Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	inheritance_n	join_v	treble_a	20	3	15.9159	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43467	Reports and cases taken in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years of the late King Charles as they were argued by most of the King's sergeants at the Commonpleas barre / collected and reported, by that eminent lawyer, Sir Thomas Hetley Knight, sergeant at law, sometimes of the Honourable Society of Grayes-Inne, and appointed by the king and judges for one of he reporters of the law ; now Englished, and likewise of the cases, both alphabetical.	Hetley, Thomas, Sir.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1657 (1657)	Wing H1627; ESTC R10743	229,000	204

up a Chamber but that was the knavery of the Inne-keeper he being then in contention with an Inn-keeper in the Parish and that in divine service he thrust open the door of Wrights seat and said that he and his wife would sit there in disturbance of divine service And for that a prohibition was prayed and granted for the high Commission cannot punish non-residency nor breaking the seat in divine service And the other were things for which he shall be bound to his good behaviour and the complaint ought to be to the Ordinary c. Hall and Blundells Case before DAvenport said This Parson being presented by Simony is disabled to this Church for ever and cannot he presented to this Church again although another avoidance As it was adjudged in the Lord Windsors case But it was said by Richardson if he had said absque hoc that he was in ex praesentatione of Sir George it had béen good Which was granted Henden Two exceptions had béen taken First that the Incumbent does not shew what estate or interest the King had to present him which does not need if the King brought a Quare impedit then it is a good answer to say That he is in of his presenting But if it be brought by a Stranger then he ought to shew the title in his presentment And he alleged the Statute of 25 E. 3. Which inables the Incumbent to plead by writ of the Law 41 Eliz. There was a Quare Impedit brought for the Church of Danel A presentation was pleaded by the King without making a title and it was admitted good And in many cases it is more safe not to make a title Secondly Because that he pleaded a presentation by the King he is disabled As to that he said that before he be convicted of Symony he may be presented But by Crook in Sathers Case That if he be presented before conviction yet it is a void presentment And it was so agréed by the Court and they resolved the plea was naught because he enswers nothing to the Symony for the protestation is not any Answer Wherefore judgement was given for the Plaintiff Denne against Burrough DEnne against Burrough alias Spark in a prohibition it was agréed by Yelverton and Crook the other Iustices being absent If a man makes his will and makes his wife Executrix and devises the residue of his goods after debts and legacies payed to his Executrix His wife dies before probate that now because that the Executor had election to have them and dies before he did so All the Goods belong to the Administrator of the first Testator But otherwise by Henden If there was a Legacy of a particular thing Quaere what difference Newton against Sutton RIchard Newton and Iames Elliot against Sutton in debt upon an Obligation to perform Covenants in an Indenture There was a Covenant that the Defendant ought to do such an act thing or things as the Plaintiff or his Council learned should devise for the better assurance of certain Lands by himself to the Plaintiff and said that a Counsellor advised him to have a Fine And upon the Declaration there was a Demurrer And upon the opening the Case Crook and Yelverton being only present agreed That it ought to have been pleaded that a writ of Covenant was shewn and the tender of the note of the Fine is not sufficient But the breaking of the Covenant ought to be laid after the Dedimus potestatem sued by the Plaintiff And upon their advise the action discontinued without costs Sacheverills Case before ATthowe said that the action lies For a Lease made by Tenant for life is a Lease derived out of all the Estates and not as a Lease made in Remainder But he who made the Lease had a Reversion in possibility of a Reversion and for that he might joyn with him who had the Inheritance in that Action 27 H. 8. Tenant for life and he in Reversion joyn in a Lease for life And Tenant for life the place wasted and he that had the inheritance the treble dammages And in this Case had but a possibility of the Reversion and yet for that possibility they joyn in waste And it is all one whether there is but a possibility of reversion or a reversion If Tenant for life and he in remainder in fee make a Lease for years they joyn in waste and the reversion does not hinder Because that the Lease is derived out of both And the Lessee shall make attendance first to one and then to the other 13 H. 7. 17. And if it be upon such a Lease or Covenant which is not collateral but goes with the Land the Tenant for life shall have the benefit of them during his life and the other after But if one makes a Lease for life rendring a Rent and grants the Reversion to one for life the Remainder to another in fee Where the lease issues out of the whole reversion Yet the division by reversion being by the party himself they shall joyn in an action 22 H. 6. 24 b. Tenant in fee makes a Lease for life and their grants the reversion to A. and B. and the Heirs of B Waste is committed and they joyn in waste And yet this Statute which comes to our Case is made after the Lease And in this case if he who had the Inheritance his Son and the Survivor should joyn in waste For the Law makes the division of the reversion If Baron seised in right of his wife and they joyn in a Lease for years or for life rendring a Rent the wife dies the Husband being intitled to be Tenant by the courtesie it is now his Lease and he shall have the Rent And the Book séems that he and the Heir shall have an Action of Waste For the Law makes that division If Tenant in fée makes a Lease for years and takes a wife and dies and the Feme recovers Dower That Lease is not dispunishable with the devision by the Act of Law and that Lease is derived out of all the Estates and it is all one as if they had all joyned Admitting that the words were that the said Henry had Authority to make Leases for lives And that that makes it as effectual and as good as if all had joyned Then it will be agreed that it is the Lease of all As if I give Authority to make a Lease of my Land It is my Lease and ought to be made in my name and so the Authority is good against all those And if the Covenants had not béen collateral Iacinth shall have benefit of them For although they are not parties to the Lease yet the Law makes them so And as they shall have those benefits which grow by the Reversion so they shall have the waste also It will be objected this Lease by Henry is derived out of the first Fine and the Conusees shall stand seised to that use I agree if it be meerly without

three lives to the Plaintiff And the Defendant took and converted the Grain c. Finch the Recorder for the Plaintiff who endeavoured to destroy the two first Leases And as to that the first Lease is not warrantable by the Statute 1 El. that depends upon consideration of two things First Whether the word Successive so makes a Limitation of a Remainder c. Secondly Whether the Lease in Remainder be out of the Statute 1 El. also that I ought to maintain That although the Lease is not warranted by the Statute yet it is not void but voidable by the Successor And that also contains two points First Whether it be void by the Common law scil When a Lease is made to two habendum a die datus and livery be 3 daies after by Attorney be not good Secondly Whether it be absolutely void by the Statute As to the first a Lease succcessively habendum viz. to A. and her Assigns for her life That Habendum well settles the Estate by way of remainder and it is not a Ioynt-estate 8 E. 3. There the doubt is first put but the difference is Where it is habendum successive generally then it is a Ioynt-estate But if it be with a reference and declaration it is a good remainder Br. 104. successive generally does not make any remainder unless in case of a copyhold sibi suis make an inheritance 30 El. in Banc. Roy. 8 Rot. 856. The Lord Sturton makes a Lease to Thomas Hubhard habendum to him and two others scilicet successive for their lives and to the longer liver of them And it was adjudged that none can take by that Déed but Thomas Hubbard only Who is only the party named and that it is no remainder for it is not made certain who begins to take by the Remainder Greenwood and Tilers Case in the Kings Bench. There such a Lease is made and the word Successive comes after the limitation of the Estate And the Iudges gave the difference between this Case and Hiliards Case But after in the Exchequer-Chamber it was agreed to the contrary So that Successive put generally does nothing But when it is shew'd who takes first then it makes a Remainder Dyer 361. habendum successive prout nominatur in Indentura It was ruled that that was a Remainder And this Case is more strong for every one is named in his order And then if it be not a Ioint-estate but in remainder it is not warrantable by the Statute of 1 El. 6. Rep. Dean and Chapters Case of Worcester And that Statute had relation to the Statute of 32 H. 8. of making of Leases For the Statute of 1 El. ought in reason and equity to have the same constructions as the Statutes aforesaid and so it had been adjudged in one Wheeler and Danbyes Case Then that Lease although it be void yet is not absolutely void but voidable c. And as to the point in Law the Livery is good as it seemed But now if there was a Lease for life or a Feoffment de die datus and Livery made the same day by the Feoffor himself or his Attorney that it should be void For the day of the date should be excluded and the Livery cannot operate in futuro For it is res ponderosa and it can never expect and be in suspence 2 Rep. 55. Bucklers Case But I confess in this last Case a favourable construction ought to be made where the Possession had long continued according to the letters Patents Which should intend that the Livery was in the same instant And in a thing that lies in Grant the same construction is made as if Rent in Common in esse should be granted de die to come the Grant is void Bucklers Case before H. 8 H. 7. 33. 8 H. 6. 35 coment 145. Throgmorton and Traceys Case agrees the difference of a Rent granted de novo and a Rent in esse 9 E. 2. tit Dower So that a thing granted cannot be to begin at a day to come But not by the reason only given that he cannot reserve a particular Estate to himself But because it is a Frank-tenement which ought to pass presently Pasc 5 Iac. Kings Bench Sir Robert Iames Case In a Replevin against him and Adams it was agreed That if a Reversion be bargained and sold at a day to come for years it is good And so also is Sir Rowland Haywards Case 2 Rep. 35. If a Feoffment or a Lease for life was a die datus If the Lessor or a Person the next day make Livery it is good without question For the absurdity that a Frank-tenement should be in suspence is not so for the life is given by the Livery after the date And there is a great difference between things that lye in Grant and a Feoffment For in Case of a Grant that is a die datus it cannot be made good In Case where a Feoffment is made the Deed is the evidence and all is not done before the Livery But in the other Case after the Livery nothing is to be done by the other And that is the reason of Buckleys Case That an attournment cannot make the Grant good or the form of a Deed. But where Livery is it passes by Livery only where no Estate is mentioned Also one Bowles and Smyths Case The Prebend of Bowe makes a Lease for 3 lives a die datus and makes Livery after the day Adjudged that the Lease and Livery were good as it is in Greenwood and Tilers Case in the Kings Bench Trin. 10 Iac. rot 1039. 18 Iac. Argued at Serjeants Inne One Will. Long and Alice his wife by Deeds makes a Lease to Fisher and Anne his Wife and Ioan his Daughter habendum at Michaelmas next after the date of the Indenture for lives successively The Lessor and his wife after the day past makes livery in person secundum formam chartae Longe dies and Alice receives the rent of Fisher Fisher and his wife die Alice makes a Feoffment to I. S. Greenwood the Lessee of Ioan brought an Eject firm against Tyler the lessee of I. S. And these points were resolved That the livery after the day made the lease good which is the point now single in question 2. Alice and Ioan cannot take jointly 3. That Ioan cannot take a greater Estate than for her own life and not pur autur vie For it was not the meaning of the Deed. But there they held that the Successor after the lives was the Remainder But afterwards in a Writ of Errror it was denied 4. That that acceptance of the rent tyes the Wife Which could not be unlesse the rent remain good For the assent ought to be manifest by Deed. So that the Deed is good to direct the estate and prove the Assent For otherwise the Feoffment so had avoided the lease But where the Person is disabled it is otherwise As if a Feoffment be made by a Feme Covert and livery made

arrear that the Remainder shall be to a Stranger that Remainder is not good Hutton said that in my opinion my Brother Atthow spoke well and so it was affirmed Bateman against Ford. AN action of the Case was brought against Ford who had called the Plaintiff Thief and that he had stollen from him a yard of Velvet and a yard of Damask The Defendant said that he said that the Plaintiff had taken and bribed from him as much mony as he had for a yard of Velvet and Damask and justifies Hitcham said that the Iustification is not good For the words that he justifies do not amount to so much as to affirm a Felony in the Plaintiff where the Plaintiff counts that the Defendant slandered him of a Felony Hutton said What difference is there when you say that I have bribed your Horse and when you say that I have robbed you of your Horse Henden one may take Goods and yet it is not felony Termino Pasc Anno 4. Car. Regis Com. Banc. Norris against Isham IN an Eject firm by Norris against Isham These things happened in Evidence to the Iury. First it was cited by Richardson and Hutton to be Hurtltons Case That an Eject firm cannot be of a Mannor Because that there cannot be an Ejectment of the Services But if they do express further a quantity of acres it is sufficient It was said by Crook Iustice and not denyed That if a Lease is made of 5 acres to try a Title in an ●…eject firm And of the 3 acres he will make a lease But in the other a he will not If the livery be in the 3 acres the other 2 does not pass Part of the Evidence was That the Countess of Salisbury being seised of the Lands in Question makes a Lease of them by words of Demise Bargain and Sale to Iudge Crook for a Month to begin the 29 September habendum a datu and it was deliveted the 3 of September And the same day he bargains and sells the Reversion Davenport Because that no Entry appears by the Lessees by vertue of the Demise he submitted to the Court If there was any such Reversion in the Grantor he bring in possession And this difference was a greed That if one demises Lands for years and Grants the Reversion before Entry of the Lessée The Grant is void As it is in Saffins Case Cook 5. 12. 46. But if a man bargain and sell for years and grants the Reversion before Entry of the Lessee it is good For the Statute transfers the Possession to the use As if a man bargain and sells in fee or for life and the Deed is inrolled The Bargainee is in possession of the Frank-tenement And so it is of a Lease for years which is a Chattell And by Crook In the Court of Wards that very point was resolved Davenport Also there are words of Demise and Bargain and Sale before which the Lessee had his Election to take by which he would As Sir Rowland Heyards Case is But by Hutton and it was not denyed He should be in by the Bargain and Sale before Election For that is more for his advantage Further the Evidence was That George Earl of Salisbury made a Lease of those Lands which were a Mannor And makes a Conveyance from himself for life with divers Remainders and then to the use of the Daughter or Daughters of the said George And the heirs males of thrir bodies the remainder to the heirs of the body of the said George c. and had 3 Daughters to whom the Remainder The first dyed without Issue the 2 d. dyed having Issue male the 3 d. bargains sells all her half part and pur part to Edw. Earl of Salisbury Who now being seised of a third part of the Estate of Inheritance and of the other two parts for his life and the lives of the 3 Daughters suffers a common recovery by the name of the moyety of the Mannor And the doubt was what passed Richardson By that there is not passed but the moyety of the third part Hutton Crook and Yeiverton were on the contrary opinion and said that by that All the third part passed also Yelverton If a man be seised of the mannor of Dale and buys half for life of another in fee and makes a Feoffment of the half of the Mannor The moyety which he had in Fee shall pass And there shall be a forfeiture for no part Which was agreed by the Court. If a man be seised of the third part and grants the moyety perhaps the moyety of the third part only passes But he is seised of all Richardson There are several Estates and moyety goes to that Estate which he had in the Mannor For when I grant more than I can grant that which passes passes Crook I had the third part of a Mannor and grant the moyety of the Mannor all my third part passes But in the Bargain and Sale the words were part et pur part Which as it was passed all And also the Covenant to the Lessor The Recovery was of the half part pur part And by Hutton Crook Yelverton All was intended to be recovered And then the word Moyety carries that tresbien Richardson That Indentures of Covenant much mends the Case Another Question upon the Evidence was Whether when a Bargain and sale is made of Lands And the Bargainee before inrollment makes a Lease for years and afterwards it is enrolled If the Lease now be good Richardson and Yelverton It shall be that although it be after acknowledgement and before inrollment yet it is naught And by Yelverton and Crook it was so adjudged in Bellingham and Hortons Case That if one sells in fee and before inrollment the Bargainee bargains and sells to another And afterwards comes an Inrollment That second Bargain and sale is void And an other Question was Pasc 4. Car. Com. Banc. If one makes a Lease for years by Indenture of Lands which he had not If the Iury be estopped to find that no Lease And by Richardson If the finding that no Lease be subject to an attaint But they should find the special matter And then the Iudges would judge that a good Lease And Sergeant Barkley cited Rawlins's Case Coo. 4. 43. to that purpose Crook and Hutton against him And Crook said That it was adjudged in London in Samms case That that is not an Estoppel to the Iury. Which was affirmed by Hutton And that they may find the special matter And then the Iudges ought to find that it is not a good Lease And Hutton said That there is a difference between a special Verdict and pleading in that case For in speciall pleading and Verdict is confost by all parties That he had not any thing in the Lease And then the Iudges gave Iudgment accordingly The King against Clough IN the case of a Quare impedit by the King against Clough before Richardson shewed how the Quare