of the moyety of her Companion if he should live so long which is but a possibility and not grantable and it was Resolved if one Joynt Tenant Covenant to stand seised of the moyety of his Companion it is a void Covenant although he survive Baxter Wâ—odyard and others Case 1016. Action upon deceit for deceiving the Plaintiff at Cards at the game of Mountsant by bringing in a Card called the Bum-card by which they devised that the Plaintiff should have but such games as they pleased by which Cosenage they deceived the Plaintiff of 16 l. Upon Noâ— guilty it was found for the Plaintiff and damages Assessed It was said the Action did not lye no more then for false Dâ—ce Buâ— Resolved the Action did lye and so it was said it was adjudged in one Richmons Case who recovered 100. damages upon such a Cosenage Waltâ—â—m and Mulgars Case 1017. The Case was the Owner of a Ship in the time of Queen Eliz. furnished it to Sea with Letters of Marque to take the goods of the Spaniards the Queens Enemies The Mariners and souldiers without his directions took a French Ship and the goods in it the Frenchmen being then in Peace with the Queen The point was if the Owner of the Ship should answer for those goods It was said by Popham Chief Justice That where the Master sends his Servant to do an unlawfull act there the Master shall answer for the Servant not where he sends his Servant to do a Lawfull act as here the taking of the goods of the Queens enemies there although he mistakes and takes the goods of the Queens Friends the Master shall not answer for the goods Quaere for that the Civil Law is that the Master shall answer in all publike Cases Closes Case 1018. The Case was a man who was presented by Simony Libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tythes The Question was whether the Simony should be tryed in the Spiritual Court or by the Common Law The point is not Resolved Note there Simony is defined to be Studiosa volupt as emendi vel vendendi Spiritualia vel Spiritualibus annexa and it is either Mentalis or Conventuâ—lis of both which the Spiritual Law may Judge but the Temporal Court only of Coventual Simony Talentiâ—e and Dentons Case 1019. The Bishop of Caâ—lisâ—e was seised in Fee of Tythes in the right of his Bishoprick and he made a Lease of them for three lives rendring the Ancient Rent the Tythes having been usually demised for the same Rent It was Resolved that the Lease was not good against his successor because he had not remedy for the Rent by distresse or action of Debt otherwise it had been only a Lease for years for there debt lyeth for the Rent The Lord Sâ—râ—tton and the Lord Mordanes Case 1020. The said Lords by Writ under the Great Seal were commanded upon their Faith and Allegiance that quacunque causa excusatione cessante to come to the Parliament and there to attend the Affairs of the Parliament which are ardua Regni they made divers frivolous excuses It was presumed that they had notice by some of the Gun-powder Traitors they being of their Kindred and Alliance to absent themselves and therefore to avoid the danger of their persons they absented themselves which if they knew of any Danger they ought to have made the same known to the King or his Council and upon Presumption also because they were very conversant with some of the Gunpowder Traitors and were often in their company and divers Papists in their houses and for this their contempt in not coming to the Parliament they were Sentenced and Fined in the Star-chamber and it was said in this case that for the disobeying of the Kings Commands under his Privy Seal several persons Lands and Estates by Commission have been seised into the Kâ—ngr Hands as the Earl of Cornwalls case 4 H. 3. The Bishop of Winchester case 3 E 3. and Sir Francis Eglesfields Case Stockwith and Norths Case 1021. It was Resolved by the Justices that the setting to Farm and sale of Offices was not malum prohibitum against the Statute of 4 H. 4. c. 5. but malum in sese and therefore because the Sheriff of Nottingham took mony for the Goaleâ—ship and the Bayliwick of the said County for one year he was fined in the Star-chamb Bâ—rd and Smiths Case 1022. S. was deprived by the High Commissioners for not conforming to the Canons of the Church it was general quia refactarius but no particular Canon mentioned The King by reason of the said Deprivation presented B who was induced but S. would not yield up the possession of the Parsonage-house A Writ of Vi laica issued out of the Chancery the Sheriff came to the House but could not apprehend the parties B. finding the House empty entâ—ed peaceably S. made an Affidavit in B. R. that he was ousted by the Sheriff with force and B. put into possession the Court of B. R. thereupon granted a Writ of Restitution he having an Appeal depending of the Deprivation In this case these points were Resolved 1. That the Writ de vi laica removenda is not returnable unless the Sheriff find the force 2. That the Kings Bench cannot award Restitution upon an Affidavit but there ought to be a Return of the Writ of vi laica c. in the Chancery and upon Affidavit made there that the Sheriff by vertue of the Writ hath removed one and put another in possession Restitution is awardable 3. Resolved That upon a Deprivation by the High Commissioners no appeal lieth because the Commission is ground upon the Prerogative of the King in the Ecclesiastical Government and therefore the Commissioners being immediate from the King and possessing his person no Appeal lieth 4. Resolved that the Canons of the Church made by the Convocation and the King without Parliament shall bind in all matters Ecclesiastical as well as an Act of Parliament In the principal case it was adjudged untill the Deprivation was repealed and adjudged it stood good and so B. had good Title to the Church Sydenham and Caps Case 1023. Tenant in Tail made a Lease for Life to a Feme Covert the Husband surrendred and then Tenant in Tail made a Lease for three Lives and died the wife after the death of her Husband entred It was adjudged that it was a good Lease for three Lives within the Statute of 32 H. 8. and the issue in Tail should not avoid it Crosâ— and Evetts Case 1024. The case was A. A Popish Recusant intending to disinherit the Plaintiff his Heir being a Protestant and to confer the Profits of the Lands upon such persons as were of his own Religion by Indenture conveyed the Lands to divers persons being Popish Recusants and their heirs upon hope trust and confidence and to the intent they should and would after the decease of him and Jaâ—e his wife yearly for ever give bestow and imploy all the
passed against the Plantiff who thereupon brought an Attaint and alledged that the Jurors to the Attaint had not the view of the Tenements in demand It was the opinion of the Court that after the Verdict given it cannot be alledged that the Jurours had not the View and Judgement was given without the View 177. In Dower the Defendant pleaded That the Husband of the demandant did not dye seised so that she could not have damages and because there were Woods upon the Lands she prayed a Writ of Estrepment Quaere if it doth Lie It was not Resolved Griffiths Case 178. Lessee for years suffered the Banks of the River of Trent which ran by the Lands let to be unrepaired so as the Water brake the Banks and drowned the Lands Adjudged That River was not so violent but that the Lessee by his Industry might repair the Banks and to make the water run in its Current and therefore adjudged it was Wast 179. Debt was against Executors upon an Obligation which was that if the Testator or his Executors at Mich. every year during the life of the Obligee delivered to the Obligee a Load of Dung that then the Defendants pleaded that they and their Testator had performed not shewing how which was found against them It was adjudged that for this false plea of the Executors Judgment should be against them de bonis propriis 180. One was named in the Original in Debt A. B. of C. in the County of Denbigh He appeared upon the Cepi Corpus and said that he was dwelling at D. at the time of the Action brought It was holden it was No plea that he was not dwelling at C. at the time of the Action brought unlesse he say Ne unque puis 181. Lands in London which by the Custom were deviseable came to the King by Escheat who granted them over to I. S. to hold by Knights service It was holden That notwithstanding the Statute the devise of the whole Land was good as it was by the Custome which is not taken away by the Statute 182. The King by his Letters Patents gave authority to his Surveyour to make Leases of certain Lands for life reserving the antient Rent He by Indenture between the King of the one part and I. S. of the other part Quod Dominus Rex dimisit c. and the Surveyour put his own Seal to the Deed. It was adjudged a void Lease for he ought not to have put his Seal to it but the Seal of the King and it cannot be the Lease of the King without his Seal 183. Grandfather Father and Sonne The Grandfather is Tenant for life the Remainder to the Son in tayl the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Grandfather The Grandfather suffers a Recovery and levyes a Fine with Proclamation to I. S. and after the Statute of 27 H. 8. is made and the Grandfather enfeoffeth the Sonne of the Land and dyeth Resolved that the entry of the Father upon the Son was lawful and he shall not be estopped by the warranty of the Grandfather for that the Warranty was gone by the reprisal of the estate and it was holden That although the 5. years were past in the life of the Grandfather yet when the Grandfather dyes the Father shall have other 5. years to make his Entry or clayme and that by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 184. Lessee for years rendering Rent upon Condition if the Rent be behind the Lessor to Reenter a Recovery in Debt is had against the Lessor and the Reversion and Rent extended by Elegit and given in Execution It is a good Execution and the Condition suspended so as if the Rent be behinde the Lessor cannot enter into the other moety 185. Two Tenants in Common of a Wood one Leaseth his part for years who cuts Trees and commits Wast he shall be punished for the moety of the Wast and the Lessor Recover the moety of the Land Wasted 186. The Dean and Canons of Windsor were Incorporated by Act of Parliament by the Name of the Dean and Canons of the Kings Free Chapel of his Castle of Windsor and they made a Lease by the Name of the Dean and Canons of the Kings Majesties Free Chapel of of the Castle of Windsor in the County of Berks. Resolved the Lease was good for although the King in the Act of Parliament call it his Castle yet when another speaks of it it is more apt to call it the Castle and therefore such variance shall not avoid the Lease Newdigates Case 187. Lessee for life and he in the Reversion joyned in a Lease for years Lessee for life dyed the Lessee committed Wast Resolved that during the life of the Lessee for life it was her Lease and the Confirmation of him in the Reversion But when the Tenant for life dyed then it was the Lease of him in the Reversion and that he should have an Action of Wast ex divisione propria 188. A man hath 3. daughters and Covenants with I. S. that he shall have the disposition in marriage of one of them the Election is in the Father of which of the daughters the other shall have the Mariage and he is not to deliver the daughter till request but upon request he is to deliver the daughter to I. S. otherwise he cannot have the effect of the Covenant 189. In a Writ of False Judgment the Sheriff returned Quod accept is secum 4. legalibus Militibus de Com. suo accessint c. Et recordum illud habeo c. coram c. sub sigillo meo sigillis praedict Militum It was adjudged to be no good return nor the Record removed but it ought to be sub sigillis ex his qui Recordo illo intersuerant and not of the 4. Knights 190. It was holden by the Justices that if upon the Exigent the Defendant hath a supersedeas but doth not deliver the same before the 5th County so as he is returned Outlawed yet because the Supersedeas was upon Record the Justices held the Outlawry to be void 191. A Writ of Wast was Quod secit vastationem in the Land and assigned the Wast in cutting down of Trees It was holden that was not good but if he had assigned the Wast in digging of Clay or such other things it had been otherwise for that is Wast in the Land 192. A man devised his Lands to his eldest Son in Tail the remainder to his youngest Son in Tail the remainder to his Daughter in Tail and if they all dyed without Issue that then the Land should be sold by his Executors the eldest entred and dyed without Issue the younger Son entred and suffered a Comon-Recovery and after dyed without Issue and the daughter also dyed without Issue Resolved That the Executors could not now sell the Land 193. Note If an Enfant levy a Fine and take back an Estate for life or in Tail by render he shall not avoid after the Fine by
Consideration of Blood Covenants with B. his brother to stand seised to the use of himself for life and after the use of B. in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of B. Provided that if A. by himself or by any other during his Natural life tender to B. a Gold ring to the intent to make void the said use that then the said uses should be void Afterwards A. 26 Eliz. is attainted of Treason and Outlawed for it and the King makes a Lease of the Lands to C. and D. for 40 years The attainder is confirmed by Act of Parliament and Enacted That the said Act shall not extend to make any Lease void made by the K. after the said Treason Also Enacted that all persons which claim an estate or interest in Land not enrolled since 18 Eliz. shall within 2. years after the Session of that Parliament shew and bring into the Court of Exchequer his or their Grant or assurance to be void The King reciting the Proviso and benefit thereof given him by Act of Parliament authorizeth E. to deliver the Gold ring to B. to the Intent to make void the uses he reads the Patent to B. and makes a tender to him which he refuseth to accept of E. certifies the same into the Exchequer This Case was very largely and Learnedly Argued by all the Serjeants and others at the â—arre which vide in the Book at Large afterwards it was argued by all the Barons in the Exchequer and there amongst other things it was Resolved by them That the Condition in the principal Case viz. the tender of the Gold ring was not annexed to â—he person of A. but that any one might make the tender and thaâ— it was given to the King by the Act of Parliament and when a Statute gives a Condition to the King the performance of it which is the substance and which is not inseparably annexed to the person is given to the King 2. That the Tender and Certificate of it was good without Office found 3. That presently by the tender the uses were determined and the Land vested in the King by force of the Act of Parliament The Earl of Northumberlands Case 434. A. 15 June 22 Eliz. bargained and sold the Mannor of D. to the Earl of Northumberland and his Heirs who because the Land was holden in Capite 3. Sept. the same year purchased a License of Alienation in Octob. the same year a Fine was Levyed for further assurance and in Novemb. the same year the Deed was enrolled The Queen seised the Lands for a Fine for Alienation without License It was adjudged the Queens hands should be removed from the Land because the bargainee was now in by the Fine and not by the bargaines and sale and also because the Licence did precede the Fine the Alienation was not made without License Yardley and Prestwood and others Case 435. In a Quare Impedit It was holden by the Justices in this Case That a double usurpation upon the Queen did put her out of possession of Advowson and put her to her Writ of Right of Advowson But the Law hath been taken since that time and so adjudged that a double usurpation did not put the Queen out of possession of her Advowson Vide 33 Eliz. Hassies Case Tr. 4. Jac. The King and Champians Case accordingly Isabell Mordants Case 436. An Enfant Levyed a Fine to the Queen The Queen granted the Lands to Bowes Treasurer of Barwick Error brought to reverse the Fine Bowes pleaded in Barre the Statute of 18 Eliz. It was Resolved that notwithstanding that Statute the Writ of Error did lye for that Statute did not extend to make grants good of such persons who could not make grants by the Common Law as Enfants persons of Non sane Memorie c. Sir Mayle Finch and Hen. Finches Case 437. The Mother of Sir Moyle Finch and the Defendant in her Widdowhood levyed a Fine to the use of her self for life and after her death to the use of her Executors for 5. years and after to Sir Moyle in Tail with divers remainders over and afterwards she maried I. S. and she with I. S. granted the Terme of 5. years to Sir Moyle and after that she and her Husband levyed a Fine to Sir Moyle and I. D. and after that the Wife with her Husbands assent made her Will and made the Defendant her sole Excecutor and dyed the Defendant entred It was agreed by the Justices 1. That the use limited to the Excecutors was good 2. That the Wife could not grant it in her life time 3. That it was extinguishable in the Wife by a Fine come ceo c. but not by a Release 4. That the Fine sur Conusans de droit c. had extinguished the Terme and the said Fine had made such a disturbance of the possession that the use being future at the instant of her death in the Excecutors could never rise 5. That a Feme Covert with the assent of her Husband might make a Will but not thereby to dispose of Legacies 6. It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the Wife who had the estate for her life had levyed a fine sur Conusans de Droit c. 438. Action upon Indebitatus Assumpsit solvere It was Resolved the Plaintiff could not give in evidence matter of specialty to prove his debt but he might give in Evidence matter of Contract Fitzherberts Case 439. He was Arrested in Execution by the Sheriff of Derby the 3. day of Feb. at 7. of the Clock in the Morning and the same day at 10. of the Clock he was elected a Burgesse of Parliament for the Borrough of New Castle It was agreed in Parliament because he was arrested before he was chosen Burgesse he could not have the Priviledge of the House Hunger and Freys Case 440. A man had recovered in Debt and had Judgment and an Elegit and had an extent delivered him and Nihil as to goods Afterwards he suggested the Defendant had more Lands goods and chattells in the same County and had a New Elegit and upon that he had a Lease for years in Execution and no other Land was found It was adjudged that the sale of the Lease for years by the Sheriff and delivery in Execution was good Townsend and Walleys Case 441. A man had 6 l. Land in possession and Lands in Peversion upon an estate for life and by his Will he deviseth all his Lands to his Excecutors for 10. years to pay his Debts and perform his Will and after the 10. years ended that his Executors or one of them or the Executors of his Excecutors or any of them should sell his Lands and he made diverse Excecutors and gave 40 l. Legacies by his Will and dyed After the 10. years 2. of the Executors sold the Land 1. Resolved that the Land in reversion might be sold as well as the Land in possession 2. That the sale by the 2. Executors was
and Stermons Case 1120. Resolved that an Action upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tythes lieth by the husband and wife in the Temporal Court and so it was adjudged in Wentworth and Crispes case which vide there Stebs and Goodtriks Case 1221. The custom of L. in the County of B. was alledged that the Parson ought to have the Tenth Land of corn beginning at such Land which was next to the Church the Occupiers of the Land to defraud the Parson by Covin did not sowe their Tenth Land nor manure it The Parson sued for Ththe in Kinde to have the tenth Cock for Tythe of the Corn sowed and a Prohibition awarded notwithstanding the Covin because he had remedy at the common Law for the Fraud and a Prohibition was awarded Quarles and Spartings Case 1222. The Temples were dissolved and their Possessions and Priviledges by Act of Parliament 17 E. 2. transferred to St Johns of Jerusalem and their Possessions by Act of Parliament 32 H. 8. cap. 24. given to the King It was Resolved that the King and his Patentees should pay Tythes of those Lands although the Lands propriis sumptibus excolantur because the Priviledge to be discharged of Tythes is proper to Sipritual persons and ceaseth when the person Spiritual is removed And the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Dissolution did not extend to such Lands as came to the King by special Act of Parliament as these Lands of St. Johns of Jerusalem did Bakers and Rogers Case 1223. The Church being void B. contracted with the Patron for 180 l. to have the Presentation and thereupon presented W. his Brother who knew nothing of the Symonaical contract till after his Induction notwithstanding he was deprived in the Spiritual Court because he was Symoniace promotus and it was holden in this case That if a Usurper present by Symonie the Clerk is punishable in the Spiritual Court for the Symonie although the Patron doth recover the Advowson and the Presentation Sir Richard Chapman and Hills Case 1224. Debt brought upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tythes and declated upon two Leases one of the Parson who had two parts and another of the Viccar who had the third part The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty which was found against him It was moved in stay of Judgment that Not Guilty was no Plea but Nihil debet ought to be pleaded and that the Plaintiff ought to have brought several Actions being several Demises both Exceptions over-ruled by the Court. 1. That Not Guilty was a good Plea 2. for that the Suit was for the wrong aswell as upon the Title Day and Peckvells Case 1225. It was Resolved in this case upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. that the Statute giving Treble Damages the Jury cannot give other damages 2. That the Jury cannot give Costs 3. That two Farmors may joyn in one Action upon this Statute 4. That a Farmor shall have an Action upon the Statute although the Statute doth not give him an Action by Equity of the Statute because he hath the right to the Tythes and the agreement with one Farmer shall bind his Companion The Queen and Blanches Case 1226. Resolved that the Certificate of the Bishop that the Incumbent refused to pay his Tenths is not Peremptory but Traversable and that the demand of the Tenths must be at the house of the Incumbent and the refusal there Kelley and Walkers Case 1227. Suit was in the Spiritual Court for laying violent hands upon a Clerk It was surmised there that the Clerk assaulted the Plaintiffs Servant for which the Plaintiff peaceably laid his hands upon the Clerk which allegation they would not allow of there and a Prohibition was awarded notwithstanding the Statute de Articulis Cleri Sir Robert Lane and Pigotts Case 1228. It was Resolved in this case that if Lessee for years be sued in the Spiritual Court for Tythes he in the Reversion may have a Prohibition Smith and Sherburnes Case 1229. The Incumbent being sick the Father contracted for 100 l. in the presence of his Son for the next Avoidance and after the Incumbent died and the Father presented his Son after Induction he was sued in the Spiritual Court to be deprived he pleaded the General Pardon of 35 Eliz. in which Symonie was not excepted It was the opinion of the Justices that notwithstanding he was deprivable there and in this case it was adjudged that the Presentment of the Father of the Son was Symonie Reynolds Case 1230. The Church-warden and Parson that all those who had the house wherein the said Reynolds did dwell had used to find meat and drink for them and the Parson going in Procession in Rogation week at his house and because he did not find them meat and drink he sued them in the Spiritual Court and a Prohibition was awarded because the custom was a custom against the Law Dorringtons Case 3231. He sued in the Admiralty because his Ship called the S. lying upon the Thames at Râ—driff at anchor was there broken by the Ship called the Aeneas by the negligence of the Officers thereof and a Prohibition was awarded because the Thames is Infra corpus Comitatus and not within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Saccars Case 1232. Resolved that a Prohibition is awardable against any who wasts the Houses of the Parson the Incumbent or cuts down the Trees or doth other waste Lanes Case 1233. Resolved Tythes shall not be paid of Wood under 20. years growth which is imployed in hedg-poles for repairing of the Coppices Biggs Case 1234. Resolved where a Prohibition is awarded upon a Suggestion of a Modus Decimandi and a consultation awarded for not proving the Suggestion within six months there a new Prohibition shall not be awarded upon an Appeal in the same Suit Babingtons Case 1235. Resolved If one be sued in the Spiritual Court ex officio or by Libel and he demands the Copy of the Libell which is denied that a Prohibition lieth in such case vide Statute 2 H. 4. Lloyd and Maddox Case 1236. An Executor was sued in the Spiritual Court for a Legacy who pleaded a Recovery in debt against him at the common Law ultra which to satisfie he had no assetts The Plaintiff there said the Recovery was by Covin and that the Plaintiff who recovered the Debt offered to discharge the Judgment and the Defendant would not do it Resolved that the Covin was properlie examinable in the Spiritual Court because the Lgatee could not sue for the Legacy at the common Law and therefore a Prohibition in this case was denied Barnard and Bridgmans Case 1237. Resolved in this case that if the Master of a Ship gage a Ship in Spain for 50 l. and for that the Ship is attached in the Thames at its return the Owner of the Ship shall have a Prohibition otherwise if the Ship be engaged for necessary Tacle the Owner shall pay it FINIS The TABLE
of B. was behind for which the grantees destrained by their Bayliffs In this Case it was Resolved 1. That this demise and Lease was joynt and entire and so was the Condition of it notwithstanding the several Reservations of the Rents 2. That the grantee of parcell of the Reversion could not take advantage of the Condition but that the Condition as to the grantee was determined 3. That the bargainee was a sufficient Assigne within the Statute to take advantage of the Condition by the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses which gives Cestuy que use the possession and the Estate of the Feoffees and all the advantages which the Feoffes might have and they agreed the Condition to be determined upon this difference viz. When it is entire one cannot divide it by his own act but by act of Law in may be divided and apportioned and so it was in this Case Hunks and Alboroughs Case 232. A man made his Will and gave divers Legacies and in the end of it he gave all the rest of his goods to his Wife who he made his Executor to pay his debts she took Husband who made the Defendant his Executor and dyed against whom the Wife Executrix brought Detinue of the goods of her first Husband and adjuged maintainable because she took the goods not as Legatee but as Executrix Harwell and Lucas Case 233. A. seised the Mannor of K. leased 6. acres parcel of it to I. S. for 21. years without any Remainder and after lets the 6. Acres to I. D. for 26. years to begin after the expiration of the first Lease rendring rent and afterwards made a Feoffment of the Mannor and all his Lands to the use of the Feoffees their Heirs upon Condition if they did not pay 10000 l. within 15. dayes then it should be to the use of himself and his wife the Reversion to their second Son in tayle with divers Remaâ—nders over the Remainder to his right Heirs Livery was made of the Land in possession and not in the 6. Acres the Money was not paid afterwards the first Lessee for years attorned the Husband and wife dyed the first Lease ended the second Lessee dyed his Wife married the Defendant The Son of A. distreyned for the Rent It was adjudged in this Case That although the reversion of the 6. Acres did not passe by the Livery without attornment yet the attornment of the first Lessee was sufficient and although the use to the Feoffees and their Heirs was determined before the attornment yet the attornment was good to passe the Reversion to the last contingent use and so the Title of the Sonne of A. to the Rent was good Cranmers Case 234. King Henry 8. made a Lease of Land for 21. years the Reversion came to E. 6. who Anno primo of his reign granted the same to Cranmer Bishop of Canterbury He 6 E 6. granted the Reversion to D. and C. to the use of the Bishop for life the Remainder for 20. years to the use of the Executors of the Bishop the Remainder in tayle to the Grantor the Remainder to his right Heirs The Bishop in time of Queen Mary was attainted of Treason and all his Lands and Chattels given to the Queen by Act of Parliament The Queen was possessed of the Term for 20. years and granted the same to I. S. It was adjudged That the term for years in remainder was never in the Bishop to forfeit but it was only an authority to nominate Executors in whom the Term should vest by purchase and because by reason of his Attainder he could not make Executors the Term for 20. years did never rise and so the Grant of it by the Queen Mary to I. S. not good See Dyer 310. contr Plastow and Batchâ—llors Case 235. Aâ—man brought a Formedon in Discender and pending it he brought a Writ of Estrepment which he delivered to the Defendant who notwithstanding the Writ afterwards committed Waste It was adjudged the Plaintiff should recover his Dammages and Costs Manwoods Case 236. Wast was brought and assigned in digging of Clay and selling of it and in plowing of Meadow and cutting down of 100. Oaks The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty as to all but cutting down of 6. Oaks which grew in a Hedge row which he said were Pollards not sufficient for building upon which it was demarred and adjudged for the Plaintiff Calthrops Case 237. Ejectione formae The Case was A. seised in Fee 26 H. 8. in consideration of Marriage between E. his Brother and F. the Daughter of W. and 200 l. of Money paid by W. covenanted to execute an Estate of the Mannor of N. to the uses following viz. of Lands of the value of 20 l. to the use of the said E. and F. for their lives and after carnal Copulation to the use of the Issues of their Bodyes with remainder over to E. and the Heirs of his Bodye the remainder to the right Heirs of A. and of the residue to the use of A. for life the remainder to E. F. for their lives and after carnal Copulation the remainder as before and afterwards he executed the estate by Fine and Recovery to the said uses The Marriage did not take effect but E. by another Wife had Issue 3. Daughters A. took a Wife and had Issue by her and dyed E. and F. dyed C. conveyed the Mannor to D. upon whom the eldest Daughter of E. entred and made a Lease of her part In this case It was resolved 1. That the use for the life of E. and F. did well rise although the marriage took no effect the use being declared upon an Estate executed which needs not any consideration but otherwise if it had been upon a Covenant to stand seâ—sed upon consideration of Marriage and Money for there without Marriage no use would rise although the Money was paid 2ly That the Election should go to him who was to take the use 3ly That the limitation was not void for the incertainty 4ly That in this Case although the Cestuy que use did not make the Election during his life yet he in the Remainder might after his death 5ly The Court doubted whether the Remainder did take effect because the Marriage did not take effect and they conceived it was not the intent of the Parties that should be advanced with so much Land if the Marriage did not take effect The matter was afterwards ended by Arbitrament Lane and Coopers Case 238. The Case was The Mannor of H. to make a Joynture was conveyed by a Deed in Latine to himself and his VVife for the Term of their lives the Reversion Seniori puero de corpore ipsius W. H. Haered de corpore suo legitimo procreato the Remainder to the general tayl to the Husband the Remainder to I. S. in fee thereof Afterwards by an Indenture between him and I. S. in English he covenanted that he and his wife should levy a Fine to B. and C. to
was attainted of Treason The first Question was If the Uses limited to I. S. and others were good or not Resolved they were void because they wanted a good consideration but if he had made them Executors and chargeable to the payment of his debts then the same had been good Second point If the use limited to William Pagett should begin presently after the death of the Lord Pagett or should expect untill the 24. years were incurred after the death of the Lord Pagett or not at all Resolved That the use should be in William Pagett presently before the 24. years were expired Wiseman and Barnards Case 328. The case was Tenant in tail for the advancement of his Blood Name and Issue covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself in tail the remainder to the Plaintiff in tail the remainder to the Queen in see and died his issue entred and suffered a common Recovery and died without issue he in the remainder entred Resolved That the consideration that the Land should continue in his Name and Blood was no consideration to raise the use to the Queen 2. Resolved that he in the Remainder was barred by the common Recoverie and the Remainder not preserved by the Statute of 34. H. 8. because it was not of the Provision of the Queen but of a common person Chenyes Case 329. A seized of Lands made a Lease for years thereof to B. and C. upon confidence for the preferment of the wife of A. and afterwards he made a Feoffment to B. and others to certaine uses of the same Lands the point was If the Lease for years were extinguished by the Feoffment Resolved That the Terme was not extinct but was saved by the Proviso in the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses which preserved all Interest which the Feoffees had in the Lands to their own uses and here B. had the Term to his own use and therefore not extinguished Pimbs Case 330. A committed Treason 18. Eliz. and was attainted 26. Eliz. In the interim he was Conusee of a Fine levied by I. S. which fine was to the use of the said I. S. and his wife Afterwards I. S. and his wife bargained and sold the Land for money to Pimb It was conceived that the Land was in the Queen upon the discovery of the Treason and Attainder which intitles the Queen to all the Lands which Traitors had at the time of the Treason or after so as the estate of I. S. and his wife was thereby destroyed by the Relation of the Attainder Wherefore Pimb sued to the Queen and she granted him the Land by her Letters Patent Beckwiths Case 331. Husband and Wife seized of Lands in the right of the Wife levied a Fine The husband detained the uses solie one way and the Wife detained the uses upon the Fine another way It was resolved that both the Declaration of the uses were void and so by consequence the uses upon the Fine should be to the use of the Wâ—te and her Heirs The Lord Mountjoys Case 332. The Case was this A Mannor which did consist of Free Rents of 7. l. copyhold Rents of 3. l. and of domaines which had used to be devised for several Rents and Farmes to which Mannor an Acre of waste parcel of the Mannor of the yearly value of 12. d. Heriotts Court Baron Leet and perquisits of Court which never were devised for Life years or otherwise did appertain and were incident was by a private Act of Parliament given to A. and B. in tail with diverse remainders over and the Donees were restrained Quod non facerent aliquid ad Nocumentum or disinheritance of the Tenant in tail or them in remainder and that they should have power to make a Lease for Life Years or at Will rendring the true and ancient Rent of the said Tenements to be demised and that all other acts should be void Tenant in tail accepted of a fine from a stranger of the Mannor by which they granted and rendred the Mannor for 300. years rendring rent yearly amounting to the free Rents Copy rents and Farme Rents and 18. d. more and 12. d. for the waste to be paid at two Feasts whereas the ancient Rent was paid at four Feasts Tenant in tail died and if the Lease for 300. years was to be avoided by the clause of Restraint was the Question It was Resolved 1. That although by the purview of the Act That all Estates restrained by the Act should be void yet the same should not avoid the Lease as to the Tenant in tail himself but it should be avoided by the Issues in tail 2. Resolved That in respect the Acre of waste was never devised before that the Rent which is entire reserved out of the whole cannot be said the true and antient Rent 3. Resolved That the reservation of the Rent at two Feasts where the antient Rent was payable at four Feasts made the Grant and Render void for that was to the hurt of the Issues in tail for it was more beneficial to have the Rent at four Feasts then at two Feasts and all beneficial Qualities of the Rent ought to be observed and for these causes and others the Lease for years was to be avoided by the Issue in tail Knights Case 333. The Case was a Prior seised of divers houses with the consent of his Covent made a lease of them for years rendring rent of 5. l. 10. s. 11. d. at four usual Feasts upon condition that if the Rent was behind in part or in all at any of the said Feasts he and his Successors to reenter The Priory came to the King by surrender the King by his Letters Pattents under the Great Seal granted one of the houses to the Lessee and another in Fee and afterwards it was found by Commission under the Exchequer Seal that parcel of the said Rent was behind at one of the said Feasts the King before the Commission returned granted the residue of the houses to I. S. in Fee It was resolved in this case amongst other things That although without Office found the Lease was not void and although the Office was not returned before the date of the Letters Pattents made to I. S. yet forasmuch as the Office was found before the Grant and afterwards it was returned of Record that the grant was good and that in this case of Reentry without seisure the Lease was void Owens Case 334. Upon a Fine levyed the Lands were rendred to A. and to his wife and to the Heirs of the body of A. A. suffered a Recovery with Voucher in the life of his wife and afterwards died the wife died It was resolved in this case that the Recovery suffered by the Husband only did not bind him who was in the Remainder for betwixt husband and wife there are no moyeties and the joynt estate was not severed by the Recovery against the Husband only and the husband was not the only Tenant to the
extends to Fines ritè Levatis and that a Fine is not ritè Levatus when partes finis nihil habuerunt To all which it was Answered and Resolved That the Issue in tail is not excepted in those Statutes and therefore is bound by the very Letter of the Acts 2. Although the Issue in tail was not bound by any Fine by his Ancestors untill 4. H. 7. yet in such Case he was ousted to add Quod partes finis nihil habuerunt being privy as Heir to him who levyed the Fine first 3. That a Fine may be said ritè Levatus although partes finis nihil habuerunt and it may be ritè Levatus although it be a Fine meerly by Conclusion Elmer and Goales Case 383. In Ejectione firmae the Case was The Abbot of West was seised and let the Lands for 60. years to a Stranger the Abby was dissolved and King Henry 8. united it to the Bishoprick of London The Bishop 12. Eliz made a Lease for three Lives the Lease for 60. being in being for 16. years which Lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter the Lease for 60. years expired the Lessees for three Lives entred and were seised untill the Bishop entred upon them and made the Lease upon which the Action was brought The point was if the Lease for three Lives were good It was Resolved it was good and stood good because the Statute of â— Eliz. which made Bishops Leases was not pleaded and the Statute being a private Act of Parliament the Judges were not to take nâ—tice of it if it were not pleaded Butler and Babers Case 384. The Case was A. seised of the Mannor of Toby in Fee and A. and his wife seised of the Mannor of Hinton to them and the Heirs of their bodies the Reversion to A. in Fee Toby amounting to the value of two parts and Hinton to the third part both holden in capite A. by his Will devised the Mannor of Toby to his Wife for life upon consideration that she should not take her former Joynture in Hinton with divers remainders over the Wife in pais disclaimed and waved her Estate in Hinton and agreed to the Mannor of Toby and entred upon it and if the Devise was good for the whole Mannor of Toby or for two parts only was the Question It was Resolved in this Case by the greater part of the Justices upon argument in the Exchequer Chamber that the waving of the Joynture by the Wife made an immediate discent by Relation to the Heir and that the Devisor was not such a person having Lands as could dispose of it according to the Statute and in this Case it was agreed by the Justices That if one deviseth Land in which he hath nothing and afterwards he purchaseth the lands that the same is not a good Devise within the Statute of Wills because he is not a person having c. Priscot and Chamberlains Case 385. In a Replevin the Case was Tenant for Life the Remainder in Tail jâ—yned in a Lease for years afterwards he in the Remainder in the life of Tenant for life suffered a Common Recovery the Recoverers sued execution upon the Lessee for years and afterwards enfeoffed Lincoln Colledge in Oxon to whom the Son and Heir of the Tenant in Tail in the life of his Father released with Warranty the Lessee for years reentred the Tenant for Life and he in the Remainder in Tail both died the Son of the Tenant in Tail had issue who by his Bayliff distreined the Chattel of the Lessse for years as damage Feasants upon the Land and he brought a Replevin The point was if by the common Recovery oâ— the Release of the Issue in tail with Warranty the tail was barred It was agreed by all the Justices that the Issue in tail was not barâ—d by the Recovery nor by the Warranty but whether he should avoid this Recovery in this Action being a possessarie Action or put to a rent Suit was the doubt whâ—ch was not resolved The Case was adjourned Hennage and Curtes Case 386. Trespass for breaking his Close in Hainton The Defendant justified that there was a Foot way leading through the said Close from Haâ—mon to the Foot-way of Horn-Castle for all persons travelling from Hainton to Horn-Castle they were at Issue upon the Prescription and because the Venire was de Hainton only whereas it ought to have bin from Hainton and Horn-Castle It was said that the Tryal was erroneous and the Judgment was reversed Bonnet Halsey and others 387. The Plaintiff was taken in Execution at the Defendants Suit by the Sheriff of B. and by an Habeas Corpus he was brought to Smithfield by the Goaler of B. and there at Eight of the Clock of night the Prisoner went into Southwark and there continued all night and the next morning he returned to Smithfield to his Keeper and there continued with him till the return of the Writ at which day he brought him to the Lord Chief Justices Chamber at Serjeants-Inn and he returned his Writ and the Chief Justice committed him to the Marshalsey It was judged it was no Escape in the Sheriff and adjudged upon an Audita Querela brought by the Plaintiff for the Defendants Wray Street and Coopers Case 388. The Prior of M. was seised of three Messuages in the Borough of Southwark and held them of the Bishop of Canterbury as of his Borough of Southwark The Priory came to King Henry 8. by surrender Afterwards the Bishop gave the Burgage to the King which Gift was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter The King anno 36. gave the said three Messuages and others to C. and D. Tenendum libero Burgagio by Fealty only and not in Capite and C. and D. gave the Messuages to W. and his Wife W. died his Wife survived King Edward 6. gave Totam Burgagiam de Southwark to the Mayor and Burgesses of London In the time of Queen Mary the Wife W. dyed by which the Messuages escheated Queen Mary gave them to one who gave them to A. who gave them to the Defendants The Mayor and Burgesses of London entred The Question was if the Tenure should be in Capite or in Burgage and if they passed to the Mayor and Burgesses by the Grant of Edw. 6. of Totam Burgagiam de Southwark It was adjudged against the Mayor and Burgesses of London because there could not be several Tenure foâ— these parcels Tenendum ut de Burgo and another Tenure for the Residue of the Lands in other places which could not be holden de Burgo and also because the Patent having two intents the besâ— shall be taken for the King Pasch 30. Eliz. The Queen and Bishop of Lincolns Case 389. Quare Imp. The Case was The Bish of Lincoln Patron and Ordinary collated to a Benefice in 8. Eliz. The Incumbent took another Benefice without Qualification by which the first was void The Successor Bishop 18. Eliz. presented one E. but non constat if
liberty of Exemption was extinct by the Act of Parliament and the Kings intent was not to grant such a Liberty as was excinct and as to the non obstante it was not sufficient being general but if the Grant or non obstante had been particular there the Grant should have been good Matthew and Woods Case 449. Judgement was given in B. R. in an Action upon the case for words the Plaintiff there brought another Action in C. B. for the same words and had Judgment to recover Error was brough upon the Judgment in B. R. the Court was of opinion to confirme the Judgment in B. R. but they in discretion would not grant execution upon it but only upon the Judgment in their own Court Thimblethorps Case 550. Words viz. when wilt thou bring home my Husbands sheep which thou hast stollen adjudged actionable and the damages to be paid by the Husband Hilliard and Constables Case 551. Words spoken of the Plaintiff a Justice of Peace and Vice President of York viz. He is a blood-sucker and thirsteth after blood but if any man will give him a couple of Capons or a score of Weathers he will take them It was adjudged the words were not Actionable because he may thirst for blood in care of Justice Wheeler and Collyers Case 552. Assumpsit against an Administrator whereas the Intestate was in his life endebted to him 17 l. in consideration the Plaintiff would deliver to the Administrator 6. barrells of Beere he promised to pay the whole 20 l. being found for the Plaintiff Judgment was stayed because the action did not lye joynt for two sums of money Colmans Case 553. In consideration of 4 d. one promised to pay 10 l. upon non Assumpsit Damage shall be given to 10 l. and not to 4 d. adjudged Awder and Nokes Case 554. Lessee for years assigned over his Terme by deed to I. S. and Covenanted that I. S. and his assignes should enjoy the Land during the Terme without Interruption of any After I. S. assigned over his Terme by word and the Assigne being disturbed brought Covenant adjudged it did lye although the Assignement was but by word because there was privity of estate Paramoure and Darings Case 555. The Condition of an Obligation was to pay all Legacies which I. S. had bequeathed by his Will Adjudged the Defendant shall be estopped to say I. S. made no Will but he may plead he gave not any Legacies by his Will Grene and Bufkyns Case 556. The Statute of 31 H. 8. gave all Colledges dissolved to the Crown in which there is a Clause that the King and his Pattentees should hold discharged of Tythes as the Abbots held Afterwards the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. gave all Colledges to the Crown but there is in it no Clause of Discharge of Tythes The Parson Libelled in the spiritual Court and the Farmor of the Lands of the Colledge of Maidston in Kent brought a Prohibition upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. The Court was clear of opinion that the King had the Lands of the Colledge by the Statute of 1 E. 6. and not by the Statute of 31 H. 8. But the Justices doubted the Lands comming to the King by that Statute whether they should be discharged of Tythes by the Statute of 31 H. 8. there being no Clause in the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. for dicharge of Tythes but it was Resolved by the Justices that unity without Composition or Prescription was a sufficient discharge of Tythes by the Statute of 31 H. 8. 557. Action upon the case for that the Defendant made a Conigree in his own Lands and that the Conies entred into the Plaintiffs Land and destroyed his Corne Resolved that the Action did not lye because they were not the Defendants Conies when they were out of his Warren But in that case it was holden that the Erection of a Conigree or a Dove Cote was presentable in a Leet and finable there 558. Note Resolved in the Court of Common Pleas by the Justices there That an Information doth not lye upon the Statute for Tanning of Leather but only in the Courts of Record at Westminster and not in any other Inferior Courts The Queen and Hussies Case 559. Tenant in Tail of an Advowson the reversion to the King in 32 H. 8. granted it to the King and his Heirs the King granted the Advowson to the party presented Tenant in Tail dyed without Issue the Church became void Resolved that the Advowson did passe out of the Kings Reversion after the estate Tail was determined and that a Quare Impedit brought by the Queen did not lye But in this case it was Resolved That a double presentation would not put the Queen out of possession if she had had Right Nevill and Barringtons Case 560. After Issue joyned in an Ejectione firme and the Jury at the barre ready to try the Issue A Writ was brought to the Justices not to proceed Regina inconsulta in the Nature of Aide and after great debate the same was allowed by the Court Vide aide in personal actions 2 R. 313. Fennor and Plasketts Case 561. It was Resolved in this case That if the Husband distrain for Rent due to the Wife dum sola fuit and Rescous be made he alone may have a Writ of Rescous or at his Election joyne his Wife with him in the Writ 562. A Rescous was returned without shewing the place where Rescous was and the party was discharged Hinson and Baradges Case 563. If the Jury challenge the Sheriff and the challenge be confessed although the Jury be removed and a new Sheriff chosen Yet Resolved The proces shall go to the Coroners 564. It was Resolved in this case that Ejectione firme doth not lye de pecea terrae Hollman and Collins Case 565. A Judgment in the Court of Plimouth was reversed because the stile of the Court was Placita coram I. Majori c. and did not say secundum Consuetudinem villae nec per litter as Patentes c. Kelsick and Nicholsons Case 566. Two Executors were and one of them gave the Obligation to a Stranger for the payment of his own Debt and died The survivor brought Detinue It was adjudged the Action did not lie Sowel and Garrets Case 567. A devise was made to the Son and if he die without Issue or before his age of 21 years it shall remain to another the Son had Issue but dyed before 21. years Adjudged the Son should have the Land and not he in the Remainder and in that Case Ou was construed for Et. Buckler and Harvyes Case 568. The case is very long but this in effect Tenant for Life the Remainder in Fee Tenant for life made a Lease for years the Lessee entred Tenant for Life granted the Tenements to C. Habendum the Tenements from the Feast of Mich following for Life the Lessee for years attornes C. enters and makes a Lease at Will to whom the Tenant for Life
l. of the râ—nt to 3. persons divisim viz. to each of them a full 3. part which was 9 l. 6 s. 8 d. One of the devisees brought debt for his part against the Lessee It was the opinion of the Justices that the Rent was apportionable and that the Tenant is chargeable without attornment by the devise to each of the devisees for the 3. part of the Rent Winters Case 705. It was said by Popham Chief Justice that Clergy is allowable upon the standing Mute for such a Felony for which Clergy is allowable if the party be found guilty and therefore he allowed Clergy to Winter who stood Mute upon an Indictment of Felonious taking of goods 706. The Case was a man robs one in the high way in one County and is apprehended with the goods in another County and indicted for the goods and found guilty to the value of 10 d. The question was if by the Statute of 25 H. 8. he shall have Judgment of death or be whipt It was the opinion of the Justices the Case being put to them at Serjants Inn that he shall be but whipt and that the Statute of 25 H. 8. doth not extend but to those who demand Clergy which they shall be denyed if it be found by examination to be done with Robbery Lever and Heyes Case 707. The Father of the daughter promiseth to the Father of the Son that if he will give his consent to the Marriage and assure 40 l. Land to his Son that the Father of the Daughter will pay 200 l. to the Son in Mariage It was Resolved in this case that if the Father of the daughter do not pay the 200 l. that the Son shall have the Action upon the promise and not the Father Egertons Case 708. Egorton the Queens Sollicitor was commanded by Writ to attend upon the Lords in the upper House of Parliament After he attended there 3. dayes he was chosen Burgesse for the Borough of Reading and Returned The Commons came to the upper House and demanded that he might be dismissed from his attendance there and be sent them into the Lower House but upon Consultation he was retained there still because he being neither Inhabitant not Free of the said Town might choose if he would serve at their Election or not which he expresly refused to do 2. Because he was first attendant in the upper House 3. Because the Queen had power to prefer him to the upper House aswell as she had power to command him The Bishop of Norwiches Case 709. The Bishop pleaded a private Act of Parliament and mistook the day of the Commencement of the Parliament It was adjudged against the Bishop for although the Judges are not to take notice of the private act yet of the beginning of the Parliament they are to take notice of Helgor and Whiteacres Case 710. Replevin The Defendant avowed that a Parsonage was parcell of the Prebendary the Prebend before the Statute of 13 Eliz. was Leased for 50. years in Reversion to I. who assigned it to B. who assigned it to C. who assigned it to H. the Lease in possession ended H. enâ—red and made the Lease to the Plaintiff The Plaintiff confessed the Lease to I. and the Assignments but said that I. so possessed took to Husband T. who before the assignment to B. assigned the Terme to I. S. who dyed possessed absque hoc that the said I. assigned her estate and Interest to B. It was adjudged for the Avowant because when the Plaintiff confessed and avoided he ought not to have traversed but might have prayed Judgment without Travers and so by reason of the Travers it was adjudged against the Plaintiff Vavisoâ—s Case 711. Resolved That if the Sheriff makes his Warrant to a Corporation who have return of Writs to arrest I. S. they may make a Bailiff to arrest by perol only Robes Bent and Cocks Case 612. A a villain purchased the Inheritence of a Copyhold in the name of B. and another in Trust B. surrendred his moyety to the use of his own Son the other dyed seised The Son of B. and the Heir of the other for mony sold the Copyhold to C. for 50 l. being of the value of 80 l. A sued the Son of B. and the Heir of the otherand C. in Chancery for the 80 l. It was Decreed the A. should recover the 50 l. only from B. and the Heir of the other and C should be discharged of it The Lord Hunsdons Case 713. In a Monstrance de droit for certain Lands in ward to the Queen for the Nonage of B. upon Jury returned the Array was challenged by the Queens Attorney because it was Returned by the Sheriff of Kent who was also Tenant to the Plaintiff A Counterplea was thereunto that he was Tenant to the Queen It was the opinion of the Justices that the Counterplea was little material for although he was Tenant to both yet he who takes the Challenge shall have advantage thereof Afterwards the array was Quashed and a venire de novo awarded Lady Russell and Gulwells Case 714. The Lady demised Lands to the Defendant by Indenture Defendant entred bonds to performe the Agreements in the Indenture Debt brought by the Lady for breach of Covenants and assignes the breach in disturbance of her in the occupation of certain Lands excepted in the Indenture out of the demyse and adjudged against the Lady for that it was breach neither of Covenant nor agreement 715. Nore by Egerton Lord Keeper if there be Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in Fee and the Tenant for life committeth Wast so as he is dispunishable by the Common Law yet upon Complaint he in the remainder in Fee may have an Injunction against him not to do Wast Penner and Cromptons Case 716. In a Prohibition It was holden that none shall be chargeable for contribution to Church Reckonings if he do not Inhabite there or to consent to them Powle and Veeres Case 717. A. made a Lease to B. of the Mannor of S. for life which was executed by Livery with these words that if it fortune B. to marry any Woman during his life who shall happen to overlive him then the Land to remain to such Woman for her life Proviso If B. do not declare by writing sealed â—or his last Will that he Wills she shall have it then it shall not remain to her B. before any marriage makes a Feoffment to I. S. to whom a Fine is levyed and a Recovery suffered Afterwards B. takes a Wife and declares she shall have the Remainder and after D. and his Wife Levy a Fine to the Heirs of I. S. and afterwards B. makes another declaration that the Land shall remain to the Wife and then B. dyes and the Wife enters It was adjudged her entry was not Lawfull because the Remainder if it was ever good was destroyed by the Feoffment and the Freehold supplanted before the Remainder took
Attorney to sue the principal in his name It was adjudged for the Plaintiff in B. R. and upon Error brought the Judgment was reversed because it was an insufficient Consideration Dickenson and Sheres Case 942. Upon the awarding of the Venire facias upon the Roll the day of the return of it was omitted this being assigned after verdict for Error was holden by the Court not to be Error 943. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that an action lyeth for the Rector of a Parsonage against the Parishoners for not seting forth of their Tythes although the Statute of a Edward 6. drâ—h not appoynt who shall have the action English and Bowers Case 944. Covenant upon an Indenture of demyse of the Rectory of S. in the County of O. The Indenture was made at London and the Venire Issued to the Sheriff of O. It was assigned to be Error but the Court held it good because it shall be of the County where the Land lyeth Heley and Rigs Case 945. A Bill was exhibited in the name of Rigs per Johannem Keeling attornaâ— ' suum and the Warrant of Attorny was posuit lcco suo Gulielmum Keeling the same was assigned for Error but the Justices caused it to be amended and affirmed the Judgement Maylard and Kesters Case 946. Assumpsit In Consideration the Plaintiff would sell and deliver to the Defendant pannos laneos pro funer alibus of a Clark he promised to pay him for them cum inde requisitus esset and alledged he sold and delivered divers Cloths to him viz. 31. yards of black Cloth for 19 l. and recited divers other particulars amounting to 160 l. upon Non Assumpsit found for the Plaintiff Error brought in Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment was reversed because Debt properly lay and not Assumpsit Wolley and Mosleys Case 947. Action of Assault and Battery in B. R. upon a demur the Plaintiff had Judgment to recover It was a Warded upon the Roll à Fierifac to enquire of damages returnable die Martis post tres Trinitatis and the Writ was in facto returned die Mercurii post tres Trinitatis which was the very date of the return upon the Roll and the Plaintiff had damages and Costs 40 l. Error was brought and assigned whereas by the Record of the Continuance the Plaintiff appeared by I. P. his Attorney that before that time he was dead The Court held that to be no Error because the Record is to be credited before the allegation of the party 2. Because there was variance between the Roll and the Writ the Court held that was amendable 3. That the Writ is executed the same day of the Return that was holden to be no Error and so it was said it was adjudged Mich. 37. and 38. Eliz. in Gawen and Ludlows Case In the Court of Wards The Queen and Savages Case 948. A. seised of Lands holden in Capity by Knight service by License 27 H. 8. conveyed the same to his Son and Heir apparent and F. and their Heirs in consideration of Marriage betwixt them who intermarried and 2 E. 6. by Fine regranted the Land to the Father who rendred it to the Son and his Wife and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten the Father dyed the Son haveing Issue three Daughters dyed 5 Mar the eldest Daughter had Issue Fran. Mooâ—e and dyed 25 Eliz. F. took second Husband W. Savage and they 28 Eliz. Leased the Rectory of K. to I. S. for 60. years and after granted the Reversion of the Rectory and Leased the Mannor to A. Savage for the life of F. Afterwards a Common Recovery was had in which S. and his Wife were vouched The Queen prayed to have the Wardship of Fran. Moore and to have the primer seisin and profits of the Land after the death of the Wife W. Savage averred the Recovery was to the use of himself pretending thereby that the Issues in Tail of the Son of Agnes and F. were barred In this Case it was Resolved for the Queen for one moyety and that the first Feoffment by A. to his Son F. before Marriage was not within the Statute of 11 H. 7. but when they Reconveyed back the Land that was a Conveyance of each of them their parts and then the render of the whole to them in special Tail as to the moyety of the Son the gift of the Father to the Son and his Wife within the Statute of 11 H. 7. but as to the gift of the Wife by the Fine was not within the Statute but the Recovery as that should bind the Issue Fishers Case 949. It was found by Office that A. seised in Fee of divers parcells of Lands holden by Knight service in Capite 21. Eliz. by License conveyed them to I. S. and E. his Wife Daughter of the said A. and that afterwards by Indenture he Covenanted for Fatherly love and affection that after the sealing of the said Indenture he would stand seised of the premises to the use of the said I. S. and E. his Wife in Tail Remainder in Fee to a stranger It was not found when the said Indenture was sealed and delivered nor that I. S. and E. his Wife were seised in Tail nor was it found in the Office Sic inde Seisitus did Covenant Notwithstanding these Exceptions it was Resolved that the Office was sufficient wherefore a Travers was to the Office Gervoyes Case 950. A. seised of the Mannor of N. in the County of W. and of Lands called F. in the County of of S. in Consideration of Marrage and for a Jointure for his Wife Covenants that he and his Heirs shall stand seised of the Mannors Lands c. to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives after their deceases to the use of the Heirs of the body of A. The Lands in F. are recovered by verdict from A. only during the Coverture between them A. dyeth his Heir within age It was Resolved in this Case that the Wife should have recompence for the Lands which were Enrolled during the Coverture although she accepted of the Residue of her Joynture after the death of her Hâ—sband Forsters Case 951. The Husband seised of Land in the Right of his Wife which was holden in Knight service the Heir being in Wards committed wast in the Lands Resolved the Husband should be charged to the value of the Lands and lose the possession of the Lands so long as his Wife should live Georges and Stanfields Case 652. Lands by Act of Parliament were assigned to the Countesse of Bindon during her life the Reversion to her Daughter who was in Ward to the Queen the Viscountesse took Husband and she and her Husband committed wast in the Land For the punishing of which a Bill was exhibited in the Court of Wards Resolved that the Court of Wards could not adjudge treble damages for the wast in this Case and therefore the Case was dismissed to Law Bridges Case 953. A. bargained and
a Libell or false Rumor although he produceth his Author yet he is fineable Damuâ—'s Case 1038. The Case was I. S. was indebted to M. 1800 l. upon a Statute who dyed Intestare A. his Wife took Administration of his goods and married B. and during her Coverture made her Will by which she appoinâ—ed to her Kindred 400 l. in Charitable uses Proviso if any crosse in Law or losse of the said Debt of 1000. should arise it should fall upon the last 900 l. mentioned befor the Proviso of which 900 l. the 408 l. the Charitable use was the last A. dyed Administration de bonis non c. of M. was committed to D. which had of the Debts 2000. besides the 1800 l. upon a Commission upon the Statute of 43 Eliz. of Charitable uses against D. it was Decreed for the Charitable uses to which Exceptions was taken 1. That A. had not power to make a Will of this Debt 2. That the 2000 l. were desperate debts 3. That there was a crosse in this Debt there being a Suit by the next of Kin to revoke the Administration committed to D. Vpon the exceptions it was Decreed in Chancery with the Assistance of the Judges 1. That though the Will of A. was void in Law yet it would serve by the Statute if there was assers of that estate or of the estate of A. her self to support the Charitable use For the goods in the hands of Administrators are all to Charitable uses and it is the Office of the Administrator so to imploy them and the Children or Kinred have no property in them but under the Title of Charity 2. Because it appeared that at the time of the making of the Decree that the estate would bear both the Legacies and the Charitable use also with an Overplus and if any of the debts of the 2000 l. became desperate it was by the negligence of the Administrators and should not retard the Charitable use The King and Howards Case 1049. In this Case these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. A man makes a Feoffment of Lands in 5. Counties with a Condition of Re-assurance a Re-assurance is made of Lands in 5. Counties It is a breach of the Condition but only for the Lands in one County and a good performance for the other 2. Tenant in Tail Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee he who hath the Remainder in Fee grants it to the first Tenant in Tail this acceptance of the Deed is an Attornement which shall bind those in the Remainder â— If an Act of Parliament be certified into the Chancery no averment shall be against it that it was not an act of Parliament because the Commons did not assent to it but with a Proviso which is lost but if it appeaâ—eth in the body of the Act that the Commons did not assent the Act is void The Case of the Commissioners of Sewers 1050. Upon complaints against diveâ—s ill disposed persons of Suits and vexations by them against the Commissiâ—ners of Sewers and their Officers for the counties of Northamoâ—â—â— Huntingdoâ— Cambridge and Lincoln It was holden by the Lords of the Council the Commissioners of Sewers may make new works as well to stop the fury of the waters as to repaire the old when necessity requires it 2. That for the safety of the Country they may lay a Tax or Rate upon any Hundreds Towns or Inhabitaâ—ts thereof in general who are interessed in the Benefit or Loss without attending a particular Survey or Admeasurement of Acres when the Service is to have a speedy and suddain execution 3. That they have sufficient power to imprison Refractory and Disobâ—dient persons to their Orders Warrants and Decrees and that Actions of Trespass False Imprisonment c. brought against the Commissioners or their Officers for extremity of their Order or Warranty are not maintainable nor will lie Goodson and Dâ—ffâ—â—dâ— Case 1051. Error of a Judgment in a Court of Pipowders in Rochestâ—r The case was A. dwelling in the Town was bound to pay B. 150 l. the first day of May at the House of B. in Rochâ—ster the Bond was sued there 24. September in the Court of Pipowders the Defendant pleaded payment at the House Issue upon it It was found for the Plaintiff Error brought and assigned that the Prescription was alledged to hold a Court of Pipowders before the Mayâ—r and two Citizens and by the Plea it appeareth it was holden before the Deputy of the Mayor and two Citizens The Court held the same to be Error 2. Error The Issue was misjoyned for the payment is alledged at the House of the Plaintiff in Rochester and it ought to have been pleaded apud Rochester in domo mansionali of the Plaintiff This the Court conceived to be Error and the Judgment was reversed Billingsby and Hercys Case 1052. A Demise was made of Lands in D. for years by the word Demise and to Farm let the Mannor and also all Timber Trees growing upon the same with an exception of six Oaks during the Term the Term was assigned to a Feme Sole who took Husband the Plaintiff and they assigned all their Interest to the Defendant reserving the Wood and Trees the Husband died his Executors cut down the Trees the Wife brought Trespass It was adjudged the Action did not lie because no propriety in the Trees passed by the words Demise Grant and to Farm Let though there was Liberty to Fell and Sell. Price and Almeries Case 1053. A possessed of a Term for Forty years devised the same to his Wife if she should live so long the remainder to I. his Son and the Heirs of his Body and made his Wife his Executor who entred and claimed the Term as a Legacy the Son died in the Life of the Wife the Wife died the Executor of the Son entred Adjudged his Entry was not lawful because the Son had not any Interest but a possibility Edwards and Dentons Case 1054. A man seised in Fee of the Mannor of D. and of an house called W. in D. and also of a Lease for years in D. by Deed did grant bargaine and sell the Mannor of D. and all his Lands and Tenements in â— to I. S. and his Heirs It was adjudged that the Term for years did not pass for the intent appears that nothing shall pass but that which the Heir might take for that the Habendum was to him and his Heirs Sir William Waller and Hangers Case 1055. The case was King Ed. 3. reciting that he had of every 10. Tun of Wine imported a tun and of every 20. Tun two Tuns one before the Mast and another behind the Mast granted to the citizens ef London that Nulla prisagia sint soluta de vinibus civium liberorum hominum London The Husband of the Defendant a Freeman and citizen of London having Wines in the Port and others upon the Sea died and made his wife his Executrix An Information was against her