house and then by his Will deviseth his houses called the Swan The rooms of the Lyon which A. occupied with the Swan shall pass by the Devise although of right those rooms do belong to the Lyon-house Pasc 36 Eliz. Ewer and Heydon's Case A man hath a house and divers lands in W. and also a house and lands in D. And by his Will he deviseth his house and all his lands in W. D. there the house which is in D. doth not pass for his intent and meaning plainly appears that his house in D. doth not pass But if he had devised all his lands in W. and had not spoken of the house the house had passed A Case was in the Common-Pleas betwixt Hyam and Baker The Devisor had two Farms and occupied parcel of one of the Farms with the other Farm and devised the Farm which he had in his possession The part of the other Farm which he occupied with it did pass with the Farm devised Dodderidge Justice The Devise is in the Case at Bar All his Farm called Locks to his eldest Son and all his Farm called Brocks to his younger Son And the Land in question was purchased long after that the Devisor purchased Brocks but that Land newly purchased was not expresly named in the Will and therefore it shall discend to the heir viz. the eldest Son Land is not parcel of a house and in strictness of Law cannot appertain to a house Yet Land is appertaining to the Office of the Fleet and the Rolls but that is to the Office which is in another nature then the Land is For the Land newly purchased the Jury did not find the same to be usually occupied with Brocks it shall not pass with Brocks although it be occupied together with Brocks I do occupie several Farms together and then I devise one of the Farms called D. and all the lands to the same belonging the other Farms shall not pass with it although they be occupied all together Haughton Justice What time will make lands to belong unto a house All the profits of the lands used with the house for a small time will serve the turn Ley Chief Justice There are two manner of belongings One belonging in course of Right and another belonging in case of Occupation To the first belonging there ought to be Prescription viz. time out of mind But in our Case Belonging doth borrow some sense from occupying for a year or a time And then another year to occupie it will not make it belonging in the later sense In strictness of Law Land cannot be said to belong to a house or land but in vulgar reputation it may be said belonging And in such case in case of grant the Land will not pass as appertaining to Land C. 4. part Terringham's Case But in our Case it is in case of a Will Usually occupied is not to be meant time out of mind Here other lands were belonging to Brocks and so the words of the Will are satisfied But it might have been a Question if there had been no other lands belonging to it Dodderidge Justice If the Devisor had turned all the profits thereof to Brocks then it had passed by the Will Ley Chief Justice This occupying of it promiscuously doth make it belong to neither At another day Ley Chief Justice said Here is nothing which makes it appear to us that this Land doth belong to Brocks For the Jury find not that it was occupied either with Brocks or Locks and so this Land belongs to neither of them Dodderidge There is not any Question in the Case It is not found that it doth belong And then we must not judge it belonging The ground of this question ariseth out of the matter of fact and it ought to be found at the least that it is appertaining in Reputation Haughton The Jury find that Knight was seised of Brocks and of lands belonging to it And that he was seised of Locks and of lands belonging to that And lastly they find that he was seised of this Land in question but they do not find that it was any wayes belonging to Brocks or Locks It was adjudged for the Plaintiff and that the Land did not pass by the Devise but that it did discend to the heir Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 448. SELY against FLAYLE and FARTHING IN an Ejection Firme the Verdict was found for the Defendant Three of the Jurors had Sweet-meats in their pockets and those three were for the Plaintiffe untill they were searched and the Sweet-meats found with them and then they did agree with the other nine and gave their Verdict for the Defendant Haughton Justice It doth not appear that these Sweet-meats were provided for them by the Plaintiffe or Defendant and it doth not appear that the said three Jurors did eat of the Sweet-meats before the Verdict given And so I conceive there is not any cause to make void the Verdict given but the said three Jurors are fineable Dodderidge Justice Whether they eat or not they are fineable for the having of the Sweet-meats with them for it is a very great misdemeanour And now we cannot tell which of the Jurors the three were and because it was not moved before the Jurors departed from the Bar it is now too late to examine the Jurors for we do not know for which three to send for The nine drew the three which had the Sweet-meats to their opinions and therefore there is no cause to stay Judgment But if the three Jurors had drawn the nine other to them then there had been sufficient cause to have stayed the Judgment but as this case is there is no cause And therefore per Curiam Judgment was given for the Defendant according to the Verdict Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench 449. NOte It was vouched by George Crook and so was also the opinion of the whole Court That by way of Agreement Tythes may pass for years without Deed but not by way of Lease without a Deed. But a Lease for one year may be of Tythes without Deed. Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 450. THe Plaintiffe recovered in Debt in the Kings Bench and a Capias ad Satisfaciendum was awarded and immediately upon the awarding of the Capias the Defendant dyed Quaere if in such case an Action of Debt lieth against the special Bail The Executors having nothing a Scire-facias doth not lie against the Bail And in the Common-Pleas in that case the Court was divided two Judges being against the other two Judges Ideo quare Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 451. LEONARD's Case IN a Scire facias to have Execution of a Recognizance the Case was That a special Supplicavit for the Peace was directed out of the Chancery to A. and B. Justices of the Peace and to the Sheriffe of the County of c. to take a Recognizance of L. M. N. for the Peace and good behaviour and the
Condition that if the Rent be behinde the Feoffor might enter and retain quousque there the estate shall be determined pro tempore and afterwards revived again Windham There the Feoffor shall have the land as a distress and the Free-hold is not out of the Feoffee Fenner The Book proves the contrary for the Feoffor had an Action of Debt for the Rent Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 121 IN a Formedon the Tenant pleaded a Fine with proclamations The Plaintiff replyed No such Record It was moved that the Record of the Fine which remained with the Chyrographer did warrant the Plea and the Record which did remain with the Custos Brevium did not warrant the Plea and both the Records were shewed in Court and to which the Court should hold was the question Shuttleworth To that which was shewed by the Custos Brevium and he cited the Case of Fish and Brocket where the Proclamations were reversed because that it appeared by the Record which was shewed by the Custos Brevium that the third proclamation was alledged to be made the seventh day of June which seventh day of June was the Sunday and yet hee said It appeared by the Record certified by the Chyrographer that it was well done and yet the Judgment reversed Rodes Justice There is no such matter in the same case And 26. El. by all the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer in such case the Record which remains with the Custos Brevium shall be amended and made according as it is in the Record of the Office of Chyrographer Windham agreed And afterwards the said President was shewed in which all the matter and order of proceedings was shewed and contained and all the names of the Justices who made the Order And by the command of the Justices it was appointed that the said President should be written out and should remain in perpetuam rei memoriam And the reason of the said Order is there given because the Note which remains with the Chyrographer is principale Recordum Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 122. AN Infant was made Executor and Administration was committed unto another durante minore aetate of the Executor and that Administrator brought an Action of Debt for money due to the Testator and recovered and had the Defendant in Execution and now the Executour is come of full age Fenner moved that the Defendant might be discharged out of Execution because the Authority of the Administrator is now determined and he cannot acknowledge satisfaction nor make Acquittances c. Windham Justice Although the Authority of the Plaintiffe bee determined yet the Recovery and the Judgement do remaine in force But perhaps you may have an Audita querela But I conceive That such an Administrator cannot have an Action for he is rather as a Bayliff to the Infant Executor then an Administrator Rodes agreed with him and he said I have seen such a Case before this time viz. Where one was bound to such a one to pay a certaine sum of money to him his Heirs Executors or Assignes And the Obligee made an Infant his Executor and administration was committed during his minority and the Obligor paid the money to that Administrator And it was a doubt whether the same was sufficient and should excuse him or not And whether he ought not to have tendred the money to them both Fenner That is a stronger Case then our Case One who is Executor of his own wrong may pay Legacies and receive Debts but he cannot bring an Action Windham Doth it appear by the Record when the Infant was made Executor and that Administration was committed as before Fenner No truely Windham Then you may have an Audita querela upon it Fenner said So we will Note Hil. 33. Eliz. in the Exchequer Miller and Gores Case An Infant pleaded in a Scire facias upon an Assignement of Bonds to the Queen That Saint-Johns and Eley were Administrators during his minority And it was holden by the Court to be no plea. But he ruled to answer as Executor Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 123 SUggestion was made that a Coroner had not sufficient Lands within the Hundred for which a Writ issued forth to choose another and one was chosen It was moved by Serjeant Snag If theâ—eby the first Coroner did cease to be Coroner presently untill he be discharged by Writ Rodes and Windham Justices He ceases presently for otherwise there should be two Officers of one Coronership which cannot be Also the Writ is Quod loco I. S. eligi facias c. unum Coronatorem and he cannot be in place of the first if the first do not cease to be Coroner So if any be made Commissioners and afterwards others are made Commissioners in the same cause the first Commission is determined Snagg said That in the Chancery they are of the same Opinion but Fitz. Nat. Brevium 163. N. is That hee ought to be discharged by Writ Mich. 28 29 Eliz in the Common Pleas. 124 IN an Action of Debt brought against Lessee for years for rent he pleaded That the Plaintiff had granted to him the reversion in Fee which was found against him Walmesley Serjeant moved Whether by that Plea he had forfeited his terme or not Rodes and Windham Justices He shall not forfeit his Term and Rodes cited 33. E. 3. Judgement 255. Where in a Writ of Waste the Tenant claimed Fee and it was found against him that he had but an Estate for life and yet it was no Forfeiture Fenner and Windham It is a strong Case for there the Land it selfe is in demand but not so in our Case Rodes The Tenant shall not forfeit his Estate in any Action by claiming of the Fee-Simple but in a Quid juris clamat Walmesley and Fennèr Where he claimes in Fee generally and it is found against him there perhaps hee shall forfeit his Estate but where he shewes a speciall conveyance which rests doubtfull in Law it is no reason that his Estate thereby should bee forfeited although it be found against him Rodes 6. R. 2. Quid juris clamat 20. The Tenant claimed by speciall conveyance and yet it was a forfeiture But in the principall Case at Bar he and Windham did agree cleerly That it was no forfeiture Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 125 AN Action upon the Case was brought because that the Defendant had spoken these words viz. That the Plaintiffe hath said many a Masse to J. S. c. Anderson Chief Justice Primâ facie did seem to incline That no Action would lie for the words although that a Penalty is given by the Statute against such Masse-Mongers For he said That no Action lieth for saying That one hath transgressed against a Penall Law Periam Justice contrary Anderson If I say to one That he is a disobedient Subject no Action lieth for the words Windham Justice That is by reason of the generality Puckering
haeredes de corpore and we are not to devise a new form in such case but it is sufficient to shew the speciall matter to the Court. Also the words of the Writ are true for they are Heirs to Sir Roger Lewknor and the count is sufficient pursuant and agreeing to their Writ for they are Heirs although they are not speciall Heirs of the body and so the Court was of opinion that the Writ was good notwithstanding that Exception And Anderson and Periam Justices said That the case is not to be compared to the case in F. Nat. Br. 57. c. for there he cannot shew by whose Demise the Tenant holdeth if he doth not shew the speciall conveyance viz. that the land was given to the Husband and Wife and the Heirs of the body of the Wife Nor is it like unto the case of 26. H. â— 6. for the same cause for alwayes the demise of the Tenant ought to be especially shewed and certainly which it cannot be in these two cases but by the disclosing of the Title also to the Reversion Another Exception was taken because that the Writ doth suppose quod tenuerunt which as they conceived is to be meant that tenuerunt joyntly whereas in truth they were Tenants in common Walmesley contrary because there is not any other form of Writ for there is not any Writ which doth contain two Tenuerunts And the words of the Writ are true quod tenuerunt although tenuerunt in Common But although they were not true yet because there is no other form of Writ it is good enough As Littleton If a lease be made for half a year and the Lessee doth waste yet the Writ shall suppose quod tenet ad terminum annorum and the count shall be speciall 40. Ed. 3. 41. E. 3. 18. If the Lessee doth commit waste and granteth over his term the Writ shall be brought against the Grantor and shall suppose quod tenet and yet in truth he doth not hold the Land 44. Ed. 3. and Fitz. If one make divers leases of divers lands and the Lessee doth waste in them all the Lessor shall have one Writ of waste supposing quod tenet and the Writ shall not contain two Tenets And such was also the opinion of the Court The third Exception was because that the Writ was brought by the two coparceners and the Heir of the third coparcener without naming of the Tenant by the Courtesie And thereupon Snagg cited the Case of 4. Ed. 3. That where a Lease is made for life the Remainder for life and the tenant for life doth waste he in the Reversion cannot have an Action of waste during the life of him in the Remainder So in this case the Heir of the third coparcener cannot have waste because the mean estate for life is in the Tenant by the courtesie And to prove that the Tenant by the courtesie ought to joyn he cited 3. E. 3. which he had seen in the Book it self at large where the Reversion of a tenant in Dower was granted to the Husband and to the Heirs of the Husband and the tenant in Dower did waste and they did joyn in an Action of waste and not good And so is 17. E. 3. 37. F. N. B. 59. f. and 22. H. 6. 25. a. Walmesley contrary for here in our case there is nothing to be recovered by the tenant by the courtesie for he cannot recover damages because the disinheresin is not to him and the term is expired and therefore no place wasted is to be recovered and therefore it is not like unto the Books which have been cited for in all those the tenant was in possession and the place wasted was to be recovered which ought to go to both according to their estates in reversion But it is not so here for in as much as the term is expired the land is in the tenant by the courtesie and so he hath no cause to complain And such also was the opinion of the whole Court viz. that because the term was ended that the Writ was good notwithstanding the said Exception Then concerning the principall matter in Law which was Whether the Writ were well brought against the second Lessee or whether it ought to have been brought against the first Lessee It was argued by Shuttleworth that it ought to have been brought against the first Lessee for when he granted over his term excepting the trees the Exception was good Ergo c. For when the Land upon which the trees are growing is leased out to another the trees passe with the Lease as well as the Land and the property of them is in the Lessee during the term and therefore when he grants his term hee may well except the trees as well as the first Lessor might have done And that is proved by the Statute of Marlebridge Cap. 23. for before that Statute the Lessee was not punishable for cutting downe the trees and that Statute doth not alter the properties of the trees but onely that the Lessee shall render damages if he cut them down c. Also the words of the Writ of Wast proveth the same which are viz. in terris domibus c. sibi dimissis Also the Lessee might have cut them down for reparations c. and for fire-wood if there were not sufficient underwoods which he could not have done if the trees had been excepted And in 23. H 8. in Brooke It is holden that the excepting of the trees is the excepting of the Soile And so is 46. E. 3. 22. Where one made a Lease excepting the woods and afterwards the Lessee did cut them down and the Lessor brought an Action of Trespasse quare vi armis clausum fregit c. and it was good notwithstanding that Exception was taken to it And it is holden in 12. E. 4. 8. by Fairfax and Littieton That if the Lessee cut the trees that the Lessor cannot carry them away but he is put to his Action of Waste Fenner and Walmesley Serjeants contrary and they conceived that the Lessee hath but a speciall property in the trees viz. for fire-boot plough-boot house-boot c. And if he passe over the Lands unto another that he cannot reserve unto himselfe that speciall property in the trees no more then he who hath common appendant can grant the principall excepting and reserving the Common or grant the Land excepting the foldage The grand property of the trees doth remain in the Lessor and it is proved by 10. H. 7. 30. and 27. H. 8 13. c. If Tenant for life and he in the reversion joyne in a Lease and the Lessee doth wast they shall joyne in an Action of Wast and Tenant for life shall recover the Free-hold and the first Lessor the damages which proves that the property of the trees is in him As to that that he was dispunishable at the common law that was the folly of the Lessor and although it was so at the
tail because the first words were indefinite and the later words were certain by which his intent did appeare to pass but an estate in tail He also cited 4. E. 4. 29. B. The words of an Obligation were Noverint universi per praesentes me I. S. teneri c. W. B. in ten pound solvendum eidem I. And it was holden by the whole Court that the same did not make the Bond to be void because it appeared by the promises of the Bond to whom the mony was in Law to be paid and the intent so appearing the Plaintiff might declare of a solvendum to himself and the word I should be surplusage And 22. E. 4. 9. A. B. The Abbot of Selbyes case Where the Abbot of Selby did grant annualem pensionem to B. ad rogatum I. E. illam scilicet quam I. E. habuit ad terminum vitae suae solvendum quousque sibi c. de beneficio provisum fuerit and it was holden by the whole Court in a Writ of annuity brought that sibi did referre to B. the grantee and not to I. E. And Cook Chief Justice said that the original Contract doth leade the measure in this Case and to that purpose he cited Kiddwellies case in the Commentaries where a Lease was made rendring Rent at Mich. at D. and if it were behind by a month after demand that the Lessor might reenter the demand must be at the first place which is in that case alledged to be certain viz. at D. The case was adjorned Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 285 Sir Henry Lea and Henry Leas Case SIR Henry Lea was committed to the Fleet for the disobeying of a Decree made in the Court of Requests and having Suits depending in the Court of Common Pleas he prayed a Writ of habâ—as Corpus which was granted and upon the return of the Writ the cause of his Commitment appeared to be for a contempt for not performing of the said Decree and no other cause appeared in the return and the Court were of opinion that they could not deliver him because that no cause appeared in the return to warrant their delivery of him And the Court said that if the return be false yet they cannot deliver the party But the party may have his Action of false Imprisonment if the Imprisonment be not Lawfull But then it was shewed by Mountague Serjeant to the Court that the Decree was made in the Court of Requests upon a Bill containing this matter viz. That Henry Lea pretending Title unto Lands which Sir Henry Lea held by descent from his Unkle Sir Henry Lea shewed his Title to the Kings Majestie and thereupon the King upon the Petition of Henry Lea sends for Sir Henry Lea and had speech with him that he would give unto the said Henry Lea some recompence for his Title which he pretended to have to the said Lands And that thereupon the said Sir Henry Lea at the instance of the Kings Majestie did promise the King that if the said Henry Lea would not molest him for any of the said Lands which he had by descent from his said Unkle that then he the said Sir Henry Lea would give unto the said Henry Lea two hundred pound per Annum And for not performance of this promise made to the King Henry Lea Exhibited his Bill in the Court of Requests upon which the said Decree was grounded The said Sir Henry Lea answered that he did not know of any such promise he made to the Kings Majestie and pleaded to the Jurisdiction of the Court But upon a Certificate made by the Kings Majestie that he made such a promise unto him the Court of Requests made the said Decree which Certificate was mentioned in the body of the said Decree And Mountegue prayed that because it appeared that the said Henry Lea had remedy by way of Action upon the case at the common Law upon the said promise That this Court would grant a Prohibition in this case unto the Court of Requests and deliver the party from his Imprisonment But the Court said that they would advise of the Case because they never had heard of the like case But Cook Chief Justice advised Sir Henry Lea to agree the matter betwixt Him and his Kinsman Henry Lea For he said that he had learned a Rule in his youth which was this viz. Cum pare luctare dubium cum Principe stultum est Cum puero poena cum Muliere pudor Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 286 GARVEN and PYM's Case GArven libelled against Pym for a Seat in the Church before the Bishop of Exeter in the spiritual Court there which by Appeal was removed into the Court of Arches And the Defendant did surmise in the Court of Common Pleas That he and his Ancestors have used time out of mind c. to have an Isle with a seat in the said Church for himself and his family and thereupon prayed a Prohibition But because it did appear upon Examination of the party himself That the Parish have alwayes used to repair the said Isle and seat the Court would not grant a Prohibition in this case for that proves that his Ancestors were not the Founders of the said Isle and Seat Also another man hath alwayes used to sit with him in the same seat which also proves that it doth not belong to him alone Cook chief Justice said That if a Gentleman with the assent of the Ordinary hath built an Isle juxta Ecclesiam for to set convenient Seats for him and his family and hath alwayes repaired the same at his own costs and charges In such case if the Ordinary place another man with the Founder without his consent in the same Seat that he may have his Action upon the Case against the Ordinary And if he be impleaded in the spirituall Court for such Seat that a Prohibition will lie And he said That the Heydons in Norfolk have built such an Isle next to the Church and placed convenient Seats there for them and their family But he said That if a man with the assent of the Ordinary set up a Seat in navi Ecclesiae for himselfe and another man doth pull up the same or defaceth it Trespas vi armis will not lie against him because the Freehold is in the Parson and he hath no remedy for the same but to sue the party in the Ecclesiastical Court And 9. E. 4. 14. the Dame Wiches Case was vouched where she brought an Action of Trespasse against the Parson for taking away her Husbands Coat-armour which was fixed to the Church at his Funerall and it was adjudged that the Action would lie and so will an Action in such case brought by the heir And Cook said That the Ordinary hath the onely disposing of Seats in the Body of the Church with which agrees the opinion of Hassey in 8. H. 7. And if the Ordinary long time past hath granted to a
man and his heirs such Seat and he and his heirs have used to repair the said Seat If another will libell against him in the Spirituall Court for the same Seat he shall have a Prohibition And he said That he had seen a Judgement in 6. E. 6. That if Executors lay a Grave Stone upon the Testator in the Church or set up his Coat-armour in the Church If the Parson or Vicar doth remove them or carry them away that they or the heir may have their Action upon the Case against the Parson or Vicar Note in the principall no Prohibition for the reasons before Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 287 The Archbishop of York Sedgwick's Case THe Archbishop of York and Doctor Ingram brought and exhibited a Bill in the Exchequer at York upon an Obligation of seven hundred pound and declared in their Bill in the nature of an Action of Debt brought at the common Law which matter being shewed unto the Court of Common Pleas by Sedgwick the Defendant there A Prohibition was awarded to the Archbishop and to the said Court at York And Cook chief Justice gave the reasons wherefore the Court granted the Prohibition 1. He said because the matter was meerly determinable at the common Law and therefore ought to be proceeded in according to the course of the common Law 2. Although the King hath granted to the Lord President and the Councel of York to hold pleas of all personall Actions yet he said they cannot alter the form of the proceedings For as 6. H. 7. 5. is The King by his Grant cannot make that inquirable in a Leet which was not inquirable there by the Law nor a Leet to be of other nature then it was at the common Law And in 11. H. 4. it is holden That the Pope nor any other person can change the common Law without a Parliament And Cook vouched a Record in 8. H. 4. That the King granted to both the Universities that they should hold plea of all Causes arising within the Universities according to the course of the Civil Law and all the Judges of England were then of opinion That that grant was not good because the King could not by his Grant alter the Law of the Land with which case agrees 37. H. 6. 26. 2. E. 4. 16. and 7. H. 7. But at this day by a speciall Act of Parliament made 13. Eliz. not printed The Universities have now power to proceed and judge according to the Civil Law 3. He said That the Oath of Judges is viz. You shall do and procure the profit of the King and his Crown in all things wherein you may reasonably effect and do the same And he said That upon every Judgement upon debt of forty pound the King was to have ten shillings paid to the Hamper and if the debt were more then more But he said by this manner of proceeding by English Bill the King should lose his Fine 4. He said That if it was against the Statute of Magna Charta viz. Nec super eum ibimus nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae And the Law of the Land is That matters of fact shall be tried by verdict of twelve men but by their proceedings by English Bill the partie should be examined upon his oath And it is a Rule in Law That Nemo tenetur seipsum prodere And also he said That upon their Judgement there no Writ of Error lyeth so as the Subject should by such means be deprived of his Birth-right 5. It was said by all the Justices with which the Justices of the King's Bench did agree That such proceedings were illegall And the Lord Chancellor of England would have cast such a Bill out of the Court of Chancery And they advised the Court of York so to do and a Prohibition was awarded accordingly Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 288 Doctor HUTCHINSON's Case DOctor Hutchinson libelled in the Spirituall Court against one of his Parishioners for Tithes The Defendant there shewed that the Doctor came to the Parsonage by Symony and Corruption And upon suggestion thereof made in the Common Pleas prayed a Prohibition Doctor Hutchinson alledged that he had his pardon and pleaded the same in the Spirituall Court And notwithstanding that the Court granted a Prohibition because the Pardon doth not make the Church to be plena but maketh the offence onely dispunishable But in such case If the King doth present his presentee shall have the Tithes Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 289 NOte by Cook Chief Justice that these words viz. Thou wouldest have taken my purse from me on the high way are not actionable But Thou hast taken my money and I will carry thee before a Justice lay felony to thy charge are actionable Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 290 HATCH and CAPEL's Case IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit brought against the Defendant The Plaintiffe declared How that one Hallingworth who was the Defendants Husband was indebted unto the Plaintiffe eight pound ten shillings for beer and that he died and that after his death the Plaintiff demanded the said mony of the Defendant his wife and she in consideration that he would serve her withbeer promised that she would pay unto the said Plaintiff eight pound ten shillings and for the rest of the beer at such a day certain And the Plaintiffe did averr That he did sell and deliver to her Beer and gave her day for the payment of the other money as also for the Beer delivered unto her and that at the day she did not pay the Money Cook and all the other Justices agreed That the Action would well lie and that it was a good Assumpsit and a good consideration for they said That the forbearance of the money is a good consideration of it selfe and they said That in every Assumpsit he who makes the promise ought to have benefit thereby and the other is to sustain some losse And judgement was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 291 NORTON and LYSTERS Case IN the Case of a Prohibition the Case was this Queen Elizabeth was seised of the Manor of Nammington which did extend into four Parishes viz. Stangrave and three other And the Plaintiff shewed That he was seised of three Closes in Stangrave and prescribed That the said Queen and all those whose Estate he hath in the said Closes had a Modus decimandi for the said three Closes and for all the Demeanes of the said Manor in Stangrave And whether the Venire facias should be de parochia de Stangrave or of the Manor was the question And it was resolved by the whole Court That the Visne should be of the Parish of Stangrave and not of the Manor And the Difference was taken when one claimes any thing which goes unto the whole Manor and when only to
for years rendring Rent by an Enfant and afterwards at his full age he accepts the Rent of the particular Tenant it is a good comfirmation of the estate of him in the remainder Litt. 547. If he at full age confirm it is good which could not be if the Lease were void and yet in that Case it doth not appear that there was any Rent reserved The Enfant being a Copyholder makes no difference in the Case And in Murrels Case C. 4. part It is said That if a Copyholder make a Lease not warrantable by the Custome it is a forfeiture which proves it is a good Lease otherwise it could not be a forfeiture Hill 37 Eliz. in the Kings Bench Rot. 99. East and Hardings Case A Copyholder makes a Lease for three years by word to begin at Michaelmas next ensuing it is a forfeiture of the Copyhold and a good lease betwixt the parties Hill 18 Jacobi Haddon and Arrowsmiths Case One licensed his Copyholder for life to make a Lease for 20. if he should so long live and he made a lease for 20 years and left out the words if he should so long live yet because he was a Copyholder for life and so the lease did determine by his death and so he did no more then by Law he might do it was adjudged a good Lease and no forfeiture otherwise if he had been a Copyholder in Fee All Conditions in Fact shall bind an Enfant but not Conditions in Law C. 8. part 44. Whittinghams Case An Enfant Tenant for life or years makes a Feoffment in Fee it is no forfeture For if the Lessor entreth the Enfant may enter upon him again yet it is a good Feoffment but he shall avoid it by Enfancy but if it be by matter of Record then it is otherwise For if an Enfant be Lessee for life and levieth a Fine it is a forfeiture and in that case if the Lessor enter for the forfeiture the Enfant shall not enter again The same Law if an Enfant committeth Waste which is against a Statute it is a forfeiture and if the Lessor recovereth the place wasted the Enfant shall not enter again 9 H. 7 24. A woman an Enfant who hath right to enter into lands taketh a husband and a discent is cast yet she shall avoid the discent after the death of her husband The Court said That if in the Case at Barr the Enfant had been Tenant in Fee at the Common Law and made a lease without Deed and had accepted the Rent at his full age that the same had been good for that there he had a recompence but being a Copyholder it is a question Jones Justice It was adjudged in the Common Pleas in Peters Case That if a Copyholder without licence maketh a Lease not warranted by the Custome That such Lessee should maintain an Ejectione firme The Councel against the Enfant in the Case at Barr said That the Enfant made the Lease as Tenant by the Common-Law for that he made it by Conveyance of the Common-Law And so the Lease was voidable and not void and then the acceptance of the Rent had made the Lease to be good It was adjourned to another day Hill 2. Caroli Rot. 389 in the Kings Bench. 457. GEORGE BUSHER against MURRAY Earl TILLIBARN A Scire facias was brought dated 28 Junii retornable in Mich. Term 2 Car. Regis why Execution should not be awarded against the Defendant upon a Iudgment had against him in this Court The Defendant pleaded That King Charles 7 Octob. in the second year of his Reign did take him into his protection for a year and did grant unto him that during that time he should be free from all manner of Plaints but Dower Quare Impedit and Placit coram Justiciariis Itinerantibus It was said that this Protection was not warrantable by Law for three causes 1. Because it is after the purchase of the Scire facias and before the Retorn 10 H. 6. 3. 11 H. 4. 7. A Protection depending the Suit is not allowable although it make mention that the party is to go a voyage with the Kings Son 2. Because he doth not specifie any particular cause why the Protection was granted unto him All our books do express a cause viz. Quia moratur c. quia profecturus c. Register 22 23. there three Protections are Quia incarceratus 39 H. 6. 38 39 40. per Curiam The Protection ought to express a special cause otherwise it is not good Fitz. 28. a. b. the cause is expressed 1. R. 2. cap. 16. The particular cause ought to be in the Protection A Protection being general the party hath no remedy against him to traverse it or to procure it to be repealed 3. This Court is greater then a Iustice in Eyre and he is excepted in placitis itinerantibus That Court was of opinion that there was no colour for allowing of the Protection A Safe-conduct will only keep the party safe from harm but will not protect him from Actions Mich. 2 Caroli Intratur Pasch 18. Jur. Rot. 298. in the Common Pleas. 458. ROYDEN and MOULSTER's Case IN Trespass for entring into his Close called Dipson in Suffolk upon Not guilty pleaded the Jury gave a special verdict That the said Close was parcel of the Mannor of Movedon and demisable by Copy of Court-Roll and that the same was granted to G. Starling in Fee by Copy of Court-Roll who had issue two sons John and Henry And that 35 Eliz. George Starling did surrender the same to the use of his Will and thereby demised the same to John and the heirs males of his body with divers Remainders over and dyed seised And that the Surrender was presented according to the Custom and that John was admitted to have to him his heirs And that the said John had issue 3 sons Harry George and Nicholas And that the said John 43 Eliz. did surrender to the use of his Will and thereby devised the same to Katherine his wife and dyed and that the said Surrender 9 Martii 4t Eliz. was presented and the said Katherine was admitted Harry George and Nicholas dyed without issue They further found That the Custom of the Mannor is That the youngest brother is to have the Copyhold by discent And also That no Copyholder by the Custome could make any Estate in feodo and that the said Katherine took to her husband Francis Robinson who 1 Sept 17 Iacobi leased the same to Royden the Plaintiffe for one year who entred and was thereof possessed untill Moulster the Defendant by the commandment of c. did out him c. In which case the only Question was Whether a Copyhold be within the Statute of West 2. so as an estate thereof so limited should be a Fee tail or a Fee conditional And by the opinion of the Justices of the Common-Pleas it was adjudged That a Copyhold could not be entituled within the
releaseth A Will is made and A. is made Executor and no trust is declared in the Will and at his death the Testator declares That his Will is for the benefit of his children May not this intent be averred there is nothing more common Dodderidg Justice For the making of an Estate you cannot averre otherwise then the Will is but as to the disposition of the estate you may averre Jones Justice There are two Executors one commits wast or releaseth c. the other hath no remedy at the common Law for that breach of Trust The reason of Chenyes case C. 5. part is Whosoever will devise Lands ought to do it by writing and if it be without the writing it is out of the Will although his intent appeareth to be otherwise Before the Statute of 34. H. 8. cap. 26. The Marches of Wales held plea of all things for things were not then setled But the said Statute gave them power and authority to hear and determine such causes and matters as are or afterwards shall be assigned to them by the King as heretofore had been used and accustomed Now if it be assigned by the King yet if it be not a thing accustomed and used to be pleaded there it is not there pleadable So if it be within the Instructions made by the King yet if it be not used and accustomed it is not pleadable there but it ought to be within the Instructions and also accustomed and usuall Adultery Symony and Incontinency are within their Instructions and are accustomed The things being accustomed to be pleaded there have the strength of an Act of Parliament but by the Instructions they have no power to proceed in case of Legacy Then let us see if the same be included within the generall words things of Equity within the Instructions And then I will be tender in delivering of my opinion If a Legacy be pleadable there or not Whitlock Justice The Clergy desired that they might forbear to intermeddle with Legacies Five Bishops one after the other were Presidents of the Marshes there and they draw into the Marches spirituall businesse but originally it was not so their power was larger then now it is for they had power in criminall causes but now they are restrained in that power There is a common Law Ecclesiasticall as well as of our common Law Jus Commune Ecclesiasticum as well as Jus Commune Laâ—cum The whole Court was of opinion That the Kings Atturney in the Marches being out we ought to have priviledge there In the Chancery there is a Latine Court for the Officers of the Court and the Clarks of the Court for to sue in But in the principal Case a Prohibition was not granted because there was much matter of Equity concerning the Legacy It was adjourned Pasch 3. Caroli in the Kings Bench. 497 HARLEY and REYNOLD's Case HArvey brought an Action of Debt upon an Escape against Reynolds Hill 1. Car. Reynolds pleaded That before the day of Escape scil the twentieth day of January 1. Car. That the Prisoner brake Prison and escaped and that he afterwards viz. before the bringing of this Action viz. 8. die Maii 2. Car. took the Prisoner again upon fresh Suit Anderws for the Plaintiff Reynolds is bound to the last day viz. 8. Maii and not the day before the bringing of the Action for the Bill bears date Hill 1. Car. and the terme is but one day in Law c. 4 part 71. and so no certain day is set for the Jury to find The day which Reynolds sets that he retook the Prisoner is the eighth day of May and he shall be bound by that Com. 24. a. 33. H. 6. 44. Where a day is uncertain a day ought to be set down for a day is material for to draw things in issue C. 4. part 70. the Plaintiff shewed That 7. Maii 30. Eliz. by Deed indented and inrolled in the Common Pleas Ter. Pasc in the said thirtieth year within six monthes according to the Statute for the consideration of One hundred Pounds did bargain and sell But he further said That after the said seventh day of May in the said thirtieth year he levied a Fine of the Lands to the now Plaintiff after which Fine viz. 29. Aprilis in the said thirtieth year the said Deed indented was enrolled in the Common Pleas. Note That another day more certain was expressed therefore the mistaking of the day shall not hurt And there it was helped by Averment 8. H. 6. 10. Repleader 7. In Waste the Defendant said That such a day before the Writ brought the Plaintiff entred upon him before which entry no Waste was done c. Strange It might be that he entred again wherefore the Court awarded that he should recover Co. Entries 178. In Dower the Tenant vouched a stranger in another County who appeared and there the Replication is viz. die Lunae c. so the day ought to be certain 19. H. 6. 15. In a Formedon If the Defendant plead a thing which by the Law he is not compelled to do and the Plaintiffe reply That she is a Feme sole and not Covert it is good but if he plead That such a day year and place there the Trial shall be at the particular place otherwise the Trial shall be at the place where the Writ bears date C. 4 part Palmers Case If the Sheriff sell a Term upon an Extent and puts a Date to it scil recites the Date and mistakes it the sale is not good for there is no such Lease Dyer 111. Then it is said 31. Octobris and there by the computation of time it was impossible and so here the time is impossible scil that 8. Maii 2. Car. should be before Hill 1. Caroli for the taking is after the Action brought and so naught to bar the Plaintiff it is the substanre of his bar upon which he relieth and so no matter of form 20. H. 6. there upon an Escape the Defendant said That such a day ante impetrationem billae in this Court scil such a day he retook him and the day after the scilicet is after the purchase of the Writ there the scilicet and the day expressed shall be void and it shall be taken according to the first day expressed if the Sheriff had retaken him before the filing of the Writ it had been a good plea in Bar otherwise not Calthrope contrary H. brought debt Hill 16. Jacobi against Cropley and 9. Junii 19. Jacobi Cropley was taken in Execution and delivered in Execution to R. by Habeas Corpus afterwards 1. Caroli Cropley escaped and H. brought debt against R. who pleaded a special Plea and shewed That 20. Januarii 1. Caroli Cropley brake prison and escaped and that he made fresh Suit untill he took him and that before the purchase of the Bill scil 8 Maii 2. Caroli he was retaken 16. E. 4. If he retake him before the Action brought it is a good bar so if the