Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	deliver_v	request_n	testator_n	60	3	16.2145	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64839	The reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt., late one of the justices of the Common-pleas in two parts : the first part containing select cases adjudged in the Kings-Bench, in the reign of K. Charles II, with three learned arguments, one in the Kings-Bench, by Sir Francis North, when Attorney General, and two in the Exchequer by Sir Matthew Hale, when Lord Chief Baron : with two tables, one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters : the second part containing choice cases adjudged in the Common-pleas, in the reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II and in the three first years of the reign of His now Majesty K. William and the late Q. Mary, while he was a judge in the said court, with the pleadings to the same : also several cases and pleadings thereupon in the Exchequer-Chamber upon writs of error from the Kings-Bench : together with many remarkable and curious cases in the Court of Chancery : whereto are added three exact tables, one of the cases, the other of the principal matters, and the third of the pleadings : with the allowance and approbation of the Lord Keeper an all the judges.	Ventris, Peyton, Sir, 1645-1691.; Guilford, Francis North, Baron, 1637-1685.; Hale, Matthew, Sir, 1609-1676.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1696 (1696)	Wing V235; ESTC R7440	737,128	910

it would be yet here there was a precedent act of the Plaintiffs necessary viz. To choose an Arbitrator which he ought to have shewn before any Fault could be assigned in the Defendant in not bringing in of his Bill And to this the Court did not incline Sed Adjornatur Nota It was said Tho' every Innkeeper may detain an Horse until he is paid for his Meat yet he cannot sell him for that was good only by the Custom of London Anonymus A Custom was alledged in the City of Norwich That in regard they maintained a Common Key for the Unlading of such Goods as were brought up the River in Vessels to the said City that every Vessel passing through the same River by the said Key should pay a certain Sum. It was held a void Custom as to those Vessels which did not unlade at the said Key nor any other place in the City there being no benefit redounding to them from the Maintenance of the Key they only passing by and were bound for another place and therefore could have no Imposition upon them But if they had Received their Fraight at the said Key it might extend to them And Coleman said The last Session of Parliament there was Complaint made against the Governour of Gravesend who would have prescribed to have Two shillings and Six pence of every Boat that passed by the Fort there And it was held to be Vnreasonable Anonymus TRover and Conversion for a pair of Curtains and Vallence was held Insufficient for the uncertainty of what was meant by a Pair in this case Bernard versus Bernard ERror to Reverse a Judgment in the Court of Hull upon an Assumpsit where the Plaintiff declared upon two Promises the first was upon an Indebitatus infra Jurisdictionem Curiae for Money lent The Error assigned was That the Loan did not appear to be within the Jurisdiction but upon view of the Record it was adtunc ibidem The other Promise was That there being Communication between the Plaintiff and Defendant concerning a House which was said to be at Hull-Bridge which the Plaintiff sold him the Money being unpaid and the Defendant unable in Consideration that the Plaintiff would release to him the said Debt he Promised to deliver him up the Possession of the House by a certain Day Then he Avers That tho' he Released him yet the Defendant had not delivered him up the Possession licet saepius requisitus It was assigned for Error That the House was not expressed to be within the Jurisdiction for the performance of the Promise must be as well within the Jurisdiction as the Promise it self But it is not material tho' there be other foreign Circumstances in the Case as Assumpsit upon a Promise to Re-deliver an Horse at Hull which the Plaintiff lent the Defendant at Hull to Ride to Beverly This that Court had Conusans of tho' Beverly was out of the Jurisdiction And tho' the House were alledged to be at Hull-bridge that shall be intended a Vill by it self and no part of Hull And of that Opinion was Twisden but Keeling otherwise Another Error was assigned That there was no Request laid which ought to have been being a Collateral thing viz To deliver up Possession of an House Sed non allocatur For being to be done at a time certain there was no need of Request but if no time had been set he would have had time during his Life unless hastned by Request Another Error assigned was That the Style of Court was Placita coram Majore c. virture Literarum Patentium H. 6. yet the issuing out Process and filing Bail was Entred secund ' consuetud ' Cur ' And for this 1 Cro. 143. Long and Nethercote's Case was cited where the same Matter was held to be Error for the Court being Erected within time of Memory could have no Custom to warrant their proceedings Sed non allocatur For it is according to Law and the just Course of their Court. But Twisden said If it had been secund ' consuerud ' Cur ' de temps d'ont memorie ne court it had been Ist Girling versus Alders IN a Prohibition to the Court of the Honour of Eye the Case was One Contracted with another for divers parcels of Malt the Money to be paid for each parcel being under Forty Shillings and he levied divers Plaints thereupon in the said Court Wherefore the Court here granted a Prohibition because tho' they be several Contracts yet forasmuch as the Plaintiff might have joyned them all in one Action he ought so to have done and Sued here and not put the Defendant to an unnecessary Vexation no more than he can split an entire Debt into divers to give the Inferious Court Jurisdiction in fraudem Legis Heskett versus Lee. PAsch 21 Car. 2. Rot. 408. Error to Reverse a Common Recovery had in the County Palatine of Lancaster against an Infant The first Error was assigned in a Variance between the Writ and the Count the Writ was of Lands in Bikerstaffe and the Count was Bickerstaffe 5 Rep. 46. Isfeild for Iffeild but there the Court suffered it to be amended being the default of the Clerk Sed non allocatur quia idem sonant Another Error was assigned in the Entry of the Admission of the Guardian Which was thus Concess ' est per Cur ' quod Johannes Molineaux Armig ' sequarur pro Thoma Heskett Armig ' ut Guardian ' praedict ' Thomae in plito terrae versus Lee Whereas it was said it should have been ad comparendum defendendum and this is ad sequendum which is a Form proper only for the Demandant and so is the 2d Cor. 641. And the Reason why Infants are bound by Recoveries when Guardians are assigned them is Because if they suffer any Wrong they have an Action against the Guardian in whose default it was Whereas if the Infant should bring an Action in this Case and declare against Molineux That he was admitted as Guardian to defend for him if Issue were taken upon it by this Record the Tryal would be against him Again It is sequatur pro Thoma ut Guardians and ut is but similitudinary Another Error was assigned in the Entry of the Appearance which was praedict ' Thomas Heskett per praed ' Johannem Molineux qui specialiter admissus est per Cur ' ad sequend ' pro praedict ' Tho' venit in propria persona defendit jus suum Where it was said It must be taken that the Tenant appeared in Person and not the Guardian and a Recovery suffered by an Infant where he appears by Attorney or in proper Person is Erroneous Rolls 731. But notwithstanding these Errors the Court affirmed the Recovery For the Admission of the Guardian ad sequend ' is proper enough for it signifies no more than to follow the Cause And in many Cases the Tenant or Defendant doth Prosecute as in Voucher praying Tales carrying down Trials by Proviso

Mandate is to intimate to him that the party is Instituted Secondly To oblige the Archdeacon to Induct under the penalty of an Ecclesiastical Censure But if it be granted that the Archdeacon's Authority in this matter is only derivative yet that being Executed by the Mandate quoad the Guardian of the Spiritualties what remains to be done remains only to the Archdeacon who shall finish what hath proceeded so far already If a Venire be awarded to the Coroners because of Kindred in the Sheriffs Family tho' a New Sheriff comes in before it be Returned yet the Coroner shall proceed in the Execution thereof The Sheriff seized Goods by a Scire facias and before they were sold a New Sheriff was made and then he sold them and it was Resolved that the Sale was good in the 2 Cro. 73. Ayre and Aden's Case Sed Nota The Court said that if the Did Sheriff had Returned That the Goods had remained in his hands pro defectu emptorum a Distringas should have gone to have them delivered to the New Sheriff and then a Venditioni exponas should have gone to the New Sheriff Vid. Yelv. 44. In the 2 Cro. 48. the Executors of the Bishop of Carlisle were admitted to proceed in a Suit commenced by the Testator in the Ecclesiastical Court because the Suit was well commenced and the Court were possessed of the Cause Where Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer have given Judgment and a New Commission granted which determines the Old yet the former Judgment may be Executed Bro. tit Commission 13. So by the Sitting of the Kings Bench the Commission at the Old Baily being in the same County is superseded and yet Execution is done in Term time But the Court said That was by the Statute of 2. E. 6. Again Induction is but a Formality and therefore shall not be so strictly Examined Where the Queen granted to two the Stewardship of a Mannor it was held that admission by one of them was sufficient Mo. 107. Noy's Reports Quaere that Case the Archdeacon having received a Mandate for Induction makes a Precept omnibus literatis infra Archidiaconatum to Induct and a Clerk who did not belong to the Archdeaconry made the Induction and this was held to be well enough Saunders contra The only Question is Whether the Archdeacon Inducts by his own Authority or derivative from the Bishop For if by the latter then the Induction cannot be good 'T is clear that the Archdeacon is but Minister Episcopi and in his Precept to those of the Clergy to Execute he does as a Sheriff doth who makes a Precept to his Bayliffs recites his Mandate If the Sheriff makes Execution after the Kings death if he hath no notice thereof he is excused in Trespass but the Execution shall be avoided It appears by the making of the Statute of 2. E. 6. of Executing Judgments given by Commissioners after such time as the Commission is expired is a great Doubt and yet there the thing was Executed in a great part But here 't is but one single Act whereof no part was done before the New Bishop was made In Sir Randolph Crew 's Case in the 3 Cro. 97. it appears that Commissioners to Examine Witnesses could not proceed after Notice of the Demise of the King But here 't is Objected That the Verdict finds that the Archdeacon had no Notice I Answer That the Consecration of a Bishop is a publick and notorious Act. And all the Court were of Opinion that the Induction was wholly void and gave Judgment for Woolly the Defendant and said It was a Ministerial Act in jure Episcopi and like a Letter of Attorney to deliver Seisin which cannot be Executed but in the Life of him that made it Ante. Quaere Whether this Judgment was not afterward Reverst in the Exchequer Chamber Ent versus Withers THe Case was Debt against an Executor upon a Bond of the Testator and it was brought in the Debet and Detinet suggesting a Devastavit in the Executor The Defendant Demurred For altho' such Action will lye if there has been a Judgment against the Executor yet no such Action has been upon a Bond and 't is hard upon such a Surmize to Charge the Executor in his own Right But on the other side it was said That this differs not in Reason from the Case of a Judgment and upon Nil debet the whole Matter shall be brought in question as Whether the Bond was Sealed c. And in a Case between Merchant and Driver tryed at Guild-Hall before my Lord Hale where it was brought as this because the Plaintiff could prove no actual Wasting as is necessary in this Case he was Nonsuited But Hale took no Exception to the Action But the Court said That they would extend these Actions no further than they had been already Resolved and they would not agree that an Executor should be held to Bail upon a surmize of a Devastavit and so Judgment was given for the Defendant Ante. Pierce versus Win. ERror out of the Grand Sessions of Wales The Case upon a Special Verdict was thus A Devise to one and to the Heirs Males of his Body with a Proviso That if he does attempt to Alien then immediately his Estate shall cease and another shall Enter The Devisee in Tail made a Feoffment and he in Remainder Entred and Judgment was given in the Grand Sessions for the Feoffee against him in the Remainder And the Errors were assigned in the Matter in Law And to maintain the Errors it was said That it must be agreed of all hands that a Tenant in Tail could not be restrained from Aliening by Fine or Recovery and also that in this Case a bare Attempt would be no breach according to Corbett's and Sir A. Mildmay's Case c. and also that a Tenant in Tail might be restrained to Alien by Feoffment or other Act which was torcious and would make a Discontinuance and here this Proviso imports as much and therefore the Feoffment will be a breach for that is an Attempt and more For First In Conveyances the Intention of the words of a Condition and the Substance is regarded and the Form of the words not so precisely followed As a Feoffment upon Condition That the Feoffee shall give the Land in Frank marriage with the Daughter of the Feoffor This cannot be strictly pursued yet the Feoffee must make a Gift as near as may be Co. 1 Inst 217. So upon Condition to give the Land to a Layman in Frankalmoign But this Rule holds especially in Wills where the Intent is chiefly looked at A Devise of all his Rents will pass Reversions upon Leases and tho' the words be here Proviso if he does attempt to alien 't is as much as to say Proviso if he doth alien c. Secondly Whether the Feoffment shall determine the Estate quasi by Limitation so that the Remainder man shall take immediately by Executory Devise and that

Action for saying Go tell the black Knave Roberts That I will teach him or any Attorney in England to sue out a Writ against me and he had Judgment for it was as much as to call him Knave Attorney Hill 22 23 Car. 2. Rot. 1426. Methin and the Hundred of Thistleworth AN Action was brought upon the Statute of Winton The Defendants pleaded that they made Hue and Cry and that within 40 Days they took one Dudley which was one of them that did the Robbery and had him in custody The Plaintiff Replied That Dudley was not taken upon their fresh pursuit modo forma And upon this Issue the Jury find a Special Verdict to this effect That the Hundred made Hue and Cry and that Sir Joseph Ash finding Dudley in the presence of Sir Philip Howard a Justice of the Peace of Westminster at his House in Westminster the said Sir Joseph being an Inhabitant in the Hundred of Thistleworth charged Dudley with this Robbery before Sir Philip who promised he should appear at the Sessions at the Old Baily And whether this be such a Taking as is put in Issue they referred to the Iudgment of the Court. Jones for the Plaintiff Argued That in this Case there doth not appear to be any Taking at all but only a Discourse between Sir Joseph Ash and Sir Philip Howard As admitting the Issue were Whether a man were Arrested or no and it should appear upon Evidence that one should come to the Sheriff and declare That he had a Writ against such a man then present and upon this the Sheriff should say I will take his word for his Appearance this clearly could not be taken for an Arrest Again The Issue is Whether he were taken upon the fresh pursuit of the Hundred and it doth not appear by the Verdict that there was any Hue and Cry made this way and it might be ceased before this time But it seems rather that Sir Joseph Ash found him by accident But the Opinion of Hales Chief Justice Twisden Rainsford and Moreton was that Judgment ought to be given for the Defendant For the charging of Dudley with the Robbery in the presence of a Justice of the Peace was clearly a Taking within the Statute For being in the presence which the Law construes to be under the Power or Custody of the Magistrate it would have been vain and impertinent to have laid hold of him and it shall be intented that this was upon Fresh pursuit For when the Verdict refers one Special Point to the Iudgment of the Court all other matters shall be intended And the Chief Justice said That if the Hue and Cry was made towards one part of the County and an Inhabitant of the Hundred apprehended one of the Robbers within another yet this was a Taking within the Statute Hornsey Administrator of Jane Lane versus Dimocke THe Plaintiff as Administrator of Jane Lane brought an Assumpsit and declared that he had formerly deposited such a Sum in the Defendants hands for the use of the Intestate Jane Lane in Consideration whereof the Defendant promised to the Plaintiff that he would pay it her or if she died before 18 years of Age that he would pay it to her Executors And shews that she died before 18 and that he had not paid it to the Plaintiff her Administrator licet saepius requisitus Vpon non Assumpsit a Verdict was for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff brought this Action as Administrator which ought to have been in his own right for the Promise was made to him Sed non allocatur For if a man names himself Executor or Administrator and it apears the Cause of Action is in his own right it shall be well enough and he calling himself Executor c. is but Surplusage But here it seemeth Jane Lane might have brought an Assumpsit because she was the party to whom the Money was to be paid So it is good either way It was further Objected That it was not averred that the Defendant did not pay the Money to Jane Lane during her Life Sed non allocatur For 't is aided by the Verdict As the Chief Justice said a Case was Adjudged where an Assumpsit was brought upon a Promise to pay Money to two or either of them and declared that the Money was not paid to the two and not said or either of them yet Resolved to be good after Verdict Matthewes versus Crosse IN Debt for Rent the Plaintiff Declared That by an Indenture made in the Parish of St. Mary Undershaft London he Let an House to the Defendant situate in parvo Turris monte reserving so much Rent c. The Defendant pleads That before the Rent incurred the Plaintiff entred into a certain Room of the said House apud parvum Turris montem praedict ' and so suspended his Rent upon which it was Demurred And it was shewn for Cause That no place was alledged where the Entry was but said to be at Little Tower-Hill which cannot be intended a Vill. And a Case was cited of an Indictment in this Court of a Fact laid to be done at White-Hall and quashed for want of Place And to this the Court inclined but the Matter was ended by Comprimise ' Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit for a Pension in the Ecclesiastical Court surmising that the Lands out of which it was demanded were Monastery Lands which came to the King and that he granted the Lands c. under which Grant the Plaintiff claims and that he Covenanted to discharge the said Lands of all Pensions c. and this upon the Statute of 34 H. 8. cap. 19. which appoints the Suit to be for Pensions in such cases in the Court of Augmentations and not elsewhere But the Court would not grant it until the Letters Patents of Discharge were produced being a matter of Record But where the Surmise is of matter of Fact it is sufficient to suggest it And it was said by the Court That Pensions whether by Prescription or otherwise might be sued for in the Ecclesiastical Court but if by Prescription then there was also Remedy at the Common Law F.N.B. 50. 1 Cro. 675. Davis versus Wright al' HIll 22 23 Car. 2. Rot. 701. In an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That his Father gave him by his Will 3 l per annum during his Life and that he was about to Sue for it and that the Defendants being Executors to the Father in Consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear to commence a Suit against him for it promised to pay him The Defendants plead That the Testator was indebted in divers Sums and ultra to pay them he had no Assets To this the Plaintiff demurred for that by this Promise the Defendants have made it their proper Debt But it was said on the other side That if there were no Assets there was no cause for the Plaintiff to have commenced

upon that Attainder was penned as amply as this of 12 Car. and the Case of Warner and Harding Latch 25. is very like this W. Shelley enfeoffed divers to the use of himself for Life and afterwards to divers others upon Condition that if a Ring were delivered by the said William Shelley declaring that he intended those uses should be void that then c. it was resolved that nothing was forfeited but during his Life Rainsford I shall speak nothing to the Fraud because that is a pure matter of Fact which is to be found by the Jury and cannot in any Case be presumed by the Court. I am of Opinion that the Judgment ought to be affirmed The power of altering the Trusts reserved by the first Proviso is inseparable from the person of Simon Maine for it is to be by his Will in Moor 193. the Lord Pagetts Case It is resolved that inseparable Powers are not forfeited upon like words as are in this Act and so the second Proviso limits to him a double Power First Of revoking the old Trusts Secondly Of limiting new But this is to be done by Writing under his Hand and Seal in the presence of two Witnesses so the performance of this also is personal The D. of Norfolks Case is the very same unless for that it is there under his proper Hand and Seal and here under his Hand and Seal which certainly is all one But admitting this Power were forfeited yet it is not found that ever it was executed after it come to the King which must be before any Estate could come to the King therefore in Englefields Case it was found that a Ring was tendred in the behalf of the Queen And whereas it was objected That he had jus disponendi and therefore might Forfeit as a Man shall a Term which he hath in right of his Wife as Dame Hale's Case in Plowden is resolved I answer That here he hath not jus disponendi but rather potestatem disponendi but that is qualified and to be executed by certain Circumstances which must be performed to give it effect Twisden As to the Fraud I cannot see how the Jury could have found this fraudulent Settlement made to prevent a Forfeiture enacted by Parliament 20 years after which surely could not be without the Spirit of Prophecy I am of the same Opinion as to the matter with my two Brothers That Simon Maine had only a Trust in him during his own Life and if he had brought a Bill in Equity he could have had the Estate executed no further and therefore can Forfeit no more by this Act and it is not always that a Man that hath power over Land hath a Trust as we may sée in Cranmers Case Dier 308 309. there were as large words in the Act of his Attainder as here Indeed the Argument in Englefields Case 7 Co. rules this for if a Trust had béen implied in the power of Revocation they néeded to have argued that it should have been forfeited as a Condition so the D. of Norfolks Case for tho' the word Use is in that Act and not Trust as in this yet it makes no difference for an Use was then the same with what a Trust is now and tho' the word Power had béen in this Act yet there should have béen no Forfeiture in this case because the Execution of it is so personal and individual Neither is there found that ever there was any Execution and at most the Forfeiture could only be of what was in Simon Maine neither can Smith Execute it by virtue of his Grant from the King for the Kings Patent conveys nothing by implication and shall never work to a double intent Hale Chief Justice of the same Opinion First Crooke is a good Lessor for the other Trustees disagréement makes the Estate wholly his Secondly For the Circumstances of Fraud they are not material to be considered Thirdly The Trust is wholly disposed of after the Death of Simon Main so that he had nothing but during his Life Fourthly Then what is operated by the Attainder Why the Trust during Life is forfeited Vid. the E. of Somerset's Case Hob. 214. 2 Cro. 512. But then this Trust must have béen executed by the Court of Revenue 'T is true the Act doth not only give the Trust but the Term it self to the King that is during the Life of Simon Maine so that by this Act so much of the Term is drawn out of the Trustees as served the Trust which S. M. had but leaves the residue of the Term to serve the other Trusts so that the possibility of the Term returns to the Trustees after the Death of S. M. and this appears by the body of the Act. Also this appears by the saving in the Act. The first saving which saves all the Conveyances made by the Feoffor before the 29 of Sept. 1659. indeed might not help because Conveyances made to the Wives Children or Heirs are therein excepted But there the other Proviso saves the Right Interest c. of all persons whatsoever doth in Law and Equity not derived form the offenders since 25 Mar. 1646. and therein the Interest of Wife or Children and all are saved now this Estate was created before viz. 1643. I come now to the Provisoes The first Proviso determins nothing till the time of Simon Maine's Death and consequently this can revest no more to M. than he had before For the Condition is in expectation till he have a Son living at the time of his Death why then by this there comes nothing to S.M. so much as in point of Execution during his Life By his Will he might have limitted new Uses but he made none and 't is personal No other Man can make his Will Why then all stands as it did and nothing is made void till the time of his Death and then all is immediately executed to the Son by force of the first Conveyance But if the Proviso had béen That if S.M. had a Son there all had revested in S. M. and might have béen forfeited The last Proviso doth not create a Trust to him for if he had not béen Attainted the Trust should not have gon to his Executors c. No it creates a personal power of fetching back the former and declaring new Trusts observing the circumstances upon the same reason that this Estate can be forfeited a bare Executor I mean without a Devise of the residue might forfeit his Estate this is a Power yea and 't is a manacled Power it is a kind of Trust that he may revoke The D. of Norfolks Case is the same with this So Harding and Warners Case which was adjudged in C. Banco tho' there there were two to two and it was confessed by the Kings Attorney in Scaccario and the Kings Attorney doth not use to confess Judgment in Cases of great moment without consultation with the Judges This power was not nor could be passed to the

Respondeas Ouster But because the Plaintiff said he would be content with the latter that was not Resolved Anonymus IN Trespass Quare clausum fregit 't is a Plea in Abatement to say That the Plaintiff is Tenant in Common with another But cannot be given in Evidence upon Not Guilty as it may where one Tenant in Common brings Trespass against the other Peters versus Opie THe Case was moved again and Hale held clearly that the Promise being pro labore tho' there was also a Counter-Promise did carry in it a Condition precedent viz. That the work should be done first And he said that in Cases tried before him where the Declaration was upon Reciprocal Promises if it appeared upon the Evidence that the Intention was that the Plaintiffs part was to be performed before the Defendants he directed against the Plaintiff and would not have the Defendant driven to his Cross Action Twisden strongly to the contrary Pro labore says he is no more than would have been implied if those Words had been omitted then 't is within the Case of Reciprocal Promises The Case cited in Ughtred's Case 7 Co. A. Covenants to B. to serve him in the Wars B. Covenants to pay him so much for it an Action lies for the Money without averment of the Service done because of the mutual Remedy Hale was now of Opinion that the Plaintiffs saying parat ' fuit obtulit to do the Work tho' he did not say and the other refused yet it was a sufficeint Averment after a Verdict The Case of Vivian and Shipping 3 Cro. 384. in an Assumpsit upon a Promise to perform an Award the Plaintiff said licet He had performed all on his part c. which tho' no good Averment in Form yet held it aided by the Verdict Wherefore tho' they could not agree in the other matter yet Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Ante. King versus Melling IN an Ejectment the Case was thus found in a Special Verdict John Melling was seised in Fee and had Issue Barnard and John and by his Will in Writing devised to Barnard for and during his Natural life and after his decease to such Issue as he should have of the Body of his second Wife his first then being alive and if no such Issue hapned then to John Melling provided that Barnard might make a Joynture to his Wife which she should enjoy for her Life The Devisor dies Barnard suffers a Recovery to the use of himself in Fee and after Covenanted to stand seised to the use of his Wife for her Joynture for Life and died without Issue by any second Wife The Question was Whether the Wife had a good Estate or that J. Melling in Remainder had the Right It was Argued for John Melling First That Barnard Melling had only an Estate for Life by this Devise Indeed if it had been to him and his Issue which he should have by the second Wife that would have been an Entail but here 't is expresly given to him for his Life The Case of Wiat Wield 8 Co. 78. b. is full to this A Devise to a man and his Children is an Estate Tail if he hath none at the time But if the Devise were to a man for his Life and after his Decease to his Children there whether he had Children or no at the time they take by way of Remainder either contingent or vested So Archer's Case 1 Co. 1 Rolls 837. A Devise to his Son for Life the Remainder to the Sons of his Body lawfully begotten the Son takes only an Estate for Life because so expresly limited Then the Recovery destroys this Contingent Remainder and so also the power of appointing a Joynture to his Wife For 't is not a bare Collateral Power but annexed to his Estate and therefore extinguishes in the Conveyance of it But admitting it were still in him yet he did not well execute it which should have been in such manner as it might have taken effect by the Will and not to arise upon a Covenant to stand seised On the other side it was Argued that it was an Estate Tail in Barnard Melling and no Remainder contingent to the Issue For there a Remainder is said to be contingent where the first Estate may fail before 't is ascertained whether the Contingent will happen or no here if it be an Entail Barnard Melling hath it for his Life and the Issue had nothing until after his decease So 't is but an Expressio eorum quae tacite insunt Again The Power remains notwithstanding the Recovery for 't is collateral to the Estate If Executors have Authority to make a Feoffment for the payment of the Testator's Debts if they should first make a Feoffment to another purpose this would not determine their Power but they might afterwards execute it in performance of the Will 1 Co. in Albany's Case Hale It seems very strong upon Weild's Case that Barnard Melling hath but an Estate for Life if it were devised to him and after his decease to his Issue I should think that to be an Estate Tail but here the express Words are for his Life A Devise to one for his Life and after his decease to his Heir that hath been held a Fee for Heir is nomen Collectivum But Archer's Case 1 Co. is a Devise to A. for his Life and after to his Heir and the Heirs of that Heir there because the words of limitation were put to the Heir therefore Heirs was taken to be but designatio personae and Resolved he should take by Purchase Vid. Anderson 110. Construction must be according to the express words of the Will A Devise to Two equally to be divided between them and to the Survivor of them makes a Joyntenancy upon the express import of the last Words Twisden A Devise to one for Life in perpetuity makes but an Estate for Life only 15 H. 7. Hale 'T is considerable also that he adds a Power to make a Joynture which would have been useless if he had intended him in an Estate Tail And this Power is in the nature of an Emolument annexed to his Estate which seems to be destroyed by the Recovery neither hath he well executed his Power for after the Recovery he became seised in Fee so the Covenant to stand seised may work upon that Estate and so shall not be taken in pursuance of his Authority which possibly it might have been if he had but an Estate for Life for without reference to that it would have been ineffectual quando non valet quod ago ut ago valeat quantum valere potest And this is agreeable to the Learning in Sir Edward Clere's Case in the 6 Co. The Court seemed pretty clear in these Points but because it was upon the first Argument they gave leave to the parties to speak to it again if they thought fit Et Adjornatur Post Goffe's Case A Trial at Bar was had upon an Indictment

c. be indicted for not repairing of a Way within their Precinct they cannot plead Not guilty and give in Evidence that another by Prescription or Tenure ought to repair it for they are chargeable de communi Jure and if they would discharge themselves by laying it elsewhere it must be pleaded Error ERror to Reverse a Judgment in Debt upon a Bond given in Norwich Court where by the Custom the plea of the Defendant was quod non dedicit factum sed petit quod inquiratur de debito First It was moved to be Error for that the Venire was XII Men c. in figures Sed non allocatur for being in these letters XII and not in the figures 12. it was well enough Secondly It was ad triandum exi tum whereas there was no Issue joyned wherefore it ought to have been ad inquirend ' de debito c. Sed non allocatur for the Presidents are as the Case is here Thirdly The Condition of the Bond was to pay at Alborough and that ought to have been shewn to be within the Jurisdiction of the Court Sed non allocatur for the Plea here is not payment secund ' formam Conditionis but the Jury is to inquire by the custom of all manner of payments and discharges Fourthly In the Record it was continued over to several Courts and in the Court where the Judgment is given 't is said in Curia praedicta and so incertain which but notwithstanding these matters the Iudgment was affirmed Anonymus THe Case upon Evidence at a Tryal in Ejectment was this a Dean and Chapter having a right to certain Land but being out of Possession Sealed a Lease with a Letter of Attorney to deliver it upon the Land which was done accordingly and held to be a good Lease for tho' the putting the Seal of a Corporation aggregate to a Deed carries with it a delivery yet the Letter of Attorney to deliver it upon the Land shall suspend the operation of it while then Tenant for Life being in Debt to defraud his Creditors commits a Forfeiture to the end that he in Reversion may enter who is made privy to the contrivance The Opinion of Hale was that the Creditors should avoid this as well as any fraudulent Conveyance Anonymus IN an Ejectment upon a Tryal at Bar for Lands in antient Demesne there was shewn a Recovery in the Court of antient Demesne to cut off an Entail which had been suffered a long time since and the Possession had gone accordingly But there was now objected against it First That no sufficient Evidence of it appeared because the Recovery it self nor a Copy of it was shewn for in truth it was lost But the Court did admit other proof of it to be sufficient and said if a Record be lost it may be proved to a Jury by Testimony as the Decree in H. 8. time for Tythe in London is lost yet it hath been often allowed that there was one Secondly It appeared that a part of the Land was leased for Life and the Recovery with a single Voucher was suffered by him in Reversion and so no Tenant to the Praecipe for those Lands But in regard the Possession had followed it for so long time the Court said they would presume a Surrender as in an Appropriation of great Antiquity there has been presumed a Licence tho' none appeared Thirdly It was objected That the Tenant in Tail which suffered the Recovery having first accepted of a Fine sur Conusans de droit come ceo his Estate Tail was changed for he was estopped during his Life to say that he had any other Estate than Fee then he being made Tenant to the Praecipe the Recovery was not of the Estate Tail and so should not bind But the Court held clearly that the acceptance of this Fine made no alteration of his Estate If Tenant for Life accepts such a Fine 't is a Forfeiture because he admits the Reversion to be in a Stranger but it does not change his Estate so where two Joynt-tenants in Fee accept a Fine which is to the Heirs of one of them yet they continue Joynt-tenants in Fee as they were before Fourthly The Writ of Right Close did express the Land to lie in such a Mannor and a Praecipe that demands Land ought to mention the Vill in which they lie for a Praecipe of Land in Parochia or in Manerio is not good But this exception was disallowed by the Court for Hale said the Writ of Right Close is directed Ballivis Manerij c. quod plenum rectum teneant of the Land within the Precinct of the Mannor and it is not to be resembled to another Praecipe But if a Praecipe be faulty in that Point unless exception be taken to it in Abatement it cannot be assigned for Error but if it were Erroneous the Recovery would bind until reversed Note After Judgment quod computet tho' it be not the final Judgment yet no motion is to be admitted in Arrest of Judgment and after such Judgment a Scire facias lies against the Executor of the Defendant Note In an Action of Debt against the Lessee he may plead nil debet and give the expulsion in Evidence Anonymus IN an Assumpsit the consideration appeared to be that the Defendant promised to pay a Sum of Money which he owed this is no good consideration tho' after a Verdict unless it appeared that the Debt was become remediless by the Statute of Limitations but payment of a Debt without Suit is a good consideration Anonymus A Justice of the Peace brought an Action of Slander for that the Defendant said He was not worth a Groat and that he was gone to the Dogs and upon motion in Arrest of Judgment notwithstanding that it was urged to maintain it that the Statute of H. 6. requires that a Justice of Peace should have 40 l a year And therefore in regard an Estate was necessary to his Office that the Action would lie yet the Judgment was stayed for such words will not bear an Action unless the person of whom they are spoken lives by buying and selling Anonymus IT was returned upon Elegit that the Sheriff had delivered medietatem Terrar ' Tenementorum in extent and after the Filing and Entry of it upon the Record the Plaintiff moved to quash it because it was insufficient for the Sheriff ought upon such Execution to deliver the Possession by Metes and Bounds Wild held that it being entred upon the Record there was no avoiding of it but by Writ of Error But Hale held that in regard it appeared by the Record to be void it might be quashed as if upon an Ejectment to recover Possession upon such a return it appears upon the Evidence that there was more than the half the Land delivered this shall be avoided So if a Fieri facias be not warranted by the Judgment upon which it is awarded tho' the Sheriff shall be

it will be agreed he might have released it or by cutting of the Wood might have taken away all the right of Action Again it does not appear by the Record that the Defendant was here and so no benefit by the forbearing to cut the Wood. Rookwoods Case cited on the other side 1 Cro. 163. 1 Leonard 192. is that the Promise was made to the younger Brothers and the Consideration that they would consent but here the Plaintiff who was to have the Money had no share in the Consideration or Meritorious Act as where the Father promises J. S. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will give him 1000 l the Son may bring the Action because the Consideration moves from him Hetlys Rep. 20. the Case was to this effect A Man promises a Woman whom he was to Marry upon a certain Consideration that if he had a Son by her he should have a Term whereof the Woman was then possessed and if it were a Daughter she should have the Moiety of the Goods c. they Intermarry and after the death of the Husband the Daughter born between them brings an Action against the Executor of the Husband and resolved that it would not lie tho' they did not think the Agreement made with the Wife to be discharged by the Intermarriage but only suspended which is a Quaere in my Lord Hobart Yet the Daughter being no Party to the Promise or to the Consideration could not bring an Action The Case of Norris and Pine before cited is stronger for there he that made the Promise had a benefit for it was in Consideration of Marriage On the other side it was said that tho' it doth not appear that the Defendant was Heir yet it may be intended after Verdict however 't is not nudum pactum for if the Defendant had no benefit yet there was a restraint upon the other and that is Consideration enough And for the objection of releasing that holds where J. S. promises J.N. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will pay him 1000 l J.N. may Release but 't is doubtful whether he can after Marriage because then 't is vested in the Son as Scroggs Chief Justice said 1 Roll. 31. The Uncle of an Infant delivered J.S. 12 l who promised to pay the Infant when he came of Age and the Action was well brought by him after his Age. So Goods sold to A. to pay 10 l to B. B. may Sue Vid. 1. Roll. 32 Starkey and Mills The Court said it might be another Case if the Money had béen to have been paid to a Stranger but there is such a nearness of Relation between the Father and Child and 't is a kind of Debt to the Child to be provided for that the Plaintiff is plainly concerned And so by the Opinion of them all viz. Scroggs Wild Jones and Dolben Judicium pro Querente Ante. Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Sheriffs Court of London for that an Action was there Commenced to which the Defendant pleaded That the cause of Action did not arise within the Jurisdiction and offered to swear his Plea but it was refused The Counsel for the Plaintiff objected against the Prohibition that the Plea came too late for it was after an Imparlance But it being proved by Affidavit that the Plea was tendred within two days after the Declaration was delivered and that immediately upon delivering the Declaration there is an Imparlance of course The Court granted the Prohibition and said that the other side might Demurr if they thought fit for the liberty of the Subject was infringed by bringing him within a private Jurisdiction when the Matter arises out of it and Attorney's in such places are sworn to advise no Plea to the Jurisdiction nor that none shall be put in by them And whereas 't was said that the Party had not prejudice for he might remove his Case by Habeas Corpus The that the Court answered coming by Habeas Corpus Bail must be put in above tho' the Cause otherwise did not require it Note It appeared here that there was no defence made in this to the Jurisdiction and Co. Inst was quoted that defence should be made tho' not full defence But the Court said it was not necessary and that Presidents were otherwise especially where the Court have no Jurisdiction of the matter otherwise where not of the person James versus Richardson IN Ejectment the Case upon a Special Verdict was thus A. devised the Lands to B. and his Heirs during the Life of J. S. and after to the Heirs of the Body of R. D. now living and to such other Heirs was should after be Born the Devisee for Life levied a Fine in the Life of him to whose Heirs the Remainder was limited but he had a Son at the time of the death of the Testator The question was Whether it was a Contingent Remainder the consequence whereof was to be destroyed by the Fine and that it was vested in the Son Scroggs Chief Justice Wild and Jones held it a Remainder vested by reason of the words now living which was a sufficient Designation of the person that was to take in a Will tho' improper to call him Heir But Dolben Contra for by this Construction the Heirs Born after are excluded and the Son would take but an Estate for Life tho' it were devised to the Heirs in the Plural Number Note Vpon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber this Iudgment was reversed Hillary 31 32. Car. 2. Termino Paschae Anno 31 Car. II. In Banco Regis A Mandamus was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court to grant the Probat of a Will under Seal c. The Case was the Executor named in the Will had taken the usual Oath but after a Caveat entred and then Refused and another endeavoured to obtain Letters of Administration the Executor came after to desire the Will under Probat and contested the granting of Administration Which was Adjudged against him supposing that he was bound by his Refusal And after an Appeal to the Delegates this Mandamus was prayed and granted by the Court for having taken the Oath he could not be admitted to Refuse and the Ecclesiastical Court had no further Authority and the Caveat did not alter the Case Note The Oath was taken before a Surrogate yet it was all one Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit for Tythes upon the Suggestion that the Lands out of which they were demanded say out of the Parish and the Bounds of Parishes are tryable at the Common Law But the Court denied the Prohibition because it did not appear that a Plea thereof had been offered in the Ecclesiastical Court Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit against J. S. Lessee of a Rectory out of which a Pension was demanded It was suggested that the Lord Biron had three parts in four of this Rectory upon which the Pension was chargeable and that

Tail was executed by the first Conveyance And in the Case at Bar until the Release of B. the Fee was not executed in B. for the preservation of the Joynture and so the Plight and Condition of the Estate altered by matter subsequent and by consequence the Contingent Remainder destroyed The Court doubted whether there were such alteration of the Estate as to destroy the Remainder for they said to some purposes the Fee was executed before the Release Vid. 1 Inst 184. a. for if the Joynt-tenants had joyned in a Lease for years an Action of Wast would he against the Lessee Et Adjornatur Anonymus A Person who was committed to the Tower for Conspiring the death of the King was brought up by Habeas Corpus and prayed to have Bail taken unless an Indictment were found against her this Term according to the new Act of 31 Car. 2. for Habeas Corpus's The Court said that they which would have the benefit of that Act must pray it before the first week of the Term expires but in regard it appeared that she had prayed it before by her Counsel and her Habeas Corpus was taken out in time the Court said the benefit of the Act should be saved to her for the prayer is not necessary to be made in person But Mr. C. G. was refused the advantage he having omitted to make the prayer during the first week either in Person or by Counsel Sir Robert Peytons's Case HE was brought up by Habeas Corpus from the Tower his Counsel pressed much to have the Return Filed supposing that he would be then a Prisoner to the Court and committed to the Marshalsey but the Court ordered the Return to be Filed and notwithstanding remanded him to the Tower as they said they might do The King versus Plume ANte Hill 29 30 Car. 2. The Case was spoken to again upon the Demurrer to the Indictment for using of the Trade of a Fruiterer contra 5 Eliz. not having been bound an Apprentice Scroggs Chief Justice and Dolben inclined to the Opinion that it was a Mystery within the Statute there being great Art in chusing the times to gather and preserve their Fruit. And that the Cause deserved the more Consideration for that the Fruiterers were an ancient Corporation in London viz. From the time of E. 4. also a Barber Upholster and lately a Coachmaker Ruled to be within the Act. Jones and Pemberton seemed to be of another Opinion for it would be very inconvenient to make every one that sells Fruit by the penny within the Act and majus minus would make no odds surely since the 5 of Eliz. there would have been some Prosecution by the Company of Fruiterers in this case if it would have lain Brewers and Bakers require Skill and yet not within the Act. But the Court took time to deliver their positive Opinions Et Adjornatur Reve versus Cropley AN Indebitat ' Assumpsit was brought for 20 l as Executor to William Burroughs for so much of the said Williams Money had and received by the Defendant in his Life time whereupon the Plaintiff had Iudgment by Nihil Dicit and upon a Writ of Inquiry the Plaintiff not being provided to prove the Debt supposing it to be confessed by the Judgment the Jury found but two pence Damages Ventris moved to set aside this Writ of Enquiry for that the Plaintiff was not obliged in this Action to prove the Debt at the executing of the Writ of Enquiry no more than if he had brought an Action of Debt 2 Cro. 220. In Trespass for taking of Goods the Property is not to be proved upon the Writ of Enquiry after Iudgment Sur Nihil Dicit for said the Court if he should fail thereof it would be in destruction of the first Judgment Vid. Yelv. 152 Curia This being in an Action upon the Case which lies in Damages the Debt ought to have been proved and so let it stand Note If a Verdict be for 30 l and the Iudgment is quod recuperet damna praedicta ad 32 l This surplus will do no hurt because 't is damna praedicta Jones 171. Cooke versus Fountain IN an Ejectment upon a Trial at the Bar the Title of the Lessor of the Plaintiff was upon the Grant of a Rent with power to enter for Non payment The Executor of the Grantor was produced as a Witness for the Defendant And it was objected against him that in the Grant of the Rent the Grantor covenanted for himself and his Heirs to pay it and that the Executor being obliged was no competent Witness Against which it was much insisted upon on the other side that this Covenant annexed to a real Estate would not bind the Executor but only the Heir But the whole Court were against it The Counsel for the Defendant mentioned a Bill of Exceptions and the Court doubted whether it would lie in the Kings Bench so they waved it and shewed that the Executor had fully Administred the Inventory But they gave a further charge on the Plaintiffs side and so that Witness was set aside Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 32 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared that he kept a Stage-Coach and got his Livelyhood by carrying of Passengers And that the Defendant spoke such Scandalous words of his Wife that so reflected upon him and rendred him so ridiculous that no body would Ride in his Coach and he thereby lost his Customers After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved to stay Iudgment that here was no cause of Action But on the other side a Case was cited of one Bodingly 14 Car. 2. C. B. where the Plaintiff declared That he was an Innkeeper and that the Defendant had presented his Wife at a Leet for a Scold and that such and such Guests in particular had absented from his House upon it and after Verdict he had Judgment But the Court here said that the Cases differed for that quality of the Wives might make the House troublesome to the Guests but a Stage Coachman could receive no probable prejudice in his Trade by defaming of his Wife or at the least the Plaintiff should have declared what Customers he had lost in particular and therefore they ordered quod querens Nils capiat per Biliam Anger versus Brewer IN an Attachment upon a Prohibition the Plaintiff declared That he proceeded in the Court Christian after the Prohibition delivered After Judgment by Nihil dicit and 100 l Damages given to the Plaintiff it was moved to stay Judgment that there was no place laid in the Declaration where the Defendant prosecuted since the Prohibition delivered and so if Issue had been taken upon Non prosecut ' fuit post deliberat ' brevis whence should the Venue have come But it being made appear to the Court that in all the Presidents of these kind of Declarations there is no place found mentioned

which it was answered That they were not tyed to the Time but the Place it was ibidem facere Ordinationes and not adtunc ibidem But the Court gave Judgment upon the first Matter Newport versus Godfrey THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the Detinet against Godfrey Executor of Stephen Turner for 70 l arrear of Rent and declared upon several Demises upon the 28th of September 1685. to the said Turner reserving several Rents of which there became arrear to the Plaintiff in the Life time of the said Turner 70 l and it appeared by the Declaration that the Leases ended in the Life of the said Turner In Bar of which the Defendant pleaded several Bonds entred into by the Testator to divers persons for the payment of Money which he avers to be all for true and just Debts and that he had administred all besides Goods to the value of 40 l which he retained towards satisfaction of the said Bonds c. To which the Plaintiff demurred and it was Argued last Term for the Defendant that a Debt upon a Specialty was to be preferred before Debt for Rent upon a Lease parol Styl Rep. 61. Rolls said that a Specialty was of an higher nature than Rent reserved upon a Lease by Deed. Indeed it is made a Quaere in Roll. Abr. 1. part 927. but if Rent should be preferred where the Lease was continuing after the Death of the Testator in regard the Testator's Goods are liable to be distrained for it which the Executor cannot withstand Yet there is not the like Reason when the Lease expires in the Life of the Testator and the Case was adjourned to this Term for the Iudgment of the Court. And the whole Court were of Opinion that Judgment should be for the Plaintiff For tho' the Lease be determined yet the Debt still savours of the Realty and is maintained in regard of the Profits of the Land received insomuch that no Wager of Law lies in Debt for Rent tho' brought after the Lease determined A Bond given for Rent will not drown it 11 H. 4. 75. b. an Action lies against the Executors of an Assignee of a Lease for Rent in the Testator's time and yet the Assignee is chargable only in respect of the Lease Vid. 13 H. 4. 1. a. Office of Executors 209 210 211 c. Godfrey versus Ward IN an Action of Debt for Rent The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations and that Causa Actionis praedicte c. accrevit above six years before the Writ brought To this the Defendant demurred and the Cause of the Demurrer was upon the late Statute for reviving of Process anno primo Willielmi Mariae by which it is provided in regard there was an Interruption of the Government and proceedings of Law from the 11th of September 1688. to the 13th of February following that the time within those Days should not be accounted as any part of the six years to barr an Action by the Statute of Limitations or of the six Months for bringing a Quare Impedit c. so as it was urged that the Defendant should have shewn that six Years and so many Days were elapsed as are between the 11th of December and the 13th of February For tho' six years may be passed yet the Plaintiff may be within time by reason of the said Statute But the Court were of Opinion that the Defendants Plea was well and this should be shewn of the Plaintiffs part for the Statute does not alter the Form of Pleading but that shall be as it was before and the Plaintiff if the Matter will bear it is to help himself upon the said Statute The old way upon the Statute of Limitations was for the Defendant to plead the Statute at large but of late years the General Pleading of Non assumpsit infra sex annos has been allowed Warren versus Sainthill Devon ' ss SAMUEL SAINTHILL nuper de Bradmuch in Com' praedict ' Armig ' Johannes Savery nuper de Bradmuch in Com' praedict ' Husbandnian attach ' fuer ' ad respondend ' Thomae Warren gen ' de placito Transgr ' super Casum c. Case for stopping up of a Foot way The Plaintiff says That was possest he and Inhab of in an ancient Messuage And that habuit habere debuit a Foot-way for himself and his Servants Et unde idem Thomas per Johannem Prowse Attorn ' suum Queritur quod cum praedict ' Thomas vicesimo nono die Septembris anno regni domini Regis dominae Reginae nunc primo continue postea usque primum diem Januarii tunc ꝓx ' fequen ' fuit possessionat ' inhabitans de in quodam antiquo Mesuagio scituat ' jacen ' in villa de Watterstaffe infra paroch ' de Bradmuch praedict ' ac ꝓ totum tempus ill ' quandam viam pedestrem ducen ' à Villa de Watterstaffe praedict ' in per trans quaedam Clausa voc ' Crollands Smiths Down and Tulver Park infra paroch ' de Bradmuch praedict ' usque ad villam de Bradmuch in Bradmuch praedict ' pro se servientibus suis ad eundem redeund ' omnibus temporibus ad libitum ejus tanquam ad Mesuag ' As belonging to his Messuage praedict ' spectan ' pertinen ' habuit de jure habere debuit praedicti Samuel ' Johannes machinan ' intenden ' ipsum Thomam minus rite perturbare ipsum de via praed ' impedire deprivare praedict vicesimo nono die Sept ' Anno primo supradicto apud paroch ' de Bradmuch quaedam Fossa Trencheas ex transverso viae praedict ' The Defendant to disturb him in the Way dug Ditches and Trenches cross the Way And erected Hedges and Fences cross it Whereby he was hindred of his Way in t ' Villas de Watterstaffe Bradmuch praedict ' fodier ' fecer ' ac etiam viam ill ' ibedem cum quibusdam sepibus fensuris ex transverso viae praedict ' eject ' obstruxer ' praecluser ' per quod idem Thomas à via praedict ' in forma praedict ' habend ' à praedict ' vicesimo nono die Septembris usque praed ' primum diem Januarii Anno primo supradicto penitus impedet ' deprivat ' fuit ad dampnum ipsius Thomae quadragint ' librar ' Et inde ꝓducit sectam c. To this the Defendant pleaded a frivolous Plea and the Plaintiff demurrs and the Defendant joyned in the Demurrer and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Warren versus Sainthill IN an Action upon the Case for Stopping of a Way the Plaintiff declared that he was possessed and an Inhabitant of and in a certain ancient Messuage the 29th of Sept. in the first year of the now King and Queen and so continued to the first day of January then next following and for all that time had a Foot-way over the Defendant's

Rogers v. Bradly 143 Rozer v. Rozer 36 Rudyard 's Thomas Case 22 S SAlisbury 's the Lord Case 365 Samon v. Jones 318 Sarsfield v. Witherly 292 Sayle v. Freeland al' Infants 350 Sherborn v. Colebach 175 Shipley v. Craister 131 Smithson 's Sir Jerom Case 345 Snode v. Ward 197 T TArget v. Loyd 272 277 Thompson v. Leach 198 Tovey v. Pitcher 228 234 Tregonwell Jane Vid. Executrix of John Tregonwell v. Sherwin 262 Trethewy v. Ellesdon 141 Trippet v. Eyres 110 113 Tonstal v. Brend 174 Turner Methuselah v. Sir Samuel Sterling 25 Turner 's Case 348 W WAlden Sir Lionel v. Mitchel 263 265 Warren v. Sainthil 185 186 Watmough v. Holgate al' 219 221 Web Prescilla v. Moore 279 282 Welbie v. Phillips 129 West v. The Lord Delaware 357 Westby 's Case 152 Whitaker v. Thoroughgood 130 White v. Ewer 340 Whitmore Frances Vid. v. Weld al' 367 Williams v. Bond 238 Willows v. Lydcot 285 Woodward al' v. Fox 187 213 267 Wright v. Wyvell 56 A TABLE OF THE PLEADINGS IN THE SECOND PART A Actions upon the Case 1. IN a Special Indebitatus Assumpsit against an Attorney The Plaintiff declares That whereas T. S. was Indebted to the Plaintiff in a certain Sum of Money exceeding 12 l and the Defendant was indebted to the said T. S. in 12 l aut eo circiter The Defendant promised That if the Plaintiff would procure an Order under the Hand of the said T. S. for payment of the Money which he owed the said T. S. or any part thereof that then he would pay the same and avers that he procured such Order and shewed it to the Defendant and requested payment which he refused p. 69 After Imparlance the Defendant demurs to the Declaration 70 The Plaintiff joyns in the Demurrer 71 2 Against a Common Carryer for losing Goods delivered him to Carry 75 The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant is a Common Carryer and sets forth the Custom of England and the particulars of the Goods delivered to him to be Carried from B. to London and that he paid him for the Carriage and the Defendant lost them 75 76 Issue thereupon 77 3. Against a Sheriff for Returning Nulla Bona upon a Special Outlawry when the Party had Goods 84 The Declaration sets forth the Special Matter 85 86 Defendant pleads That a Prerogative Writ came out of the Exchequer whereupon the Defendant seized the G●ods Nulla alia ●ona 87 The Pla●●tiff demurs 88 4. For not Folding his Sheep upon the Plaintiffs Land according to Custom 136 The Declaration sets forth the special Custom and Cause of Action Issue thereupon 137 5. For Stopping up a Foot-way 185 The Plaintiff Declares That he was possest of and did inhabit in an ancient Mess●age and that he had and ought to have a Foot-way for himself and his Servants over such a Close c. as belonging to his said Messuage and that the Defendant to disturb him in his way dug Ditches and Trenches cross the Way and erected Hedges and Fences cross it whereby he was hindred and deprived of his Way 186 6. Indebitatus Assumpsit upon several Promises For Moneys had and received for the Plaintiffs use For Money laid out for the Defendant For Money borrowed of the Plaintiff 254 For Money due to the Plaintiff for the Arrearages of an Account The Defendant hath not paid the said several Sums tho' requested c. As to the first and second Promises the Defendant pleads Non assumpsit infra sex annos as to the third and fourth Promises he pleads Non assumpsit 255 As to the first and second Promises the Plaintiff Replies and sets forth an Original s●ed forth i● a Clausum ●●egit within the six years ea ●nt●ntione to ●eclare against him and that he promised within six years next before the Suing out of that Original The Defendant craves Oyer of the Original and hath it and says that the Writ will not warrant the Declaration 256 And prays Judgment whether the Plaintiff shall be admitted to set forth that Writ ad Warrantizandum Narracon ' suam The Plaintiff demurs to the ●ejoynder The Defendant joyns in Demurrer 258 7. For Words viz. Papist and Pensioner 263 The Plaintiff declares that he is a Protestant and never profest the Romish Religion that he hath been a Member of Parli●●ent and did his Duty therein sets forth the Colloquium of the Plaintiff and of his being a Member of Parliament the first Words ex ulteriori malitia other Words 264 The Defendant pleads Not guilty 265 8. In Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares for a Runlet of Wine Another Indebitatus as well for Meat Drink Brandy and Tobacco as for Horse-Meat A Quantum meruit for Meat Drink Wine Brandy and Horse-Meat found and provided by the Plaintiff as an Innkeeper 279 Another Indebitatus for Goods sold An Insimul computasset the Plaintiff says that the Defendant hath not paid the several Sums inde producit sectam 280 The Defendant pleads an Outlawry in Bar and shews that J. S. impleaded the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas in an Action of Trespass and for not appearing she was waived and that the Outlawry is yet in force hoc paratus est verificare per Recordum Demurrer to the Plea Joynder in Demurrer 281 Assault Battery and Wounding Vide Trespass 2. Assignees Action by and against them Vid. Covenant 4. 5. Assumpsit Vid. Actions on the Case 1. 6. 8. Award vid. Debt 2. 4. 6. B Bankrupcy vid. Trover 1. 2. Bill of Exchange vid. Error 2. By Law vid. Debt 7. C Carryer Action against him Vid. Action on the Case 2. Clausum fregit Vid. Action on the Case 6. Covenant 1. BRought by the Executor of a Bishop against the Executors of an Assignee of the Executor of the Lessee 51 The Declaration sets forth the Indenture of Demise of a Rectory c. with the Consideration and Particulars demised The Covenants to repair and yield up The Lessees Entry c. 51 52 53 And assigns the Breach in permitting the Chancel c. to be out of Repair Profert in Cur ' the Lease 51 And Letters Testamentary of the Bishop 55 Defendants Demur generally 55 2. Against an Attorney upon Articles of Agreement for quiet enjoyment of Lands 59 The Declaration sets forth That the Defendant Covenanted pro ex parte of another Recites the Articles avers performance of all Covenants on the Plaintiffs part and assigns the Breach That the Plaintiff and his Servants were sued in an Action of Trespass in the Common Pleas and Damages recovered against him which he was compelled to pay sic idem the Plaintiff non quiete pacifice tenuit 60 The Defendant pleads non infregit Conventionem and Issue thereupon 61 3. By Executors upon certain special Covenants with their Testator for a Demise of Land which they set forth 97 They aver performance by the Testator in his life time and since his death by the

Plaintiffs and assign a Breach on the Defendants part Defendant pleads quod Testator nihil habuit in Tenementis The Plaintiffs demur to the Plea 98 4. By an Assignee of an Assignee against an Executor 117 The Declaration sets forth the Demise and that the Defendants Testator Covenanted to pull down three old Houses and build three new ones in their room and to keep the same in good repair and so deliver them up at the end of his Term 119 Sets forth the Plaintiffs Title to the Reversion by Assignment from the Lessor 119 120 And that the Tenant for years Attorned 121 That the Tenant in possession died and left the Defendant his Executor c. The the Plaintiff hath performed all and singular the Covenants on the part of the Lessor and his Assigns Protestando that the Defendant hath not performed those on the part of his Testator 122 He assigns a Breach in facto for permitting once of the new erected Houses to fall down before the end of the Term and other defaults in not Repairing Et sic the Defendant Convenconem non tenuit 123 The Defendant pleads performance specially to each Breach assigned and says that his Testator pull'd down the three Houses and built other three Houses in their room which he kept in Repairs and so delivered at the end of his Term 124 The Plaintiff demurs to the Plea as not being sufficient as to the leaving one House totally prostrate and ruined as the Plaintiff declared The Defendant joyned in Demurrer 125 5. Against the Assignee of an Executrix 228 The Declaration sets forth That the Plaintiff was possest of a Term for years yet in being by Indenture demised to the Testator for 21 years at the yearly Rent of c. 229 With a Clause of Re-entry and Covenants 230 That the Lessee entred made his Will made the Assignor his Exetrix and died That she proved the Will entred and assigned to the Defendant who entred and is still possest The Breach assigned was in the Non payment of Rent 231 The Defendant pleads That he assigned over before any Rent due 232 Demurrer to part of the Plea Joynder in Demurrer Judgment for the other part 233 Cesset executio Brevis de Inquirendo de dampnis quousque the Demurrer be determined 234 6. In Covenant the Plaintiff declares upon an Indenture of Demise from the Defendant 272 Profert in Curia The Demise Habendum Reddendum The Covenants on the Plaintiffs part 273 Covenants on the Defendants part for himself and Assigns to permit to make a Drain The Plaintiff entred and was possest and avers performance of all Covenants on his part The Breach assigned Eo quod the Defendant being possest of certain Tenements adjoyning for a Term of years did demise part of the Term to J. S. who entred 274 And died possest And Administration granted to his Widow who entred and was possest and took Husband The Husband and Wife entred and were possest and refuse to suffer the Defendant to make the Drain Et sic inde producit sectam 275 The Defendant pleads That he permitted the Plaintiff to make a Drain according to Covenant but the Plaintiff refused it The Plaintiff demurs The Defendant joyns in Demurrer 276 D Debt 1. IN Debt upon a Bond the Defendant craves Oyer of the Condition and pleads the Statute of Vsury 80 He sets forth the Usurious Contract the Money lent and the Bond in question given for it and that the Money for Forbearance exceeds the rate of 6 l per Cent. 81 The Plaintiff Replies That the Bond was made by a Scrivener in his absence who mistook the Condition and Traverses the Corrupt Agreement The Defendant demurs to the Replication The Plaintiff joyns 82 2. Debt upon a Bond to perform an Award 110 The Defendant craves Oyer of the Condition and pleads that the Arbitrators made no Award but that they named an Umpire who made no Award by Writing or Word of Mouth 111 The Plaintiff replies That true it is that the Arbitrators nor the Umpire by them first Chosen made any Award but refused whereupon the Arbitrators chose another Umpire who mad an Award within the time limitted 112 The Defendant demurs specially and assigns for Cause That it does not appear by the Replication that the Defendant had Notice that the Arbitrators had named the second Umpire or that he had any Authority to make any Umpirage The Plaintiff joyns in Demurrer 113 3. For Rent against an Executrix upon a Lease parol 176 The Declaration sets forth the Demise to the Defendants Testator of the 4th part of two Corn Mills and of one Mault-Mill under the same Roof to hold for one year sic de Anno in annum as long as both parties shall please paying Monthly for the same the Sum of 60 s 4 d ob so long as the said Testator should hold the Premisses and shews that he entred and held it for so long and that the Rent is due and unpaid for so many Months per quod actio accrevit 176 He also sets forth another Demise from year to year so long as both parties shall please at the yearly Rent of 20 l to be paid Quarterly by equal Portions the Tenants Entry the Rent arrear per quod actio accrevit Another Demise at Will laid Entry Rent arrear Actio accrevit 177 Another Demise at Will laid of the 4th part of another Mill Entry Rent arrear Actio accrevit the The Testator in his Life time nor the Executrix post mortem have not paid 178 The Defendant pleads in Abatement That the Tenant died Intestate and that Administration was granted to her and therefore ought to be sued as Administratrix and not as Executrix 178 The Plaintiff replies That the Defendant administred as Executrix before the granting the Administration to her The Defendant demurs to the Replication The Plaintiff joyns 179 4. Debt upon Bond. The Defendant craves Oyer of the Condition which is to perform an Award 219 Pleads That the Arbitrators made no Award The Plaintiff replies and sets forth the Award made in Writing and assigns a Breach in not paying a certain Sum of Money awarded 220 The Defendant demurs The Plaintiff joyns 221 5. Debt upon a Sheriffs Bond 234 The Defendant prays Oyer of the Condition which was to appear in Chancery to answer a Contempt Pleads the Statute of 23 H. 6. That an Attachment issued out of Chancery delivered to the Plaintiff being Sheriff who caused the Defendant to be arrested and after took the said Bond for his Appearance 236 Contra formam Statuti praedicti sic scriptum Obligatorium illud c. vacuum in lege existit The Plaintiff demurs to the Plea The Defendant joyns 237 6. Debt upon Bond Condition'd to perform an Award 239 The Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no award The Plaintiff replies and sets forth an Award made ore tenus 240 Notice of the Award and request for the Performance of it