it be remedied in case where a Verdict is past by the Statute of 32 of H. 8. of Repleader but if the Iudgment be given upon default or demurrer or upon a Verdict and no Warranty by him who recovered this is not Warranted by the Statute Dyer 93. 20 Eliz. Dyer 363. and the reason is because that the Land or thing in demand is lost or gained by one who had no Warranty and then the Rule of Law is that an Infant shall not appeare by Attorney and 1 H. 5. 6. adjudged that an Infant cannot be Attorney for another and so therefore it is there said that he cannot appear by an Attorney 22 H. 6. 31. b. There by Newton if an Infant sue by an Attorney it is Error And the Law in this case stands with great reason for the Warrant of Attorney is made by the Infant which although it be sufficient when it is of full age yet it shall be dangerous to permit Infants to lose their Land by their Attorney while they have not discretion enough to choose such who shall be faithfull to them and therefore the Law hath made better provision for them to wit that they shall appear by their Gardian admitted and allowed by the Court so that in regard of the imbecility of the Infant the Court makes choyce of a sufficient trusty person to plead and defend their cause Nat. Br. 27 H. 1. an Infant shall sue by his next friend but if he be Defendant in any Action he shall make defence by his Guardian and not by his next of kin and the Court does assigne a Guardian for an Infant who is Defendant and that is commonly one of the Officers of the Court and in 22 H. 6. 31. where Hungerford and his Wife brought an Action of Trespasse for taking of their Villain being in their Service The Defendant pleaded that he was free c. and as to the losing of the Service that he was not retained and found for the Plaintiff and severall damages viz. for the taking of nine and twenty pounds and for the losing of the Service twenty shillings And it was argued neither Iudgment should be entred because the Retainer was not found And after Markham moved that the Plaintiffs being within age did appear by their Attorney and did declare that all the proces continued by the Attorney whereas it ought to have been by their Guardian so that all was Error And Newton said that if it were so there was good reason to have a Writ of Error and after the Plaintiffs released the twenty shillings and had Iudgment of the other So that an Attorney being alwaies made by the party ought to be therefore made by one of ability to give such Authority which ability cannot be in an Infant for all Authorities made by an Infant â—re utterly void And that the appearance of an Infant by Attorney in any Action is Error does appear by the said Book if the 22 H. 6. 31. 9 Eliz. Dyer 262. b. Object But it may be objected that the Husband in this case is of full age and therefore he may make an Attorney for himself and his Wife Answer But I answer that the Law is not so for the Rule of Law is that the Husband cannot give away or lose the Inheritants of his Wife but it must be given or lost by her her self and by her own act and therefore if the Inheritance in this case being to the Wife she is the principle and only to be taken notice of and she ought to appear in such manner as the Law hath appointed in regard of her nonage 14 Ed. 3. Age 88. In a Cessavit against the Husband and Wife the Husband did appear by an Attorney and the Wife by her Guardian and upon suggestion that she was of full age the Guardian was hidden to bring her into Court to see whether she were
Sister and he to enter at the age of one and twenty years and if any of his Sons died before the age of one and twenty years his part should be divided amongst the Sâ—â—vivors and so every one should be heire to the other and all of them came of age and paid the money and it was holden that each of them had an Estate in Fee and not in Taile and Dyer 357. Chick did devise the Fee-simple of a Messuage to A. his wife and after her death to W. his Son which W. was his Heir apparent A. did enter and married again and dyed having Issue by him and adjudged that A. had an Estate for life the Reversion to W. for life the Remainder to A. in Fee and 14 Eliz. a. One seised of Lands in Fee devised them to B. and the heirs of his body and if he died that it should remain to A. in fee yet B. shall have an Estate in Taile by the first words and shall not be restrained by the last words And Trinit 37 Eliz Rot. 382. Bacon against Hill and having three Tenements did devise them to his wife for life and then one of them to each of his three Sons and if any did die his part should remain to the Survivors and if any had Issue and died before he entred his Issue should have it and R. one of the Sons had Issue the wife died and R. died and adjudged that his Issue should have nothing Object But it may be objected that Francis cannot die without heire so long and his Sisters are living and therefore it shall be construed that the Devisor did intend only the heires of his body Answer But it does not appear that the Daughters were of the whole blood to Francis so that they may be heires to him for although where a Brother or Sister is spoken of in pleading it shall be intended of the whole blood because a Brother of the half blood is but half a Brother yet here when the Father onely does call them his Sons and Daughters and is so found by the Iury that they were his Sons and Daughters yet this is no proof that they were of the whole blood for they are daughters to the Father by what ever wife they were had And so I conceive upon the whole matter that the wife does take an Estate for life by the devise and that the Son shall have a Fee-simple but yet subject to this future devise sc if he die without heire that the Wittingb shall have it and so all the Will shall be good except the limitation to the Daughters for their lives and it cannot be intended that the Devisor did intend to prefer the Wittingb being his collaterall Cosins before the Issue of his Daughters which Issues are of his owne body Judgment And before that I argued againe Hillar 14 Jacob. Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for they all agreed that Francis had but an Estate-tail by these words of the Will viz. If M. A. and A. do out live their Mother and their brother Francis and his heires and Francis cannot die without heire so long as his Sisters are living and therefore the word Heirs shall not be intended Heires generall but heires of his body wherefore Iudgment was entred ut supra c. Mich. 14 Jac. Mason against Manning IN an Ejectment upon a Lease made by John Crooker and Christopher Crooker the two and twentieth of May 14 Jac. of two houses forty acres of Land forty of Meadow and forty of Pasture in S. Needs Habendum from the Annunciation last past for three years The Ejectment was the twenty third of May in the same yeare The Defendant as to the force and armes c. pleaded not guilty and as to the residue he said that Queen Elizabeth was seised in Fee of the Mannor of S. Needs whereof the said Tenements are and time out of mind were parcell and that the Queen the ninth of March in the one and thirtieth year of her Raign by her Letters Patents shewed here under the Exchequer Seal did devise the said Tenements to Robert Croker for life the Remainder to Edward Bett for life the Remainder to Edward Adams for life the Queen dies whereby the Reversion does descend to the King Robert Croker dies and the thirtieth of March 14 Jacob. Edward Bet doth devise the said Tenements to the Defendant from the Annunciation last past for three years whereby he entred and was possessed untill the said John and Christopher Croker did oust him and did disseise the said Edward Bet whereby they were seised in fee by disseisin and made the Lease to the Plaintiff upon which the Defendant claiming his term did enter and did out him and the Defendant was and yet is possessed of the said Tenements the Reversion to Edward Bet for life the remainder to Edward Adams for life the Reversion to the King unde non intendit quod curia domino Rege inconsulto ulterius procedere vellet aut debeat and prayed ayd of the King and did aver the life of Edward Bet. And I conceive that ayd is not grantable in this case 1. Because that it is but an Action of Trespass 4 H. 6. 10. Tenant for life of a Lease from the King shall not have ayd of the King for that no Freehold is to be recovered and he is able to plead to all matters in a Trespass 2. The Defendant shall not have ayd of the King because he is not his immediate Tenant but he may pray in ayd of Edward Bet his Lessor and he of the King 1 H. 4. 18. In a Scire facias to execute a Fine the Tenant said that the Land was given to him for life the remainder to N. in Tail the remainder to W. in fee who was attaint of Treason whereby his remainder came to the King and he prayed ayd c. And the Court said that he ought to pray ayd of N. and he of the King and after he said that W. was also attaint of Treason whereby he had ayd of the King 33 H. 6. 29. In a Trespass where the Defendant justified as Baily of a Hundred to distrain for amercements and prayed ayd of the King and by Prisot he could not have it for the Sheriff is the immediate Officer to the King and to this agrees 11 H. 6. 39. where such justification was for taking of Toll and 9 H. 6. 26. In a Replevin the Defendant made Conusance as Baily of I. who held of the King for life and prayed ayd of the King and adjudged he should not have it for there is no privity betwixt the King and him because he is not immediate and 28 H. 6. 13. A man shall not have ayd of the King and Queen or of the King and his Tenant for life but first of the Queen or Tenant for life and they of the King and a man shall not have ayd of the King but where he is Baily or Servant
he levyed the Fine according to the Charter and in the 21 H. 7. 8. a. When the King grants a License it ought to be strictly executed as if the King should License one to make a Feoffment by Deed he cannot make it without Deed and so e converso so that the License is always to be pursued or else there is no Warrant at all Vide Comment 68. Dive and Manningham If the King doth license one to alien the third part of his Land and he aliens all by Montague the alienation is without warrant And 23 H. 8. 6. Patent 76. If the King doth licence one to alien his Mannor of D. and he doth alien it excepting one acre the License shall not serve and if the King doth license one to impark an hundred acres and he does impark them and after adds ten acres this is no Park And 38 H. 6. 10. If the King grants a Leet to one in all his Land he shall not have it but in the Land which he had at the time of the Grant And this matter is enforced by the preamble of the Statute of the 7 Edw. 6. and the fifth which is For the avoyding of many inconveniences much evil rule and resort of disordered persons to many Taverns newly set up in very great number in Back-Lanes and suspicious places within London and otherwhere whereby it is to be presumed that the King did take notice of the House in which the parties did then inhabit to be a fit place and he trusted all of them but would not trust any one of them This License cannot be granted over 12 H. 7. 25. In a Trespass for hunting in his Park and killing of his Deer the Defendant justified by a License given to I. S. his Master under whom he as servant to him and by his commandment made the Trespass and resolved that a License doth not extend but to him to whom it is given and cannot be granted over and with this accords 18 Edw. 4. 14. and Dyer 34 H. 8. The Defendant hath not answered to the greatest part of the time contained in the Information for the Information is from the first of Novemb. 13 Jac. and a hundred other days between the first of Novem. 13 Jac. and the 26 Octob. 14 Jac. and then the Defendant pleads not guilty the first of November and all the other days between the first of November and the 26 Octob. saving fourty of the said days and for the fourty days he justifies by vertue of a License the last of August 14 Jac. so that it may be that the fourty days that the Information mentions were before this time for he hath the benefit of all days between the first of Novemb. and the 26 Octob. and the Not guilty at the first of November and an hundred days between that and the 26 October and the fourty days excepted in the Not guilty may be as well before the last of August as afterwards and it is at the election of the Informer to charge the Defendant with fourty days at what time he will between the first of Novemb. and 26 of Octob. As in a Trespass for breaking a Close the Plaintiff may after upon a new assignment or in evidence upon Not guilty pleaded assign the Trespass in what Land he will within the same Town although he hath many Closes there and therefore in this case the Defendant ought to have pleaded Not guilty for all the days until the last of August and then to have justified by his License As in a Trespass if the Defendant do justifie at another day by License he ought to traverse the time before and after for that the Plaintiff may charge him at what time he will The Plea is that the Defendant did sell his Wines at such reasonable prices as he could afford them which is utterly insufficient for he ought to have shewed what prices so that the Court might judg whether they were reasonable or not as in 22 Ed. 4. 40. the Lord Lisleâ— Case to shew a sufficient discharge of Rent And although it would be tedious to shew the price of every Quart and Pint yet he may alledg how he sells by the Quart of each kinde of Wine especially of so short a time And Michaelm 15 King James Judgment Judgment was given for the Defendant against the Informer because it was not averred that Tiverton was a Corporate or Market Town and the Statute gives several penalties one for keeping of a Tavern in such a Town without License and another penalty for keeping of a Tavern in other places without License Trinit 15 Jacob. Lee and his wife against Wood Knight Defendant IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 100 l. made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff Elizabeth when she was sole 7 Decemb. 13 Jacob. upon condition to pay 70 l. to the said Elizabeth the ninth of December 1616. The Defendant after Oyer of the condition said that the 17 Februa 13 Jacob. the said Elizabeth by Indenture reciting that whereas the Defendant with John and William Wood his sons were bound joyntly and severally to the said Elizabeth in a Bond of 1400 l. 6 December 13 Jacob. upon condition to pay 700 l. the eighth of October 1616. and by an Obligation of 120 l. 7 Octob. 13 Jacob. on condition to pay 70 l. the ninth of December 1616. and by five other several Obligations the seventh of December 13 Jacob. every one of them of 100 l. upon several conditions to pay 35 l. the tenth of June 1617. and 35 l. the ninth of December then next and 35 l. the 10 of June 1618. and 35 l. the ninth of December then next and 35 l. the tenth of June 1619. and 35 l. the ninth of December then next and 35 l. the tenth of June 1620. and 35 l. the ninth of December then next and 35 l. the tenth of June 1621. and 35 l. the ninth of December then next The said Elizabeth did agree covenant and grant with the said Defendant that if the Defendant should pay to Elizabeth the Daughter of the said Elizabeth the Plaintiff 500 l. due to her by the Will of Edmund Pigot her Father in full discharge of a Legacy or Portion given to her by the said Will or should procure to Elizabeth the Plaintiff a sufficient discharge for the said 500 l. of the said Elizabeth Daughter of the said Elizabeth and should provide and take course for fit maintenance for the said Elizabeth during her life and at all times upon request should save harmless the said Elizabeth and her Executors and Assigns of and from the payment of the said 500 l. and also shall pay to Susan the Daughter of Elizabeth the first of May 1621. if she shall then be living and not marryed 400 l. if the same shall then be due by the said Will and if the said Susan shall live until the first of May 1623. and then shall he marryed and her