spoken in a sense not actionable for it is very unreasonable that one should slander another in general words and then mitigate them by other words of a doubtfull interpretation sic pendet c. Sir John Chichester's Case Indictment SIR J. C. was indicted of Manslaughter and tried at the Bar and evidence was that he and his Man were playing at Foils and the Chafe of Sir John's Scabbard fell off unknown to him upon a thrust so that the Rapier went into his man's Belly and killed him And the Court directed the Iury that forasmuch as such acts are not warranted by Law the parties that use them ought at their own peril to prevent the mischief that may ensue for consent will not change the Case and therefore though there were no intention of doing mischief yet the thrust being voluntary was an assault in Law and death ensuing the offence was Manslaughter yet the Iury found it Chance-medly but the Court would not accept the Verdict but charged them if they varied from the Indictment to find it specially And Bacon said he had known a Iury bound over to the Star-chamber upon the like Cause whereupon they found him guilty and day was given him to procure his Pardon c. Pasch 23 Car. Banco Regis Andrews Harborn Mich. 22 Car. Rot. 483. Scire facias SCire facias was brought in Middlesex upon a Recognizance taken before Iustice Reeve at his Chamber at Serjeants Inn in London and Iudgment given in C. B. and upon a Writ of Error brought in this Court it was moved that it ought to have béen brought in London where the Recognizance was taken for though the Scire facias must be grounded upon a Record and the Recognizance be no Record till it be entred yet after it is entred it becomes a Record by relation from the time of the Recognizance And Hall and Winkfield's Case Hob. 195. was cited and the case was much debated and Roll Bacon absent said that the most ancient and proper course was to bring the Scire facias where the Recognizance was taken but he shewed in his hand a Certificate of all the Prothonotaries of the C. B. that of latter times they have allowed it the one way or the other and so the Iudgment was affirmed And Pasch 20 Jac. Rot. 210. B. R. betwéen Polting and Fairebank the like Iudgment was given upon a Recognizance taken before one of the Iudges of this Court in London and a Scire facias brought in Middlesex but it was said that the usual Entry in this Court is to express before what Iudge it was taken but no place where and then it might be brought in Middlesex without question Hilton and Plater Hil. 21 Car. Rot. 30. SLander Slander The Plaintiff declares That whereas he was Attorney c. the Defendant said to him You are a Knave you were Attorney for my Mother and set my Mother against my Husband and made him spend an 100 li. and such Knaves as you have made my Husband spend all his Estate And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved the last Term in arrest of Iudgment because no communication is laid of his Profession whereby the word Knave may be applied to that and the other words do not import any scandal of him in his Profession for he might lawfully set the Defendants Mother against her Husband as if there were cause of Action against him whereupon Iudgment was stayed And now this Term it was moved again And Bacon was of opinion against the Plaintiff for the reasons aforesaid But Roll contra because the subsequent words declare that the word Knave was intended of him in his Profession and therefore néed no colloquium of his Profession And afterwards the same Term ex assensu Baron ' mutata opinione Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 23 Car. Banco Regis Paine versus Sheltroppe Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 740. IN an Action of Debt Debt upon a Bond with Condition That if the Defendant and his Wife should appear such a day at the Palace Court c. The Defendant upon Oyer of the Condition pleads that he himself did appear at the day prout apparet per record ' and that he was not married at the time of the Obligation nor ever after And it was adjudged to be no good plea because he is estopped to deny that he had a Wife Otherwise when the Condition is general as to enfeoffe one of all his Lands in Dale there he may say he had no Lands there Vide Dyer 50. f. 196. d. 18 E. 4. 4. f. 21 E. 4. 54. g. l. 2. 33. h. Dominus Rex versus Holland AN Office was found and returned in the Chancery That a Copyhold in Islington was 14 Car. granted to one John Holland and his Heirs at the will of the Lord c. in trust for one Margaret Taylor who was an Alien and her Heirs and that the profits were disposed according to the trust and that after M. T. died and this was by virtue of a Commission to enquire what Lands c. M. T. had and the Commissioners seised the Land whereupon Holland came and shewed his Title and traversed the seisin in trust for M. T. And Issue being joyned it was found for the King and note the Venire facias was awarded in the Chancery retornable in this Court and the Record sent hither for they try no Issue there And exception was taken to the Writ because it was quorum quilibet habet 4. libratas terrae and according to Stat. 27 El. cap. 6. which extends only to this Court C. B. Exchequer and Iustices of Assise to which it was answered That forasmuch as it is returnable in this Court it is well enough within the Statute but that Answer was not allowed but because this Clause was added by the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 7. which was in the affirmative that the Writ should continue quorum quilibet habet 2. libratas terrae And the Statute 27 El. adds that it shall be 4. libratas in such Courts but no negative words in either Statute therefore it is but abundans cautela and makes not the Writ vicious And Roll said that it was so adjudged Mich. 21 Jac. betwéen Philpot and Feilder The Questions in Law were 1. If the King should have the trust 2. If by virtue of that he might seise the Land 3. If the Case differ'd because Copyhold And it was argued the last Term by Mountague for Holland and Hale for the King and this Term by Maynard for Holland and Twisden for the King 1. That Vses at the Common Law were things partly in action so that they were not given to the King by general words of Hereditaments in Statutes as is agréed in the Marquess of Winchester's Case And they consisted in privity and therefore could not be transferred by act in Law as by escheat for Attainder c. And the preamble of the
Statute of 27 H. 8. which reduces the possession to the Vse recites that by conveyances to Vse the King lost his escheats and purchases of Aliens c. l. 1. 124. a. Now Trusts being of the same nature at this day they are ruled according as Vses were at the Common Law and therefore if a Woman conveys a term in Trust for her self and takes Husband and dies he shall not have the Trust by survivorship but the Administrators of the Wife should have it 4. Inst 87. a. Witham's Case But Roll said that it hath béen since resolved that the Husband shall have it in that case And Mainard said that the Alien himself had no remedy in equity for the Vse at Common Law nor for a Trust at this day for he could not compell the Feoffees to execute it 2. If the King should have the Trust yet he cannot seise the Land by Law for the Alien himself had not that power his remedy if he should have any was only in the Chancery 3. The Land it self being Copyhold the King cannot have it 1. Because it is not transferrable by act in Law without the concurrence of the Lord for the prejudice that may accrue to him in losing his Fine c. 2. Because the King cannot perform the services incident to the Tenure and yet in default thereof the L. could not take advantage of the forfeiture as against the King 3. It would be an injury to strangers that should have right to the Copyhold for the King is not to be impleded in the Lords Court where only remedy is to be taken 4. The Estate is too base for the King to hold On the contrary it was said 1. That the King should have had a Vse limited to an Alien at the Common Law and by the same reason that he was to have the Land purchased by Aliens viz. That the Realm should not be impoverished by strangers and Vses at the Common Law were not properly things in action but Inheritances descendible by the rules of the Common Law and would have passed by grant or devise by the name of Hereditaments as Hale said And he said that the preamble of the Statute of 27 H. 8. is not to be intended as though the King should not have remedy for the profits when the Vse was discovered but that the Lands were so craftily conveyed that the Vse could not be discovered Now the case is the same of a Trust 2. The King be virtue of this Trust may seise the Land for though the profits only are given him by the Trust yet he hath not any direct means to be satisfied of those profits unless he may seise the Land And therefore 5 H. 5. 3. where a Manor with an advowson appendant was granted to the use of one who was after outlawed and upon an avoidance the King brought a Quare impedit and had a Writ to the Bishop And Hales said that 19 Jac. in Sir John Dacke's Case in Scaccar ' to whom the King granted a term to the use of the Lord who was attainted of Felony upon great deliberation with all the Iudges it was resolved and accordingly decréed that the Trust should be forfeited to the King and the interest of Sir John also 3. Now that the Estate of the Copyholder is fixed by the Custome there is the same reason for that as for any other Inheritance And this Term the Court took an exception to the Commission which was only to enquire what Lands c. the Alien had but no Capias in manus in it and therefore it was resolved that the seisure was unduly made and therefore they did not openly declare their opinion upon the matter in Law But Bacon said that an Alien at the Common Law could not compell the Feoffees to execute an Vse And Roll said that though the King should have the Vse yet he could not seise the Land it self by Law but by equity he might have a Decrée for the Land and so was Sir John Dack's Case And the Court doubted what Iudgment should be given the Verdict being found for the King And the rule was that cesset intratio judicii c. for they held that they could not give any Iudgment but afterward Termino Paschae 24 Car. the opinion of the Court being changed they directed the Case should be argued And Hale argued for the King that no Iudgment could be given against him because the Record of the Inquisition is still remaining in the Chancery and this Court hath no power to procéed but only to trial of the Issue and upon the Verdict for the very Record as to that is in this Court and yet he said that the Record after the Trial hath béen remanded into the Chancery and Iudgment given there but the tenour only of the Inquisition is here as appears by the Entry c. but if it had béen brought in per manus proprias of the Kéeper of the Great Seal then the whole Record had béen here and so Iudgment should have béen given upon the whole Record And he took this difference that when the tenour of a Record being removed the Court where the Original Record resides cannot proceed then the Court where the tenour is may procéed upon the tenour And therefore if the tenour of a Fine be certified upon a Certiorari out of the Tower or Treasury into the Chancery and sent into the Common Pleas by Mittimus Execution may be awarded there upon the tenour 39 H. 6. 4. a. So if the tenour of a Iudgment in a Writ of Annuity be certified out of the rescript in the Common Pleas into the Chancery and sent thither by Mittimus they may award execution there upon the tenour 34 H. 6. 2. d. because in those cases there are no other Iustices that can proceed upon the Record it self but where the Iudges where the very Record resides may procéed thereupon notwithstanding any tenour certified in such cases there can be no proceeding upon the tenour As if the tenour of a Iudgment in ancient demesn be certified in Chancery and sent by Mittimus into the Common Pleas no Scire facias lieth thereupon because the Court of Ancient Demesn may still procéed to execution upon the Record it self 39 H. 6. 3. h. c. So in our case the Chancery may still procéed to seisure upon the Inquisition affirming it to be good 14 E. 4. 7. a. And therefore this Court cannot procéed upon the tenour of it for thence might ensue a clashing of the Courts the one affirming it and the other quashing it and for these reasons he prayed that the former rule might stand But it was answered by Maynard and resolved by the Court that Iudgment ought to be given against the King because the whole Record is virtually here otherwise they should be bound up to the Verdict so that Iudgment should be given according to that though it appear upon the whole Record that the King had no
T. 22 Car. Rot. IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in consideration of a Marriage Promise inter alia not good ought to set forth the whole Promise c. Inter al' promisit de payer tant puis Verdict pro Querent ' Judgment fuit done vers luy because he ought to set forth the whole promise which is entire Hinacre versus Lemon M. 22 Car. Rot. SLander Words charged with procuring Felony good The Defendant said of the Plaintiff she caused Mr. Langly's Servant to steal and purloin 30 and received them and sold them which was the cause why his Master broke and upon a Verdict and Iudgment in the Common Bench in a Writ of Error the Iudgment was affirmed because she is charged with procuring of Felony and receiving stollen Goods Haines versus Finch Debt upon a promise for bringing up Children good without saying they were the Plaintiff's AN Executor brought an Action of Debt upon a promise made with the Testator for bringing up of Children and Teaching and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon nil debet pleaded it was moved that Debt would not lie in the Case because it was not layed that they were the Plaintiff's Children But the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff for Debt will lie upon a promise made by a stranger Debt upon a promise of money to marry a poor Virgin as in N. B. 122. k. If one promiseth money to another for marrying a poor Virgin Debt lieth but the parties agréed and so no Iudgment was given And Roll said that in Trevilian's Case Servant retain'd an Attorney for his Master and promises him his Fees Debt lies against the Servant where a Servant retained an Attorney for his Master and promised he should have his Fées an Action of Debt was brought thereupon by the Attorney against the Servant in C. B. and the Plaintiff recovered but upon Error in this Court a rule was given for the reversal of the Iudgment notwithstanding the like President shewn in Bradford's Case but he said that the Iudgment was not reversed upon the Roll and his opinion was that the Iudgment was good Edwards versus French T. 22 Car. Rot. 675. Slander whereby he lost his Marriage And no agreement of Marriage or mutual Love alledged and the words were spoken only in the innuendo yet good SLander The Plaintiff declares that whereas there was a Communication of Marriage betwéen the Plaintiff and one Mary Hicks who was worth 300 li. and that she deferred Marriage with the Plaintiff q. d. that verisimile fuit that they should be Married the Defendant in the hearing of divers persons said Mary Hicks is Mr. Edwards his Whore innuendo the Plaintiff whereupon Mary Hicks was refused to Marry the Plaintiff And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved that there was no agréement of Marriage nor mutual love alledged betwéen the Plaintiff and M. H. 2. That the words were not alledged to be spoken of the Plaintiff but only in the innuendo yet upon good debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Osborne versus Brooke Trin. 22 Car. Rot. 677. SLander Captain Osborne is forsworn Slander Is forsworn and his Oath appears upon Record Act ' gist and his Oath appears upon Record The Defendant as to the first words pleads not guilty and as to the latter justifies that he was forsworn in finding of an indictment of Forcible Entry and upon de injuria sua propria as to the justification both issues were found for the Plaintiff And upon motion of Latch in arrest of judgment First if the Words themselves were actionable Secondly if the Iustification made them good and actionable and upon great debate judgment was given for the Plaintiff in both points First the Court did take the words being spoken together to be the same as if he had said he is forsworn upon Record Justification explains the Parties meaning to be of perjury which is as much as to call him perjured Secondly his justification hath explained his meaning in them to be of perjury And Tuke and Condie's Case was cited for this where the Defendant in an Action brought for saying You are forsworn justified that he was forsworn in an indictment of Battery and the issue upon the justification being found for the Plaintiff he had judgment in Common Bank which was afterwards affirmed in this Court and now allowed for good Law by both the Iudges yet two Objections were made by Latch against this judgment First that the Declaration of it self being insufficent in substance could not be made good by the Defendant's bar Secondly that the ground of the Action is the disgrace that the Plaintiff incurs before the Auditors now they must understand the words according to the common acceptation as they were spoken and not in the sense wherein the Defendant justifies the speaking of them and he cited a Case 21 Jac. betwéen Wheeler and Abbot where in Slander for saying Thou hast stollen my Piece innuend ' a Gun the Defendant justified that the Plaintiff did steal his Gun and though the Iustification which shewed the Defendant's meaning to be of a Gun was found against him and Piece was a word of an incertain signification which could not be explained by the Innuendo Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for the Reasons aforesaid Pasc 23 Car. Banco Regis Water's Case Ten in common makes a Wall against the house to prevent the others getting in no disscisin IN an Assise of a House in Westminster upon null ' tort c. pleaded and a tryal at the Bar the Evidence was that there were two Tenants in common of the House and one of them nailed up the Doors and made up a Wall against the House to prevent the others getting into the House and this was resolved no Disseisin and so the Iury were discharged But the point in Law would have béen that a Tradesman purchased Lands in fée to himself and his Wife and after became Bankrupt c. whether the Commissioners had power to sell so as to bar the Wife Taylor versus Usherwood Hill 18 Car. Rot. 87. Demise IN an eject ' firmae upon a special Verdict the Case was That one devised Land to one Elizabeth for her life and after her death to the eldest Heir male of her body and to the Heirs males of such Heir male so that he be of twenty four years of age at the time of the death of Elizabeth and if he be not of twenty four years of age at that time then that the Husband of Elizabeth shall hold them till he comes to that age and the profits to be disposed among the younger Children Elizabeth dieth her Heir male within the age of twenty four years and after he attained to that age and entred and demised to the Defendant And Hales argued for the Defendant That if the demise had rested in
Title And both the Iudges denied that the Chancery could proceed upon the Inquisition now that the same was sent hither upon the Traverse but that the Iudgment in this Court would utterly subvert the Inquisition And therefore Iudgment was given quod manus Domini Regis amoveantur Shalmer versus Slingsby Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 1036. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded Debt That the Bond was made in another County than where it is alledged in the Declaration and prayed that the Attorney might be examined thereupon by force of the Statute of 6 R. 2. cap. 2. And the Plaintiff demurred as if it had been a plea in bar to the Action And the Defendant joyned in demurrer and concluded quod ab actione praecludatur And it was resolved that the plea was naught and not warranted by the Statute which provides only that the Original shall not be laid in one County and the Declaration upon a Bond made in another County and if so the Writ shall abate but this course of pleading hath been alwaies disallowed Vide 3 H. 6. 35. 2. Because the demurrer was joined as to the Action therefore Iudgment was given quod recuperet c. Wright versus Paul Pindar Pasc 22 Car. Rot. 440. IN a Trover Trover and Conversion brought by an Administrator upon not guilty pleaded the Defendant upon the evidence confesses that he did convert them to his own use but further saith that the Intestate was indebted to the King and that 18. May 14 Car. it was found by Inquisition that he died possessed of the Goods in question which being returned a venditioni exponas was awarded to the Sheriff who by virtue thereof sold them to the Defendant And to prove this the Defendant shewed the Warrant of the Treasurer and the Office-Book in the Exchequer and the Entry of the Inquisition and the venditioni exponas in the Clerk's Book to which the Plaintiff saith that the matter alledged is not sufficient to prove the Defendant not guilty and that there was no such Writ of venditioni exponas And the Defendant saith that the matter is sufficient and that there was such a Writ And it was resolved that he that demurs upon the Evidence ought to confess the whole matter of fact to be true and not refer that to the judgment of the Court. And if the matter of fact be uncertainly alledged or that it be doubtfull whether it be true or no because offered to be proved only by presumptions and probabilities and the other party will demur thereupon he that alledges this matter cannot join in Demurrer with him but ought to pray the judgment of the Court that he may not be admitted to his Demurer unless he will confess the matter of fact to be true And for that the Defendant did not so in this case both parties have misbehaved themselves and the Court cannot proceed to Iudgment But it was clearly agreed that upon Evidence the Court for reasonable cause at their discretion may permit any matter to be shewn to prove a Record Com. 411. b. And the opinion of the Court was that an alias Venire facias should be awarded and not a Venire de novo because no Verdict was given Trin. 23 Car. Banco Regis King versus Somerland Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 140. IN an Action of Debt Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declares upon a Lease for years made by a stranger who bargained and sold the Reversion to the Plaintiff per indenturam debito modo irrotulat ' in curia Cancellariae and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon nil debet pleaded it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that he had not alledged the inrolment to be within six months nor secundum formam Statuti And though it were said to be debito modo that would not help because it might be so at the Common Law and the Verdict could not make the Declaration good for want of a convenient certainty for the foundation and therefore upon great deliberation Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Coleman versus Painter Trin. 23 Car. Rot. IN an Action of Debt Debt upon a Bond with condition to perform Covenants one of which was that the Plaintiff should not be interrupted in his possession of certain Lands by any person that had lawfull Title and particularly that he should not be interrupted by one Thomas Anthony by virtue of any such Title upon performance of Covenants pleaded the Plaintiff replies that 1. Novemb. 20 Car. the Defendant made a Lease for years to the Plaintiff of the Lands mentioned in the Déed and that the 3. of the same month the Plaintiff entred and that before this time viz. 17. Augusti 20 Car. the Defendant made a Lease to the said Tho. Anthony for a term of years yet to come who 20. Aug. 20 Car. entred into the Land c. the Defendant pleaded that the said Lease made to T. A. was with condition of re-entry for non-payment of Rent and that before the Lease made to the Plaintiff the Rent was behind legitime demandat secundum formam indenturae And upon non-payment he re-entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff And upon a general demurer it was resolved that the Demand was insufficiently alledged for he ought to set forth certainly when and where it was made that it might appear to the Court to be legal but for the flaw in the Plaintiff's replication because he alledged his Entry after the Lease made to T. A. so that it doth not appear that he was interrupted by him the opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff but the next Term by leave of the Court he discontinued his Action Brown versus Evering Hil. 21 Car. Rot. 354. IN an Action of Debt Debt for Rent after a Verdict and Iudgment for the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas upon a Writ of Error brought and Diminution alledged it appeared that the Issue was joyned Pasc 21 Car. And the Venire facias certified to be in placito praedicto inter partes praedictas bore teste Pasc 20 Car. And this was moved for Error but it was adjudged to be holpen by the Statute of 8 El. cap. 14. as if there had been no such Writ for it is impossible that this should be the Writ in that Action Long versus Bennet IN an Assumpsit Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares That in consideration that he had sold to the Defendant unam acram ligni he promised to pay him 8 li. And after Verdict for him upon non Assumpsit it was moved that the Declaration was uncertain because it doth not appear whether the Soil it self or the Wood only were sold but after much debate the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Vide 17 E. 4. 1. d. Frier versus Prentice Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 416. IN an Assumpsit Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would permit J. S. to enjoy
Indebitatus for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years After a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon non Assumpsit Iudgment was given against him because the Action will not lie for Rent but he must have an Action of Debt for it Lawrence versus King and others In an Ejectione firmae Ejectione firmae upon a Lease of a House in Newington Common Oxon. Vpon not guilty the Iury appearing at Bar one was challenged because he was Tenant of a Manor to which there was a Court Leet of which the Plaintiff was Steward And the Court inclined that it was no principal challenge but for want of sufficient proof it fell off and the Court would not examine him upon a voir dire after it Another was challenged by the Defendant and being upon his Trial soit treit said the Plaintiff but not allowed for that must be upon the Challenge and not upon the Trial and therefore he was tried and sworn And the Case upon the Evidence was that Tenant in Capite of certain Lands and the House in question conveyed all as it was found by Office to his youngest Son and died his eldest Son and Heir being within age who attained to his full age and died before livery sued And the younger Son entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff of the whole Land and whether this Lease was good for the whole was the question And the Plaintiff's Counsel offered to prove by another Office that other Lands were left to descend to the eldest Son which were more then a full third part of the whole Lands the Tenant had but it was not allowed for the Office wherein the House in question is found is a Record by it self and the King's Title must be taken as it is found in that and not as it stands by comparison with another Office 1 H. 7. 5. c. 2. It was a question whether a Lease made by the younger Son in this case before seisure for none could be proved were not good for the whole And it was holden to be void as to a third part and so it was though the third part were not set out by the Statute for the King's interest commenced by the Office before seisure and before setting out of the third part 3. Stamf. 35. c. l. 8. 175. c. 13 H. 4. 3. g. h. 14. a. 1 H. 7. 5. c. 21 H. 7. 7. b. It was agreed that the Land continued in the King's hands for a third part till an ouster le maine sued though the Heir were dead 4. It was agréed by all that where an ouster le maine is necessary a Lease for years made before is not good And Bacon said that where the Heir of the King's Tenant in Capite dies before livery sued that the Land is not Debtor for the Arrears which the King ought to have from the death of the Ancestour in such case till they are computed by an Officer in the Exchequer and made a Debt upon Record and then the Land is Debtor And after much dispute a Juror was drawn by consent of parties Dutton versus Eaton Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 929. Action sur le Case IN an Action of the Case for speaking divers slanderous words of the Plaintiff amongst which were these words Thou hast the French Pox upon not guilty the Iury found that he spake all the words in the Declaration exceptis his verbis thou hast the French Pox quoad the speaking of those words they find that he said thou hast had the French Pox si c. they find for the Plaintiff and assess entire damages And the opinion of the Court was clear that the variance was material Dyer 75. a. so that the Declaration was not maintained by the Verdict And both the Iudges inclined that the words found were not actionable for they do imply that the Plaintiff had that disease but was recovered Then an exception was taken to the Verdict because the Iury did not find that the Defendant did not speak the words in the Declaration And yet this defect was not supplied by the words exceptis his verbis And for this cause it was resolved that the Verdict was insufficient and a Venire facias de novo was awarded Vide Dyer 75. a. 171. e. Yearworth versus Pierce SLander Slander Thou art a Thief and hast stollen my Dung After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved that the words were not actionable because Dung is an indifferent word to signifie either Dung in a heap which is a Chattel or Dung spread or scattered upon the ground which is parcel of the Freehold and then no felony may be committed of it But upon good debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because the first words being plainly actionable the effect of them shall not be taken away by subsequent words ambiguous for when subsequent words should qualifie the words precedent they ought to carry in them a strong intendment that they were spoken in such a sense as was not actionable and then also Roll held they ought to be brought in by way of explanation by the word For as to say thou art a Thief for thou hast c. but if the words are thou art a Thief and hast stoln c. there the latter words are cumulative But Bacon denied the difference and cited Clerk and Gilbert's Case Hob. 331. where that difference is denied and said that 8 Car. in the Common Pleas where the words were thou art a Thief and hast robb'd thy Kinsman of his Land The Court was divided in opinion but after upon Conference with all the Iustices at Serjeants Inn it was adjudged for the Plaintiff And Roll denied both those cases to be Law and said that this latter case was resolved upon consideration of that in Hobert which hath been often denied for Law in this Court. And he said that he had conferred with Sir Robert Barkley and Sir John Bramston and their opinions concur with him in this point And Roll held that if the Defendant had said thou hast stollen my Dung without any other words they would have been actionable for Dung in Common parlance is understood of Dung in a heap which was agreed to be a Chattel of which Felony may be committed and goeth to the Executors but if it lieth scattered upon the ground so that it cannot well be gathered without gathering part of the soil with it then it is parcel of the Freehold Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis Pierson versus Dawson SLander Slander The Plaintiff declares That the Defendant dixit Mariae Pierson Matri W. Pierson the Plaintiff your Son is a Thief innuendo the Plaintiff then the Son of the said Mary And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the words are not laid to be spoken of the Plaintiff but only in the innuendo which cannot sufficiently ascertain the Declaration Hob. 268. a. l. 4. 169. 17. f.
Testator's Estate 2. That such contingent Covenants are common assurances much favoured in Law which may all be easily defeated if the disposition of the Covenants by his Will should stand good against them for though the Executors should afterwards voluntarily break them yet the recompence must be had only out of the Testator's Estate 3. A diversity was taken between Debts without specialty and Legacies for those are duties of the same nature with Debts upon specialty but differ only in order and dignity but these are meer gratuities for which no Action lieth at the Common Law and therefore are not taken notice of by Law as duties but the remedy for them is in the Court Christian 4. The Executor was not compellable by the Ecclesiastical Court to pay these Legacies unless the Legatees in this case would give caution to repay them if the contingent Covenants should be broken And so it was said is the course in Chancery at this day in the like cases And Hales and Twisden ex parte Defendentis argued to the contrary 1. It was agreed by them and also by the Court that though the Legacies were devised in specie yet the Legatees could not take them without the assent of the Executors And that therefore the Case was the same as if the Legacies had been of money Indeed there is a difference between these Legacies for Legatum quantitatis est Legatario as Legatum in specie est 2. It was agreed that if the Covenant had been broken before the delivery of the Legacies the Administration would have wrought a Devastavit but the Legacies being first delivered it was agrued that the Executors ought not to be charged in a Devastavit upon this Covenant 1. From the nature of the thing it self for a Covenant is no Duty nor cause of Action till it be broken and therefore is not discharged by a release of Actions And when it is broken the Action is not founded meerly upon the specialty as if it were a Duty but savours of Trespass and therefore an Accord is a good plea to it and ends in damages 2. From the qualification of it in respect of the contingency of the breach thereof for it is to be presumed that it will be rather performed than broken 3. From the inconvenience that such a Covenant should obstruct the performance of the Will for it is a present and certain mischief that Legacies should not be paid and it is but a possible and contingent mischief that the Covenant should be broken and the Covenantee unsatisfied and therefore admitting that it were in place where by custome a rationabili parte bonorum would lie it would be very hard that the Children should expect till it were known whether the Covenant would be broken or no which may perchance continue in suspense for ever for such Covenants are commonly annext to Estates in fee. Now the reason is the same in case of Legacies for where it hath been said that the Common Law takes no notice of them so as to give remedy for them it was answered 1. That the Law takes notice of a Legacy so as to create a Duty in the party to whom it is bequeathed though he cannot take it without the assent of the Executors for after such assent the Law vests the property of the thing bequeathed in the Legatee and therefore a Condition imposed upon the assent is void 2. The Probate and ordering of Wills did belong originally to the Iurisdiction of Temporal Courts where the Legatees might have had remedy for their Legacies as appears by Glanvil lib. 6. cap. 6 7. where there is a Writ to demand a Legacy at the Common Law and now that the Iurisdiction is devolved to the Ecclesiastical Court the Common Law takes notice of the remedy there for Legacies for the power of that Court is regulated by these and therefore forbearance of Suit there hath been adjudged a good consideration of a promise and for the same reason Hale said he conceived that if an Executor of his own wrong paid Legacies the rightfull Executor should be bound thereby because he was compellable by Law to pay them 3. Though the Executor were not compellable by Law to pay the Legacies yet now that payment is executed the Law takes notice of it to vest the property of the Goods in the Legatees And this being before any Covenant broken the Administration will be good As to the Objection concerning provisional payment of Legacies it was answered 1. That it is the common case almost of all persons that have any dealing in the Kingdom to make such Covenants and to give Portions to their Children by Will and this is all the maintenance many of them have and therefore it is difficult for them to find security for the payment of that whereof they live 2. Though the Ecclesiastical Court in a prudential way use sometimes to take caution for repayment yet they are not bound so to doe And therefore this Court cannot take notice thereof 3. It hath been agreed that payment of Debts upon simple Contracts is a good administration against Iudgments defeasible upon performance of Covenants and yet the same provisional payment might be made in that case but the Law doth not compell it pur que c. And the Case being thus argued the last Trinity Term and this Term two Exceptions were taken by Bacon to the Declaration 1. That the Plaintiff hath not conveyed to himself a good Title to the Tenements for he alledges a demise of them habendum to the Plaintiff but he is not named in the premises but this was after agreed to be well enough for a Lease so made is good And Latch said it had been so adjudged 2. That the breach was not well assigned for the Covenant is against all persons claiming by the assent means or procurement of Sir Moulton but the breach assigned is that Clavel clamans titulum from Sir M. did enter now he might claim Title from him when as in truth he had no Title from him And for this cause Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And the Iudges would not deliver their opinions upon the matter in Law but upon the Arguments Roll did incline for the Plaintiff upon the provisional payment that might be made and said that Prohibitions have been denied upon suggestion of a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court where contingent charges have been pleaded because this Court takes notice of provisional payments which are used to be made there also he approved of the diversity between Debts without specialty and Legacies And Bacon inclined to the Defendant for the reasons before alledged Hil. 23 Car. Banco Regis Holdwich Ux. vers Chafe Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 326. IN an Action of Debt by the Husband and Wife Executrix upon a Bond supposed to be made to the Testator non est factum being pleaded it was found to be made to the Testator and another who died before the Testator
And if it were his Deed modo forma prout c. was referred to the Court. And Maynard argued for the Plaintiff 1. Inst 185. b. Dyer 133. h. That the Plaintiffs might declare as upon a Bond made to the Testator only because the Duty accrued to him only by survivorship And cited 35 H. 6. 38. h. where a Lease was made to two persons rendring Rent and one dying Debt was brought against the survivor as upon a Lease made to him only so where two Iointenants were joyned in a Lease and one released to the other in an Action of Waste he counted of a Lease made by himself only and adjudged good 46 E. 3. 17. c. 33 H. 6. H. 6. E. 3. 12. 4. h. so it is where a right only survives as Mich. 18 E. 2. in a Case not printed 2. Infants Iointenants joyned in a Feoffment and one died the survivor brought a dum fuit infra aetatem and declared that the Tenant had not the land nisi ex dono of the Demandant dum fuit infra aetatem And the Tenant pleaded in abatement that it was conveyed to him by them both the Demandant replied that the other was dead and adjudged for the Demandant Note the same Law holds where a charge survives as if two joyn in a Bond the Obligee may have Debt against the one only And it was no plea for him to say it was made by him and another unless he say he is in full life as appears 28 H. 6. 3. c. fu 11. a. But where nothing survives there the Case ought to be alledged as the truth was as if two Iointenants make a Feoffment and the one dies the Feoffor cannot plead this as a Feoffment made by the survivor only Otherwise where a Feoffment is made to two and one dies 14 E. 4. 1. h. 3. The matter of variance goes but in abatement and therefore cannot be pleaded in Bar also non est factum is no plea in the Case And Whelpdale's Case l. 5. 119. was cited and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff without further argument Nota if the Defendant in this Case had demanded Oyer of the Deed and caused it to be entred in haec verba he might have demurred to the Declaration as should seem by 36 H. 6. 16. d. g. 32. a. l. 5. 76. e. And the Court ex officio ought to have abated the Bill So Note the difference And see Blackwell and Ashton's Case su 11. a. Royston versus Cordrye Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1677. IN an Action of Debt Debt brought against an Executor upon a Lease for years made to the Testator for Rent due after his death in the detinet after a Verdict for the Plaintiff quod detinet it was moved by Hales in arrest of Iudgment that the Action ought to have been in the debet and detinet for the reasons in Hargrave's Case l. 5. 31. for nothing shall be Assets but the surplus of the value of the Land exceeding the Rent And therefore the profits of the Land proportionable to the Rent are taken to his own use and therefore he is to be charged as for his proper Debt and it cannot be presumed that the Land should be of no value but contrarily that they should be of greater value than the Rent And therefore in an Avowry upon an Abbot for Rent he cannot disclaim generally unless he shew that the Land is of less value then the Rent 43 Ass pl. 23. 16 H. 7. 2. so that if the Land here had been worth nothing or of less value than the Rent the Plaintiff ought to have shewen it in his Declaration for this cannot be made up by the Verdict for besides that the intendment is too remote to be supplied for which see King and Somerland's Case su 9. a. the Verdict is true though it be otherwise for he that is said debere detinere may well be said detinere 2. The Executor is now charged as Ter-tenant and not upon the privity of Contract with the Testator and therefore the Action will not lie against him after Assignment and for the same reason it ought to be brought where the Lands lies so that he ought to be charged in the debet and detinet in respect of the Land and the profits and not in the detinet as upon the Contract But yet upon debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Executor demands his interest whereby the Charge accrues from the Testator so that he may answer the Rent out of the Testator's Estate and the sole inconvenience is to the Plaintiff himself who waives his advantage to demand satisfaction out of the Estate of the Defendant and contents himself with what the Testator's Estate will afford and therefore it was never doubted but that the Action might be brought in the detinet only but it hath been much doubted whether it might be in the debet and detinet Vide Caly and Joslin's Case su 15. Also Roll said that in many places the Land becomes of no value by reason of the troubles and then he ought to be charged in the detinet onely And the Verdict doth supply this Intendment Hil. 23 Car. Banco Regis Page and Harwood PAge and Harwood and one were indicted at the Assises at Nottingham upon the Statute 1 Jac. 8. for stabbing one And the Indictment Indictment was that stabb'd him and Page and Harwood were present abetting c. and contra formam Statuti and all there were found guilty contra forman Statuti and was hanged in the Countrey but Roll doubted whether these two were within the Statute and therefore adjourned them hither And Walker produced a President 16 Car. where one Welsh and five others were indicted at the Sessions in the Old Baily upon this Statute for the death of one Swinnerton and because all five were present and it could not appear upon the Evidence which of them made the thrust Bramston Chief Iustice Barkley and Jones directed the Iury to find them guilty of Manslaughter only at the Common Law for though in Iudgment of Law every one that is present c. is principal so that the Indictment may recite that any of them did make the thrust and the Iury should have found them equally guilty at the Common Law yet in construction of this Statute which is so penal it shall be extended only to such as really and actually made the thrust and not to those which by construction of Law only may be said to make it for the end of the Statute was to restrain the rage and cruelty of such persons as would suddenly stab another And accordingly it was resolved in this case that the offendors should have their Clergy Then another question was made upon the Indictment which is contra formam Statuti and accordingly they were all found guilty by the Iury whereas it appears that these are not guilty within the Statute But it was answered and
resolved that upon this Indictment they might all have been found guilty at the Common Law then when all are found guilty within the Statute the Verdict shall be taken as it may stand by Law And the substance of the Indictment being found the rest is but surplusage which hurteth not the Verdict And the Court held that the Indictment need not conclude contra formam Statuti because the Statute doth not alter the nature of the offence but only takes away the priviledge which the Common Law allowed in such case and therefore it is sufficient that the circumstances be expressed in the Indictment whereby it may appear that the offence is within the Statute and the Offendors had their Clergy and upon their reading were burnt in the hand in conspectu curiae Price versus Vaughan Trin. 14 Car. Rot. 1160. IN an Ejectione firmae Ejectione firmae upon a special Verdict upon not guilty pleaded the Case was briefly thus Walter Vaughan being seised in Fee of the Land in question devised it to Francis his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his Body the remainder to his second Son and the Heirs males of his Body with other remainders the remainder to the Heirs males of the Body of the Devisor provided if the eldest Son should die without Issue male but having Issue female then I do give full power and authority to the said Daughters to enter into the Lands and to take the profits thereof untill he that first shall have the Lands after the death of Francis shall pay to each of them 400 li. towards their Marriage and dies Francis dies without Issue male having a Daughter Elizabeth who entred into the Lands and died the 400 li. being unpaid her Administrator enters and Leases to the Plaintiff upon whom the younger Son of the Devisor enters and him ejects and if upon the whole matter the entry of the Administrator was lawfull they find for the Plaintiff And the question in Law was what Estate Elizabeth had and it was argued by Hale Maynard and Brown for the Plaintiff 1. That she had an interest 5 H. 7. 1. a. 27 H. 8. 16. 1. Dyer 210. d. Br. Devise 48. for an authority to take the profits implies as much as a devise of the profits which gives an interest 2. It is a Chattel like to the case where a feoffment is made rendring Rent with proviso that if it be arrear the Feoffor may enter and hold the Land till it be paid this gives a Chattel to the Feoffor And so it is if the arrears were to be satisfied out of the profits of the land And so it is in case of a devise to Executors till debts be paid And so Brown said it was resolved in a Case between Eire and Haggard Hil. 13 Jac. Rot. 868. C. B. where a Rent was granted out of the Lands and if the Rent were behind that the Grantor might enter into the Land and hold it till he were paid that this was but a Chattel 3. It was argued that this Chattel was transmissible to the Administrator because if the portion it self had been devised though it were toward Marriage it would have gone to the Administrator Now though the profits of the Land are but a gage till the portion be paid yet it follows the Portion as 20 H. 7. 1. a. as if a nomine poenae descend to the Heir with the Rent so if Lands are devised to Executors for payment of Debts it goes to their Executors and the Executors of Tenant by Elegit shall have an Assise for the remedy goes with the duty 2 Inst 396. e. And in this case if it should not be so the Portion might not be paid which were contrary to the meaning and letter of the Will for there is an express proviso that the Lands shall not remain over till the money be paid and Twisden and St. John Sollicitor argued to the contrary But St. John did admit it to be an Interest but that it was no Chattell 1. Because the devise is found to be in pursuance of Articles of agreement made for the like settlement to be made by the Testator in his life-time but if such a settlement had been made in his life it would have given a Freehold for life and not a Chattel 2. The devise was for advancement of Daughters and it is found by the Verdict that 1200 Acres of Land are devised in which if the Daughters should have an Estate for life it cannot but be intended to be as great or greater advancement than if 400 li. only had been devised to them and yet that the Testator lookt upon as a sufficient provision And therefore made the Estate determinable upon payment of that 3. It cannot be thought that the Testator intended to give the whole Land to the Daughters and to debar the Issue male of his younger Sons and yet as this Will is penned if it should not give a Freehold then if the first man dies before payment the Daughters shold have it for ever and Dyer 300 h. was cited And for this cause also it cannot be a Chattel for there cannot be a perpetuity of a Chattel upon no supposal and therefore there is no more reason to say it should be a Fee in them than a Chattel 2. If it be a Chattel it goes not to the Executors or Administrators 1. Because it is personally limited to the Daughters and not to their Executors and Administrators 2. It is limited to them for their advancement which doth not respect their Executors 3. If it should goe to the Executors then there would be a perpetuity of it As to the Cases objected by the Plaintiff's Counsel as 27 H. 8. 5. which was much insisted upon where cestuy que use Covenants that his Feoffees shall suffer one of his Executors and Assigns to take the profits of the Land till he or they be paid 100 li. by the Covenants c. if he dies before he hath received it his Executors shall hold it till they be paid It was answered that this was in case of a Vse which was then ruled meerly according to equity and by express words it was limited to the Executors and there it was for money paid by the Covenantee and so for a Duty which goes to the Executors And for the case of a Devise to Executors for payment of Debts there it is a Chattel in them which goes to their Executors because otherwise Debts should not be paid which is the special reason of that case for such an Estate made by Grant will be an Estate for life l. 8. 96. c. And in the case of retaining Land till a Rent be paid there the Land is taken but as a Distress till the Rent which is a duty issuing out of it be paid but in our case neither the person nor the Land is Debtor for no Legacy is devised to the Daughters the Devise is only that they shall hold the Lands untill
Action because they imply an act done And Roll said that where one said Where is that long lock't shagg-hair'd murdering Rogue And a stranger asked him who do you mean He said Greene of Fauseet the words were judged actionable so he said where one said Bring home the Cushion you stole the words were adjudged actionable But the Iudgment was stayed for further advice Dent versus Scott Trin. 22 Car. Rot. 1151. IN an Action of the Case upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit for Wares it was found by special Verdict Acc'on sur Case that the Wares were sold to the Defendants Wife for convenient Apparel which she wore and if c. And the Opinion of the Court was clear for the Plaintiff for the Wife may charge the Husband for Necessaries as Apparel Dyet and Lodging in case that the Husband doth not provide them for her But if the Husband allow a stipend to the Wife for these things and it be paid her then they held she could not charge him And Roll said that this was endeavoured to be proved at the trial and because it could not he would have had the Iury found generally for the Plaintiff And Bacon said that he and the other Iudges have lately certified the Lords in Parliament accordingly but for a flaw in the Declaration which was in considerat ' quod venderet deliberaret and no averment of any sale or delivery Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff because the Declaration was insufficient and so entered Note also that the promise in this Case is laid to be made by the Husband and the sale and delivery made to him but then it must be deliberasset for if it were in consideration quod venderet deliberaret to him then it may be questioned whether a Sale and Delivery to the Wife would make good the averment Dunsh versus Smith Hil. 23 Car. Rot. 37. IN an Action of Debt Debt brought by an Executor for the arrears of a Rent-charge upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in the life of the Testator did enter into the Land out of which the Rent was issuing and occupied it and took the profits thereof by the space of five years and demands the arrears of the Rent for the time And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff Mainard moved that the Action will not lye for the arrears against the Occupiers for the Statute gives it against the Tenants of the Land To which Hale answered That at the Common Law the Action lay against him that took the profits of the Land and against the Husband that was seized in right of his Wife C. 4. f. 49. 2. That this Action is given in lieu of a Distress and the Beasts of the Occupiers were chargeable to the Distress 3. That it would be convenient that the Plaintiff should be compelled to inquire out in whom the Estate was of right But Iudgment was stayed And Roll doubte◠of the Case but inclined against the Plaintiff Pasc 24 Car. B. R. Harvy versus Thorne Pasc 24 Car. Rot. 472. IN an Action upon the Case Case against an Executor the Plaintiff declares that upon a treaty of a Marriage it was agréed betwéen the Plaintiff and the Testator that he should pay to the Plaintiff 100 li. and whilst that should be unpaid he should pay the Plaintiff 10 li. per Annum which Agréement was made Anno 1618. And the Action was brought for all the arrears by the space of 28 years The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations whereupon the Plaintiff demurred And upon the motion of Hale who advised the Attorney to bring the Action for all the arrears that it appeared that all could not be barred by the Statute Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff no Counsel being retained in the Cause for the Defendant Loder versus Hampshire IN Debt Debt upon a singel Bill of 50 li. the Defendant after Imparlance pleaded That after the last continuance the Defendant had paid the Plaintiff 5 li. parcel of the 50 li. and demanded Iudgment of the Bill Whereupon the Plaintiff demurred and because the Defendant did not alledge that he had an Acquittance which he ought to produce At the motion of Earle Iudgment was given against the Defendant that he should answer over c. C. 5 E. 4. 139. a. Dod versus Robinson Trin. 23 Car. Rot. SLander Slander The Plaintiff declares that the last of March 13 Car. he was Instituted and Inducted into a Parsonage in Ireland and executed the Office of a Pastor in that Church by the space of four years after and the Defendant said of him He was a Drunkard a Whoremaster a common Swearer and a common Lyar and hath preached false Doctrine and deserves to be degraded And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved by Hale in arrest of Iudgment 1. That the words in themselves are not actionable because the Crimes charged impute no Civil or Temporal damage to the Plaintiff for which he may have Action But the Opinion of the Court was clear for the Plaintiff in that point for that the matters charged are good cause to have him degraded whereby he should lose his Fréehold which is a temporal damage to him Then it was objected That he did not lay that he was Parson when the words were spoken To which it was answered by the Court That it should be intended he continued Parson because he had a Fréehold in the Parsonage during his life But it was further urged That inasmuch as he hath laid a special time during which he exercised the Office of a Pastor it shall not be intended that he continued so longer then himself hath laid it And of this the Court doubted but inclined for the Plaintiff Morefield Webb Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 51. Acc'on fur Case IN a Writ of Error upon Iudgment in the Palace Court at Westminster In an Action upon the Case upon a Promise and a Verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved for Error that the Habeas Corpora Jurator̄ was not returned served but that there was a Pannel of the Names of the Iurors annexed to it which Case is aided by the Statute of 21 Jac. which aids when there is not any return upon the Writs of Ven. Fac. Hab. Corpora et Distring so as a Panel of the Names of the Iurors be returned and annexed to the said Writs And two Objections were made 1. That this Statute extends only to such by Writ and in this Court it is by Precept and not by Writ 2. It appears that this Court was erected by Letters Patents 6 Car. which was after the Statute But it was resolved 1. That it is within the Intention of the Statute which doth provide amendment in any Action Suit Plaint Bill or Demand And Roll said that it is questionable if this Statute extends to the Grand Sessions in Wales and Iustice Jones was angry that it was made a Question
affirmed Trin. 24 Car. B. R. Freeborne versus Pincras Hil. 23 Car. Rot. 1375. Acc'on sur Case IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in consideration c. did promise to joyn with him in a Surrender of certain Copyhold Lands for a Sale to be made of them to any person and avers that he had procured 2 Copyholders such a day to be present at a certain place within the Mannor and that the Plaintiff was then and there ready to have joyned with the Defendant in a Surrender of the Lands for a Sale to be made to one J. S. and that the 2 Copyholders were then and there ready to have received the Surrender c. and that then and there he did request the Defendant to joyn with him in a Surrender into the hands of the two Copyholders to be presented by them in Court to the use of the said J. S. c. Secundum consuetudinem manerij praed ' à tempore quo c. usitat̄ quodque sursumredditio sic requisita facienda fuit pro venditione of the said Copyhold Lands pro quadam pecuniae summa per praed ' J. S. solvend ' And that the Defendant non junxit with the Plaintiff in the Surrender licet ad hoc faciend ' postea eodem die per praed ' querent̄ requisitus fuit c. And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Non assumpsit pleaded upon motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was resolved by Roll that the Declaration was insufficient 1. For that the Plaintiff hath alledged that he was ready to joyn in a Surrender with the Defendant and that then and there he did require the Defendant to Surrender but hath not alledged that he did give notice to the Defendant that he was ready to joyn with him and so it is no more then a bare request to the Defendant to make a Surrender which is not sufficient for that the Plaintiff was to joyn with him in it 2. The Surrender was to be for Sale to be made to J. S. and the Plaintiff hath not any way intimated to the Defendant that the intention of the Surrender was such And Roll said that the notice ought to be particular of the agréement and sum for which it was to be sold 3. The Promise is general to joyn in a Surrender and the Request is to Surrender into the hands of two Customary Tenants which being a particular way of Surrender grounded upon a particular custome is not within the intention of a promise generally to Surrender which is to be taken according to the common way of Surrender and so he said it was resolved Pasc 9 Car. in this Court betwéen Sims and the Lady Smith And so if a man be bound to another to make such assurance of Lands as the Obligée shall devise it is not sufficient for him to devise a Fine and to take out a Dedimus c. upon it and require his Conusants in that for this is but a special way of taking the Conusans and so he said it had béen ruled But if there were a Proviso that he should not go above five miles from his House then if his House be above five miles from Westminster he is bound to make his Conusans upon the Dedimus and that he said hath béen the difference 4. He hath not positively alledged that there was a custome in the Mannor to Surrender into the hands of two Copyholders which he ought to have done but hath too superficially pleaded And Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Trin. 24 Car. B. R. Read versus Palmer Pasc 24 Car. Rot. 326. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declares Acc'on sur Case that whereas he had brought an Action of Battery against the Defendant and procéeded to a Trial at Guildhall London where a Iury was drawn by consent and the Plaintiff and Defendant submitted the Cause to the award of two of the Iurors infra unum mensem proxime sequent̄ fiend ' and that postea eodem die in considerat̄ that the Plaintiff did promise to the Defendant to performe omnia et singula quae praed'arbitratores ex parte ipsius querent ' de et super praemissis faciend'et observand'ordinarent et adjudicarent And here the Plaintiffs Attorney after Issue joyned without notice inserted infra unum mensem the Defendant promised in the same manner and the same Clause there inserted by the Plaintiffs Attorney And after Verdict upon Non assumpsit pleaded this amendment after issue joyned without notice was moved in arrest of Iudgment wherein the question was Whether this amendment were in a point material for it was agréed that if it were not in a material part of the Declaration then it could not prejudice the Plaintiff And Twisden urged that it was not in a material part 1. Because every submission to an Award implies a Promise to perform it and so the promise laid is no more then was implyed in the submission 2. The Promise is to perform what the Arbitrators should award which must be taken with relation to the submission which was to an award to be made within a month And so the words infra unum mensem are but an expression of that which would have béen implyed without them But it was resolved by Roll upon good deliberation that the amendment was in a material part For 1. Though a submission to an Award be good Evidence to induce a Iury to find a Promise to perform it yet in Iudgment of Law the Promise is collateral to the submission and not implyed in it 2. Though the Promise be collateral to the submission yet if it had béen laid to have béen made at the same time with it then it should have béen intended adequate and proportionable to it but being laid to be made at another time although it be the same day it cannot be so intended because it is not immemediately applyed to the submission but it might have inlarged or abridged the time limited thereby And he cited a Case betwéen Hodge and Vavasour 14 Jac. where the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant such a day became indebted to him for Wares and in consideration thereof postea eodem die promised to pay it And this was ruled good not as a promise in Law but as an actual promise raised upon a consideration continuing which he cited to shew that a little distance of time though the same day alters the intendment of Law and a new Trial was awarded Trin. 24 Car. B. R. Chace versus Gold Pasc 24 Car. Rot. 219. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 200 li. with Condition for the payment of 104 li. at a day certaine Release made by the Defendant and two others joyntly and severally The Defendant upon Oyer and Entry of the Bond and Condition in haec verba pleaded that the Plaintiff did release praed ' scriptum obligatorium by the name of an Obligation in 200
Law And 12 Jac. Iudgment in a Formedon de uno crofto et messuagio was wholly reversed because a Praecipe lyeth not de crofto Pasc 18. Car. betwéen Creetall and Norefeild in Error upon a Iudgment in Canterbury in an Action of the Case upon two Promises where upon a Verdict for the Plaintiff damages were taxed severally and because one of the Promises was insufficiently laid the whole Iudgment was reversed Vide Hobart betwéen Miles and Jacob. et 2. In. 236. d. And Trin. 11 Car. betwéen Ellenhead and Dearman in Error upon a Iudgment in the Marshalsea in Debt upon a Bill and likewise upon a Contract The Defendant pleaded Non est factum to the one and Nil debet to the other and both being found against him the Iudgment was Quod capiatur and because it was not Quod in misericordia also as to the other Issue the whole Iudgment was reversed And Trin. 7 Jac. B. R. Rot. 568. betwéen Beard and Beard in the very same Case with the principal Case the entire Iudgment was reversed But in an Action at Common Law where damages are given by Statute there if the Iudgment be Erroneous as to the damages the principal Iudgment shall stand as in a Writ of Dower and so he said it was adjudged betwéen Tie and Atkins Vide 22 E. 4. 46. e. et L. 5. 59. a. Simile in a Quare Impedit And the entire Iudgment was reversed in the principal Case Hale for the Plaintiff in Error Wilde for the Defendant And Hale cited a Case betwéen Holland and Lee called Damms Case where he in Remainder in Taile in a Writ of Error to avoid a Common Recovery assigned for Error that the Voucher being an Infant appeared by Attorney for which the entire Iudgment was reversed Nota Hoddesd's Secondary told me the Case of Miles and Jacob in Hobart was not Law Trin. 24 Car. B. R. Cornish versus Cawsy Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1434. IN an Action of Debt Debt against an Executrix the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made to the Testator by Indenture dated the 25 of March Anno. Habendum à die datus for Seven years And upon Nil debet pleaded the Iury found that the Plaintiff by Indenture dated the 25 of March and delivered the same day demised the Land to the Testator which was to have and to hold from the day of the date for the tearm of Seven years from henceforth next and immediately following c. And upon this Verdict the Question was Whether the Lease in point of Computation was to commence from the making or from the day of the Date For if the Seven years commenced from the making then the Plaintiff had mistaken the Lease but if they commenced from the day of the Date then he had declared right according to the Lease And it was argued that the Seven years were to commence from the day of the Date and not from the making of the Lease for that the words will bear that construction for the words from hence forth may refer to the words from the day of the Date and so to the time of the commencement in point of interest And then the words shall be taken as if the Lease had béen to have and to hold from the day of the date from henceforth for Seven years excluding the day of the Date in the computation and this was probably the intention of the parties and not that the Lease should commence one day in point of computation and the next day in interest Also there is a Rent reserved during the tearm payable annually upon the 25 of March the last day of payment whereof would be out of the tearm if the Seven years commence upon that day And the Case in Dyer 261. was cited where an Abbot made a Lease for 31. years and after made a new Lease in these words Noveritis nos c. dictis 31. annis finitis et completis dedisse concessisse praed ' praemissa to the second Lessée habend'et tenend ' à die confectionis praesentium termin ' praed ' finit ' usque ad finem termini 31. annorum tunc immediate sequentium And it is there resolved by all the Iustices of C. B. that the Lease doth not commence in point of computation till it takes effect in Interest viz. till the first 31. years ended And yet there it might have béen said that the words praed ' termino finito should be a limitation in point of Possession or Interest and the words à die confectionis c. in point of computation But there it is said that the words à die confectionis refer to the Demise after the 31. years ended to have à die confectionis But note in that Case the Opinion of the Court of the Kings Bench was against that Opinion And in this Case two other points were moved and agreed by Roll 1. That where part of the Arrears demanded were due in the time of the Testator and part after his decease the Action in the Detinet was good for the whole as well as if all had béen due after the death of the Testator And that after a Verdict Quod non detinet the Land shall not be intended of any value as it is well known in these times in many places Lands have béen of no value and yet the Executor is liable to the Rent as far as he hath Assets and clearly if he hath Assets he cannot wave his tearm 2. That the Action being in the Detinet and the Defendant pleading Nil debet it is holpen by a Verdict And so it was adjudged as he said in this Court Trin. 10 Car. Rot. 1289. betwéen Porter and Gervise And he said If in an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit the Defendant plead Not Guilty it is well enough after a Verdict and as there your Action is placitum trn̄s super casum so here it is placitum debiti As to the principal point he did resolve That the Plaintiff hath mistaken his Lease for a Lease Habendum from henceforth includes the day of the making and a Lease Habendum from the day of the day excludes the day of the date And with this agrées Barwick's Case which he affirmed to be Law but he said That if such ancient Patents be given in Evidence the Iury by presumption to make the Patents good may find that they were made the last instant of the day of their Date and then they are good in Law And so hath it béen resolved in point of Evidence Now the Habendum being à die datus and for Seven years from henceforth c. to make all parts of it stand it must be construed to commence from henceforth viz. as to the computation of the Seven years that they shall begin upon the 25 of March and from the day of the date viz. upon the 26 of March in interest and possession And he resembled it to the Case of More and
brought in the Exchequer but I think it was for delay only Term Mich. 24 Car. Banco Regis Udal versus Udal IN a Trover and Conversion of 400 Load of Timber Vpon not guilty pleaded the Iury found by special Verdict that Sir William Udal being seized in fée of the Mannor of Horton whereof the Land where the Timber grew was parcel did Covenant by Indenture to levy a Fine to the use of himself in Tail the Remainder to such persons and for such Estates as he should limit by Indenture and for want of such limitation the remainder to the Defendant for life the remainder to his eldest Son in Tail and to his tenth Son and for want of such Issue the remainder to W. U. for life the remainder to his eldest Son in Tail c. and so to his tenth Son the remainder to the right heirs of Sir William with a Proviso that upon tender of 5 s. c. he might revoke those uses and limit others and levyed a fine accordingly And after by another Indenture reciting the uses of the first and the Proviso in it made a new limitation to the use of himself in tail the remainder to the Defendant for life with like remainder ut supra to his Sons the remainder to W. U. for life with like remainders to his Sons the remainder to the Plaintiff in Tail c. according to his power and the clause in the said Indentures and dyed without Issue and the Defendant neither himself nor W. U. having any Son cut down the Timber and years after sold part of it and the Plaintiff seised the rest which the Defendant did take again from the Plaintiff and sold the same and if c. And the case being argued Trin. Pasch ult and this Term it was resolved by Bacon and Roll. 1. That if there be tenant for life the remainder for life and tenant for life cut down Timber trées he that hath the Inheritance may seise them although he cannot have an Action of waste during the life of him in remainder For 1. The particular tenant hath not the absolute property in the Trées but only a special Interest in them so long as they continue annexed to the Land And therefore a Termer cannot grant away his term excepting the trées but the exception is void for that he cannot have a distinct interest in them but only relative to the land And so it is resolved in Sanders Case Lib. 5. 12. f. and so Mainard said it was resolved 10 Car. in Whites case in the Court of Wards in case of lesseé for life but where a Lease for years was made without Impeachment of waste such an exception was adjudged good as he said in Sir Alan Piercy's Case and so Bacon said it was adjudged 9 Car. in Dame Billinglys Case Then the remainder for life betters not the interest of the tenant for life in the Trées but only is an impediment for the time to the bringing of an Action of waste and therefore after the death of him in remainder for life an Action will lye for waste done in his life time And so it is adjudged in Pagets Case Lib. 5. 76. g. and so Mainard said it was adjudged Mich. 14 E. 2. in a Case not Printed that where he in reversion upon an estate for life granted his reversion for life and the tenant for life made waste and then the grantée of the reversion dyed that an Action of waste would lye against the tenant for life which proves that the cutting down of the Trées by the Tenant was tortious 2. It was resolved that the mean remainders in contingency though of an estate inheritance alter not the case for an estate in contingency is no estate till the contingency happen And therefore it was agréed that the Plaintiff might have had an Action of waste in this Case had there not béen a remainder for life in esse notwithstanding the mean contingent remainders 3. It was resolved that a Trover and Conversion in this Case would lye for all the Timber trées though the Plaintiff never seized parcel of them for by the cutting down of them an absolute property was vested in the Plaintiff unless they had béen cut down for reparations and so imployed in convenient time And for this Bury and Heards Case was cited by the Court which commenced in this Court 20 Jac. and depended seven years where a stranger entred into Lands leased for life and cut down Timber trées and barked them and the lessor before seisure brought a Trover for the bark and had Iudgment to recover notwithstanding that the cutting down and barking was all at one time whereupon it was then objected that the distinct property of a chattle was never settled in the lessor and the book of 13 H. 7. 9. g. cited that Trespass vi armis doth not lye against lessée for years who cuts down Timber trées and sells them Per Curiam Which Case was then affirmed for good Law but there it was agréed That if lessée for years cuts down Timber trees and lets them lye and after carries them away so that the taking and carrying away be not as one continued act but that there be some time for the distinct property of a divided chattle to settle in the lessor that an Action of Trespass vi armis would lye in such case against the lessee And that in such case felony might be committed of them but not where they were taken and carried away at the same time Vide 3 In. 109. a. c. 4. 63. f. And it was resolved in that Case of Bury and Heard that although the lessee had a special Interest in the trees as for necessary reparations c. yet the Action would lye for the lessor for the Interest of the lessee was determined by the cutting down unless he had cause for necessary reparations which had there been yet might the lessor have his Action but if the lessee in such case had brought his Action and recovered this would have been a good bar against the lessor but in the principal case there was years distance between the cutting down and the sale And also the Defendant by the sale made himself an absolute wrong doer for though there had been cause for reparation yet the Trees being cut down and sold though other Trees had been bought with the money and imployed in reparations this would not have excused him in an Action of Waste And an exception was taken by Latch to the execution of the power of Sir William upon the limitation of the uses by the last Indenture for that it was made with relation to the Proviso And five shillings were not tendered which was the Condition of the power thereby reserved and then Sir William being tenant in Tail the reversion to himself in fee by the first Indenture and dying without Issue the Defendant being his heir was seised in fee but the exception was clearly disallowed both for
Attorney different from the Authority given ore tenus he cannot execute his power by virtue of both 53 Avowry In Avowry the Traverse ought not to be larger than the Avowry 33 In Avowry for taking 100 oves matrices vervices and doth not shew how many Ewes and how many Wethers not good for the Sheriff is to make deliverance according to the Writ and he is not bound to receive information from the party ibid C. Copyhold WHERE the King shall have the Trust of a Copyhold 14 Construction of Words See Words Covenants Where the breach ought to be assigned when and where that it may appear to the Court to be legal 19 The difference between a duty or charge created by Law and when by Covenant or act of the party 27 A Covenant to pay mony upon several Bonds at the several days limited in the several Bonds or 8 days after no breach till after the 8 days 60 Covenants are common Assurances favoured in Law 38 Covenant no Duty nor cause of Action till broken and therefore not discharged by Release of Actions 39 Covenant to perform certain Indentures and to save the Plaintiff harmless he cannot plead generally performance of Covenants because some may be in the Negative and also he ought to shew how he saved him harmless 72 Covenant is intire and cannot be apportioned 9 Where the Contract is in the realty and the Debt ariseth in respect of the profits an Action will lie before the last day 58 D. Declaration DEclaration in Trespass the Plaintiff need not to answer the order of time wherein the Trespasses were done 20 In an Indebitat Assumpsit its set forth in the Declaration in consideratione quod venderet deliberaret and no averment of any sale or delivery not good 61 Demurr He that Demurs upon the Evidence ought to confess the whole matter of fact to be true and not to refer that to the Judgment of the Court 18. Devise By a Devise of the rest of all my Lands what estate passes 28 Where an authority to take the profits implies as much as a Devise of the profits which gives an Interest 45 A Devise to the Issue male with remainders to the younger Sons proviso if the eldest die without Issue male his daughter c. shall hold the lands until c. she shall have but a Chattle 46 47 An actual Devise by words is not sufficient for a stranger to write the Will but there ought to be an actual Will 54 Where the Devisor becomes sensless before the Will is written yet if it be written before he dies it s a good Will 55 A Will gnawn in pieces by Rats yet by help of the pieces put together was afterwards proved and good 2 Discent No Discent without dying seised 33 Discontinuance Where an Action shall be discontinued 20 E Error THE Venire facias bore Teste Pasch 20 Car. and Issue joyned Pasch 21 Car. no Error but holpen by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 4. 20 In Trespass against three and one dies hanging the Writ Judgment against all three shall be reversed because entire 74. Otherwise in an Action at Common Law where damages are given by the Statute 75 Estopple Covenant pleaded by way of Estopple 79 Condition that if the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff so much for carrying so many Billets c. that then the Obligation should be void the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff did not carry c. and upon Demurrer Judgment for the Plaintiff the Defendant shall be estopped to deny it 52 Executors Debt against Executors in the Debet Detinet 34 Where goods delivered to Executors shall be Assets in their hands where contingent Covenants happen after Executors shall be intended conusant of all contracts of the Testator as well contingent as certain 38 Executors not liable to pay Legacies without caution against contingent Covenants 39 Executors where chargeable in the debet detinet where in the detinet only 43 Where part of arrears demanded were due in the time of the Testator and part after his decease the Action in the Detinet is good for the whole 76 An Action brought in the Detinet against an Executor who pleads nil debet may be holpen by the Verdict Where Damages recovered shall be Assets 1 H Husband and Wife PRomise to the Husband and Wife it 's in election of the Husband to bring the Action in his own name or to joyn his Wife 36 Where the Husband is not charged in the Debet detinet because the Husband is Debtor but because the Husband and Wife are but one person in Law 73 Account by the Husband and Wife after marriage for goods bought by the wife when sole this Accompt doth not alter the nature of the Debt 73 Where the Husband shall be sued upon an Indebitatus assumpsit for necessary Wares sold to the Wife 61 I. Indictment WHere Indictment need not conclude contra formam Statuti 44 Where several are indicted in the Statute of 1 Jac. c. 8. of Stabbing and it doth not appear which gave the thrust they shall be guilty of manslaughter 44 J. S. was Indicted for not taking his Oath being chosen Headborough it must appear that he was warned before a Justice of Peace and there refused 78 Indictment quashed for repugnancy viz. quod pacifice intraverunt adtunc ibidem vi armis dissesiverunt 50 Indictment of forcible detainer and concludes contra pacem only and not contra coronam 49 Where it shall be manslaughter to kill another although he had no intention to do him mischief 12 Acts not warranted by Law the parties that use them ought at their own peril to prevent the mischief that may ensue for consent will not change the Case ib. Infant Where an Infant comes to a stranger and boards with him the Law implies a contract for his Dyet Lodging c. but where another undertakes for his boarding this express agreement takes away the implied Contract 94 Inrolment Debito modo Irrotullat ' in Curia Canc ' c. not good without alledging the Inrolment to be within six moneths or secundum formam Statuti 19 Jury Juror challeng'd because he was tenant of a Mannor to which there was a Court Leet of which the Plaintiff was Steward and no principal challenge 29 Juror challeng'd by the Defendant soit treit said the Plaintiff but not allowed for that must be upon the challenge and not upon the Trial. 30 Jury bound over to the Star Chamber for not finding according to the direction of the Court. 12 L. Leases WHere an Ouster le main is necessary a Lease for years made before is not good 30 A Lease for years habendum from henceforth includes the day of making but habendum from the day of the date excludes the day of the date 76 77 A Lease habendum a die datus and for seven years hence forth how it shall be construed 77 Where Lessee for years
holds over his Term and pays his Rent quarterly as before he becomes Lessee at Will 4 Tenant at Will paying quarterly begins a new quarter over he shall pay that Rent although he determine his Will before the quarter expired ibid. Legacies Difference between Debts without specialty and Legacies 39 Executors not compellable by the Ecclesiastical Court to pay Legacies except Legatees give caution to repay them upon contingent covenants broken 39 Legacies devised in specie not to be taken without assent of the Executors ib. Where a Covenant is broken before the delivery of Legacies the Administration shall work a Devastavit 39 40 How far the Common Law takes notice of giving remedy to recover Legacies 40 M. Misnosmer IN a Demise if it appear to be the same person that demised though misnamed it is sufficient otherwise where the name is part of the Issue 59 N. Notice WHere notice is to be given to the Defendant in an assumpsit for so many goods bought by the Plaintiff for the Defendants use at such a rate 24 Condition of a bond to make an estate of inheritance to the obligee by such a day the Defendant ought to give the Plaintiff notice if for the making of a feoffment otherwise for the Plaintiff at his peril ought to attend 25 Where a Broker hath power to sell goods and the Owner sells them and afterwards the same day the Broker sells them he shall not be liable to an Action for detaining though demanded without notice given of the first Sale 24 Promise to pay so much as I. S. was damnified and good without giving notice how much 21 Promise to give the Plaintiff 2 s. for every Piece of Cloth he should buy and averrs he bought 100 Pieces for which he demands 10 l. not good without notice given to the Defendant 24 O. Obligation OBligation void because the condition was for maintenance 60 Condition to save the Obligee harmless concerning buying certain Goods at such a price this extends not to the Price but the Title 95 Office Where the Kings title is found by one Office it is a Record intire of it self and shall not be taken as it stands in comparison with another Office 30 Where the Kings intrest shall commence by Office before Seisure 30 Ouster le main Where land shall continue in the Kings hands for a third part till an Ouster le main sued though the Heir be dead 30 Where an Ouster le main is necessary a lease for years made before is not good ib. P. Perjury ONe convicted for Perjury and Fined 10 l. although there was no malice in it 79 Plea In Debt for Rent where it is no good Plea that Alien Enemies entred and expelled him 27 The difference where the Law creates a duty or charge and the party is disabled to perform it without any default in him and when the party by contract creates a duty upon himself ibid In Debt upon Bond the Defendant pleads the Statute of 23 H. 6. and that he was in custody and that the Bond was for his enlargment and concludes non est factum which ought to have been judgment Si Actio c. and held naught 58 In a Debt upon a single Bill the Defendant Pleads payment of part after imparlance and darrein continuance and not good without acquittance shewn 63 65. Where a Plea concludes in abatement it is not peremptory but if a Plea in abatement be pleaded in Bar it is peremptory ib. A Plea pleaded after Imparlance and Issue tendred upon it yet it is not Peremptory upon a Demurrer ib If after issue joined the Defendant pleads a Plea in abatement this is peremptory as well upon Demurrer as by Verdict 66 The diversity between a Plea in abatement and a Plea to have Aid ib Vpon fully administred pleaded and the Issue whether Assets or no and Assets found for part only yet judgment to recover the whole shall be good 37 Accord a good Plea in Covenant 39 A Bond made to two and the Survivor brings an Action in his own name non est factum is no Plea 42 Plene Administravit a good Plea to a charge by Judgment 48 Where an argumentative plea is insufficient upon a general Demurrer ib. Per dures where it shall be a good Plea to avoid a Bond fraudulently obtained 92 Of a Bond made in one County and the Declaration alledged in another upon the Statute of 6 R. 2. 17 Prohibition After administration granted the Ordinary hath not power to compel the Administrator to make distribution and if he go about to repeal the Letters for not doing it a Prohibition lyeth 56 Promise Vide Assumpsit R. Recognizance A Scire facias against three Baylees upon a Recognizance acknowledged jointly and severally and not good Otherwise in debt upon a Bond for there the Defendants ought to shew that the parties were in full life at c. 21 Releas In debt upon a Bond of 200 l. for payment of 104 l. a Releas of a Bond of 200 l. for the Payment of 100 l. is not good although it be averred there is no other Bond made by the Defendant 71 Rent Debt by an administrator for Rent upon Assignment of a term for years by Deed adjudged no Rent but a sum in gross 57 Debt upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. against Occupiers for arrears of a Rent charge 62. Lease reserving 7 l. Rent and there is 3 l. more behind the Lessor cannot demand 10 l. whereby to take advantage of a Condition because its an intire sum 95 Request Request where to be made by the Defendant before the Plaintiff is to make his Election 25 Request where it shall be well made 25 26 S. Sewers COmmissioners of Sewers Quaere if they may sell a Distress 92 Statutes To what Courts the Statute of 21 Jac. and the Statute of Jeofails shall extend 64 Stat. 1 Jac. 8. of Stabbing how construed where several are indicted and it doth not appear who gave the thrust 44 Surrender If Lessee for life accept of a Lease for years this shall be a Surrender of his Estate for life 59 Survivor A bond made to two and one survives he may bring the Action in his own name so if a charge survive otherwise where nothing survives as in feoffment 42 T. Trespass One cannot justifie a Trespass upon another for fear 35 Trover Trover will lie for money delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant to keep though not in Bags 91 Trust Vide Uses V. Varians IN an Action on the Case where one of the Jurors names was Lancester and in the Record it was Lancaster and ruled no Variance 91 Venire facias See Writs Verdict Where a Verdict shall not make a declaration good which wants convenient certainty 19 Where the Declaration varies from the Verdict and good 28 Where in an Action on the Case for words and shall not be supplied by exceptis his verbis 31 Uses What they were at the Common Law 14 Trusts are at this day ruled as Vses were at Common Last 15 Where the Husband shall have a Trust by Survivorship 16 Where a Trust of Copyhold land is forfeited to the King he shall have the Land it self 15 W. Wast TEnant for life the remainder for life and Tenant for life cuts down Timber trees he in the reversion may seise them although he cannot have an Action during the life of him in remainder 81 But where a Lease for years is made without Impeachment of wast such exception is good 82 Lessee for life with a contingent remainder is no bar to him in reversion to bring an Action of wast 16 Lessee for life cuts Timber trees he in Reversion to bring a Trover though he did not seise them ib. Lessee for years cuts down Timber trees and some distance after carries them away Trespass vi armis lies and in such case felony may be committed 83 Construction of Words Per unam acram ligni not only the the word but the soil it self shall pass 20 If where it shall be taken as a limitation subsequent 20 Where Postea shall refer to the time immediately precedent 23 Where Scilicet is but explanatory and for instance and cannot contradict any thing that is precedent 23 24 The word Rest in a devise how construed 28 The construction of the word for in an Action on the Case for words 31 Where the latter words qualifie the former 11 Where a man grants his land totum statum suum habendum for sixty years the habendum shall be construed repugnant 59 Lessee for life with power to make Leases for twenty one years at ten pounds per an payable at Mich. or ten days after whether these words are to be taken in sensu diviso or conjuncto 90 Habendum a die datus and for three years from hence forth how to be construed in a Lease for years 7 Decimae garbarum what is comprehended therein 80 Where words make a contingency by the intention of the party 8 Where words are general in a Bond yet may be limited 10 The difference between the words and and for Writs If a Writ abate one day and another Writ is purchased bearing Teste the same day it shall be intended after the abatement of the first 34 Where an alias Venire facias shall be awarded and not a Venire facias de novo 18 Where a Venire facias shall be awarded for insufficiency of the verdict 31 Scire facias to be brought where the Recognizance was taken but the usual entry in Banco Regis is to express before what Judge it was taken but no place where 13 Venire facias in Chancery retornable in Banco Regis 14 Where abundans cautela makes not the Writ vicious ibid. FINIS