Queen by her Letters Patents reciting the said Mischief c. et praemissa considerans et annuens Petitioni illius granted to him the Mannor aforesaid and further de ampliori gratia sua Released to the said Andrew Boynton all her Right Possession c. which came to her ratione attincturae praedict ' vel in manibus nostris existant vel existere deberent After which viz. 5 Eliz. Andrew Boynton levied a Fine to the Plaintiff with proclamations and died without Issue And the Defendant as Issue in tail entred Puckering Serjeant It is to see 1. If by the words of the Letters Patents of Queen Mary viz. de ampliori sua gratia c. the Reversion in Fee which the Queen had passed or not 2. Admitting that the Reversion did not pass Then if the Fine levied by Andrew Boynton 5 Eliz. to the Plaintiff the Reversion being in the Queen be a Bar to the Issue For when the first Fine was levied 37 H. 8. which was levied without proclamations the same shall not bind the Issue in tail neither as to the Right nor to the Entry for it is not any Discontinuance because the Reversion is in the King as of things which lie in Discontinuance Rent Common c. For such Fine is a Fine at the Common Law and not within the Statute of 4 H. 7. And such a Fine is void against the Issue But if such a Fine without proclamations be levied of a thing which lieth in Discontinuance then such a Fine is not void but voidable by a Formedon And therefore this Fine in the Case at Bar being levied without proclamations of Lands entailed whereof the Reversion is in the King at the time of the Fine levied shall not bind the Issue And by such Fine the Conusee hath which Fee was forfeited to the Queen by the Attainder of the Lord Seymore and that the Queen immediately restored to Andrew Boynton because the Lord Seymore had not according to Agreement betwixt them assured his Lands to the said Andrew Boynton in Recompence For the Indentures themselves were not sufficient to raise any use See acc 1 Mar. Dyer 96. As to the point he conceived That nothing passed of the Reversion For the Grant hath reference to the words All his Right Possession c. which came to her ratione attincturae and all the residue of the Grant ought to have reference to that to the ratione attincturae praedict which was the foundation of the whole grant And here the intent of the Queen was not to other intent but only to restore Andrew Boynton to the said Mannor and to his ancient Estate in it And nothing appears in the said Letters Patents by which it might appear that the Queen was apprised of her Reversion which she had by descent and therefore the same cannnot pass by general words If the King grants the Goods and Chattels of all those who have done any Trespass for which vitam amittere debent The Goods of him who is Attainted of Treason shall not be forfeited or granted by such general words 8 H. 4. 2. Vid. Roll. Tit. Prerogat The King grants omnia catalla Tenentium suorum qualitercunque damnatorum the same doth not extend to the Goods of him who is condemned for Treason See 22 Ass 49. So in our Case the Patent shall not serve to two Intents and not to pass two Interests by these general words and then nothing passeth but the Fee determinable which was conveyed to the Lord Seymore and forfeited by the Attainder Then it is to be considered How after the said Grant the said Andrew Seymore is seised And he conceived That he should be in of the said Fee determinable and not of an Estate in tail against his own Fine and then if he be not seised by force of the Tail at the time of the Fine levied 5 Eliz. the same Fine cannot bind the entail But admitting That at the time of the second Fine levied that he was in of an Estate in tail yet that Fine shall not bar the Issue For first This Fine cannot make any Discontinuance because that the Reversion in Fee is in the King which is not touched by the Fine See the Case of Saunders Where A. makes a Lease for years to begin at a day to come and afterwards levies a Fine to a stranger with proclamations and the 5 years pass and afterwards at the day of the beginning of the said Lease the Lessee enters his Entry is lawful and he shall not be bounden by the Nonclaim and so it was adjudged in Saunders and Starkies Case Vide inde Saffins Case 3 Jac. Cook 5 Part 123 124. After the making of the Statute of 4 H. 7. of Fines It was much doubted If the Issues of Common Tenants in tail should be bound by a Fine with proclamations because upon the death of their Ancestors they are as new Purchasors per formam Doni And therefore it was provided by 32 H. 8. That the said Statute of 4 H. 7. should extend to such Common entails but there was no doubt of an Estate tail of the gift of the King. And see Mich. 15 16 Eliz. Rot. 1474. between Jackson and Darcy in a Partitione facienda the Case was Tenant in tail the remainder to the King after the Statute of 32 H. 8. levied a Fine with proclamations and it was adjudged That the same should bind the Issues The Act of 32 H. 8. doth not extend but where the Reversion is in the King but no mention is there of a Remainder because that the words of the said Act are general of all Tenants in tail The makers of the Act perceiving That it might be doubted that the generality of the words might include all Estates tails of the gift of the King they restrained the words in a special manner as appeareth by the last Proviso of the same Act Nor to any Fines heretofore levied or hereafter to be levied by any person or persons of any Mannors c. before the levying of the said Fine given granted or assigned to the person or persons levying the said Fine or to any of his or their Ancestors in tail by Letters Patents or Act of Parliament the Reversion whereof at the time of the levying of such Fine was in the King And so such Estates are excepted And that in such Cases where such Fines are levied they shall be of such force as they should be if the said Act had not been made And therefore it seemed to the said Parliament That such Estate tails of the gift of the King were not bounden by the Statute of 4 H. 7. for otherwise the said Proviso or Exception had been frivolous Walmesley Serjeant to the contrary And he agreed That the first Fine was not any Discontinuance and yet he conceived it is not altogether void against the Issues before that they entred For no right remains in the Conusor against his Fine And also
now the Grant to Fortescue be good or not Vide inde Dyer 2 Eliz. 17. Vpon a Writ of Mandamus The Escheator charged the Enquest who were agreed of their Verdict and delivered the same in Paper to the Escheator And before the engrossing sealing and delivery of it came a Supersedeas And it was Resolved by all the Iustices That before the engrossing indenting and sealing it was no Verdict See this Case Reported in Cook 5. Part 54. CLXXIX Nelson's Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass brought by Nelson chief Preignothory of the Court of Common Pleas the Case was That the Abbot of D. was seised of a Common out of the Lands of the Abby of S. as appendant unto certain Lands of the said Abby of D. And afterwards the said Houses were dissolved and the possessions of them given to the King by Act of Parliament to have and hold in as large and ample manner and form as the late Abbots c. After which the King so being seised granted the said possessions of the said Abby of D. to A. and the possessions of the said Abby of S. to B. It was argued That the Common notwithstanding the unity of possession did continue For unity of possession is so qualified and restrained by the Statute by the words aforesaid and also by the words in the state and condition as they now be And the Abbot of D. was seised in the right of his House of the said Common Therefore so also shall be the King and his Patentees and so a special seisin is given to the King. Rhodes Windham and Anderson Iustices to the contrary And the said words in the said Statute are to be construed according to the Law and no further And by the Law the said Common cannot stand against the Vnity of possession CLXXX Leonard's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 192. 2 Roll. 787. LEonard Custos Brevium brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close The Defendant pleaded That William Heydon was seised and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeffa pas they were at Issue And it was found by Special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased to the Defendant for years and afterwards made a Charter of Feoffment to him by these words Dedi Concessi with a Warrant of Attorny in it and delivered the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same to him who was made Attorny in the said Deed who made Livery accordingly It was moved by the Plaintiff's Counsel That here is not any Feoffment found but only a Confirmation For as soon as the Charter was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave it its operation to that effect to vest the Fee in the Lessee by way of Confirmation See Litt. 532. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here the Lessee hath liberty how and by what Conveyance he shall be adjudged seised of the Land either by Feoffment or by Confirmation And it appeareth here That when the Lessee delivered the Charter to the Attorny And also when the Lessee accepted Livery from the Attorny he declared his meaning to be That he would take by the Livery And the Lord Anderson said That if Tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter-Feoffment with a Warranty of Attorny and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorny who makes Livery accordingly the same is a good Feoffment and so a Discontinuance And after many Motions the Court awarded That the Plaintiff should be barred CLXXXI Palmer and Waddington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Palmer brought an Action upon the Case against Anthony Waddington And Declared That Henry Waddington Brother of the Defendant was endebted to the said Plaintiff in 20 l. Et jacens in extremis mortem indies expectans vocavit ad se dict Anthonium quem executorem Testamenti ultimae voluntatis Constituisset eum rogans ut dictas 20 Libras praefato Richardo infra spacium duorum Mensium mortem suam proxime sequend numeraret solveret Et dictus Anthonius in Consideratione inde super se assumpsit c. And all the matter aforesaid was found by Verdict upon Non Assumpsit pleaded And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Declaration was insufficient because there is not any good Consideration set forth in it for it is not said That in Consideration that the said Henry made the Defendant his Executor c. CLXXXII Stransham and Collington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Plaintiff sued in the Spiritual Court for Tythes against the Defendant within the Parish of C. The Defendant said 1 Cro. 128. That the Tythes are within the Parish of A. and the Parson of A. came in pro interesse suo and thereupon they proceeded to sentence and that was given against Stransham who now sued a Prohibition And the Question was If within such a Parish or such a Parish be tryable by the Law of the Land or by the Law of the Church Wray Chief Iustice said It hath been taken That it is tryable by our Law. Fenner The Pope hath not distinguished Parishes but hath Ordained That Tythes shall be paid within the Parish CLXXXIII Higham's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 226. More Rep. 221. 1 Cro. 15. IT was found by Special Verdict That Thomas Higham was seised of 100 Acres of Lands called Jacks usually occupied with a House And that he Leased the said House and 40 Acres of the said 100 Acres to J.S. for life and made his Will by which he devised the said House and all his Lands called Jacks then in the Occupation of J.S. to his Wife for life and that after the decease of his Wife the Remainder thereof and of all his other Lands appertaining to Jacks to Richard his second Son c. It was said by Meade That the Wife should not have by Implication the Residue of Jacks for that she hath an express estate in the House and 40 Acres of the Land and her Husband having expressed his Will as to that his Will shall not be construed by Implication to pass other Lands to the Wife And it was said by him That it had been adjudged in the Case between Tracy and Glover That if Lands be devised to one and to his Heirs and if he dieth without Heir of his body 1 Roll. 839. that then the Land shall remain over that in such case the Donee hath but an Estate in tail to him and the Heirs males of his body And it was then also said by Anderson Chief Iustice That in the time of Sir Anthony Brown it was holden That if a Man be seised of two Acres of Land and devised one of them to his Wife for life and that J.S. shall have the other Acre after the death of his Wife that the Wife
of the said Lands A. brought an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded That before the day of payment the Plaintiff put the said B. out of his Farm It was moved by Godfrey That the same is no plea For this is a Collateral sum and not for Rent issuing out of the Land Also the Defendant is a stranger to the Contract for the Farm. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary For the Defendant hath Covenanted That the Lessee shall pay for the said Farm and Occupation 40 l. so as it is as a Conditional Covenant and here is Quid pro quo and here the Consideration upon which the Covenant is conceived scil the Farm and the Occupation of it is taken away by the Act of the Plaintiff himself and therefore the plea is good and the Action will not lie CCVII. The Archbishop of York and Morton's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Archbishop of York recovered in an Assise of Novel Disseisio against one Morton before the Iustices of Assise 1 Len. 55. upon which Iudgment Morton brought a Writ of Error retornable before the Iustices of the Common Pleas And after many Motions at the Bar it was adjudged That a Writ of Error upon such Iudgment doth not lie in the said Court. Which see 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. See also N. B. 22. e. That upon Erroneous Iudgment given in the King Bench in Ireland Error shall be in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. And Fenner who was of Counsel with the Archbishop demanded of the Court How and in what manner the Record shall be sent back to the Iustices of Assise so as the said Archbishop might have Execution To which the Court answered That the surest way is to have a Certiorari out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by a Mittimus to the Iustices of Assise But Fenner made a doubt to take such Course for such remanding Then Anderson Chief Iustice said Sue Execution out of the said Record for in as much as the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall also be removed and sent back by Writ And so it was done CCVIII The Queen and Hurleston's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 194. THe Queen brought a Scire facias against Hurleston to Repeal a Patent made to him of the Constableship of Chester and Iudgment was given for the Queen And now Hurleston brought a Writ of Error against the Queen in the Kings Bench. And it was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the Writ did not lie for the manner for that he ought first to have sued to the Queen by Petition See 22 E. 3. 3. 23 E. 3. Fitz. Error 9. If the King recover by an Erronious Iudgment a Writ of Error cannot be granted upon such a Recovery sine gratia Regis speciali And he said That in Chester they have Courts of Common Pleas Kings Bench Exchequer and Chancery And that if Iudgment Erronious be given in the Chancery at Westminster It cannot be reversed but by Parliament and so it is of an Erronious Iudgment given in the Chancery at Chester Also he said They have a Custom in London That within one month they may reverse their own Iudgment See 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. Erronious Iudgment given in the 5 Ports cannot be reversed in the King Bench but it is reversable in the Court of the Guardian of the 5 Ports Clench Here both the parties claim by the Queen therefore there needeth no Petition for valeat quantum valere poterit it is no prejudice to the Queen Cook There needs no Petition here for the Attorny General hath subscribed our Writ of Error Egerton Sollicitor General It was the Case of Eliz. Mordant who was to reverse a Fine levied during her Nonage and the proceedings were stayed because she had not sued to the Qeen by Petition See the Case of 24 E. 3. 35. the Case of William de Ingularby who sued to reverse a Iudgment given against him in a Writ of Conspiracy in the Eyre of Derby and there it was said by Thorp Iustice That he must first sue to the King by Petition Wray An Outlawry may be reversed by bringing a Writ of Error without suing Petition to the King. CCIX. Beckwith's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 19. ROger Beckwich by Indenture Tripartite between him of the first part William Vavasour Frances Slingsby and Elizabeth Sister of Roger of the second part George Harvey and Frances Wife of the said George the said Frances being another of the Sisters of the said Roger of the third part Covenant with the aforesaid William Vavasour and Frances Vavasour his Daughter and with the aforesaid George and Frances cum quolibet qualibet eorum That the said Roger at the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture was lawfully and solely seised of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in the County of York discharged of all Incumbrances Francis Vavasour took to Wife Frances Slingsby And Note That by the same Indenture Roger Beckwith Conveyed the said Rectory to the said Francis Vavasour Francis Slingsby and Frances his Wife brought an Action of Covenant against the said Roger Beckwith and assigned the Breach in this That the said Roger was not seised of the said Rectory And Note That the Plaintiff declared of an Indenture bearing date at the Castle of York And upon the breach of the Covenant they were at Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and damages assessed and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff And Note That the Venire facias was de Vicineto Castri de York And upon that Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer upon the new Statute and Error was assigned because all the Covenanters ought to have joyned in the Action of Covenant notwithstanding those words cum quolibet cum qualibet which words do not make the Covenant to be several And for that cause the Iudgment was Reversed Another Error was assigned because the Issue is not well and duly tryed For the Issue is upon the seisin of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in which case the Venire facias ought to have been de Vicineto de Aldingfleet And of that Opinion was Manwood and Anderson Iustices CCX Young and Ashburnsham's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Debt brought by the Administrators of Young against Ashburnham The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Enquest was taken by default And upon the Evidence given for the Plaintiff the Case appeared to be this That the said Young was an Innholder in a great Town in the County of Sussex where the Sessions used to be holden And that the Defendant was a Gentleman of Quality in the Country there And he in going to the Sessions used to lodge in the house of the said Young and there took his lodging
Eliz. Leon. 166. Lib. 1. was this Term adjudged upon the Devise That the Survivour shall be each others Heir It was holden That all the surviving Brothers are Ioynt-Tenants and although this word Survivour be in the singular number yet in sense upon the whole matter it shall be taken and construed as for the plural number Survivour shall be each others Heir i. e each Survivour i.e. every Survivour i.e. All the Survivours and then in this case The Plaintiff and the Defendant being Ioynt-Tenants cannot maintain an Action of Trespass one against the other CCCLIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BY the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 37. The Executors of a Grantee of a Rent-Charge may distrain for the Arrearages of the said Rent in the life of the Testator so long as the Land charged doth continue in the seisin or possession of the Tenant in Demesne who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent or in the seisin of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by purchase gift or descent in like manner as the Testator might or ought to have done in his life-time It was now moved If A. grant a Rent-charge to B. the Rent is behind B. dieth A. enfeoffeth C. in Fee who divers years after enfeoffeth D. who divers years after enfeoffeth E. It was holden in this Case by Walmesley Periam and Windham Iustices That E. should be chargeable with the Arrearages to the Executors Anderson Chief Iustice held the contrary But they all agreed That the Lord by Escheat Tenant in Dower or by the Curtesie should not be chargeable for they did not claim by the Party only but also by the Law. CCCLIV. Leverett and Townsend's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case for disturbing him of hs Common 3 Cro. 198. 2 Len. 184. The Plaintiff declared That he was seised in Fee of a Messuage and certain Lands And that he and all those whose Estate he hath have Common of Pasture in 16 Acres of Lands called D. from the time that the Corn is reaped until it be sowen again And also Common of Pasture in Land called R. omni tempore anni as appendant to the said Messuage and Land and that the Defendant had plowed the said Lands and so disturbed him of his Common It was moved in stay of Iudgment That it appeareth here that the Plaintiff was seised in Fee and so he ought to have an Assise and not an Action upon the Case But the Exception was disallowed by the Court. Vide inde Ante 13. 2 H. 4. 11. 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. 11 R. 2. Tit. Action upon the Case 36. CCCLV. The Chamberlain of London's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THE Chamberlain of London brought an Action of Debt in the Mayors Court in Guild-hall 5 Co. grounded upon an Act of Common Council See C. 5 Part The matter was removed into the Kings Bench by Corpus cum causa Fleetwood Recorder of London prayed a Procedendo It was Objected That they of London could not make Ordinances to bind the Subjects as an Act of Parliament To which It was said by Fleetwood That the Custom of the City is That the Mayor and Aldermen and four persons chosen out of each Ward by the Communalty may make Ordinances which they call Acts of Common Council and they shall bind every Citizen and Free-man and all their Customs are confirmed by Act of Parliament and by Magna Charta which hath been confirmed 52 times and also by the Statute of 7 R. 2. For that King seised their Liberties and drove them to pay for the Redemption of them 100000 Marks and then the said King confirmed them unto them for ever and therefore this Ordinance being made according to our Custom ought not to be impeached As in Case of matters of the Forrest If one be punished for offending against an Ordinance made for the governing of the Affairs of the Forrest you cannot remove the matter before you So is the Law called Lex Idumaea concerning Rivers and Fishing in which are divers Ordinances That none shall kill Salmons at certain Seasons of the year and so of other Fishes If one be punished by force of such Law he shall not be relieved here for the Law of the Land hath always allowed such particular Customs And see F. B. If two Merchants put their Stocks together and so Traffick together and the one dieth The Survivor shall not have the whole Stock as the Common Law is but the Executor of him that dieth shall have an Accompt against the other and that is per Legem mercatoriam Cook to the same intent This Act of Common Council is good and according to the Law that is of Common Right There are divers Statutes made for the true making of Cloth and to take away the abuses and deceit in the making of it and this Act of Common Council is for the well executing of the said Statutes and I conceive there is a difference in making of Laws by a Corporation A Corporation may make an Act for the better executing of any Law established at the Common Law but new Laws they cannot make As those of a Town who have used to have Common in certain Lands they cannot make a By-Law That such a one in such a Town shall not have Common there but that none shall use his Common but at such a time such a By-Law made is good See 15 H. 7. 21 H. 7. 40. See 8 E. 2. tit Assise 413. A Town had Common of Turbary in a Marsh and divers of the Inhabitants of the Town had made Trenches in the said Marsh and some had not a full Foot of Land in the Town and such persons by their Trenches which they had made there used to carry Turffs out of the said Marsh by Boats and sell them unto the value of 20 Marks per annum to their great private profit and to the great grievance of the others For which cause It was provided by common assent of the Freeholders of the Lord of the said Town That all the Trenches in the said Marsh should be stopped so as from thenceforth no Turffs be carried in Boats by the Trenches And there it was holden That if the greater part of the Commoners assent the same shall bind the others who have not assented for ubi major pars ibi totum And then if such Towns may make Laws a fortiori The City of London Secondly This Law is good by Custom for they have used to make such Acts and Ordinances time out of mind c. and these Customs are confirmed by Act of Parliament and also they may appoint a penalty for to what purpose otherwise should they make an Act Oderunt peccare mali formidine poenae Also this Action is maintainable for an Amercement in a Court Baron an Action of Debt lieth Gawdy Iustice 44 E. 3. 19.
years or for life with the ancient Rent reserved is sufficient and is a good and immediate descent of the third part And this word here immmediatè to be construed ratione temporis is a frivolous Construction for the wore Descent implys that For there cannot be an expectant and future descent For descent is clearly immediate without mean time But here in this case the word immediate is to be taken in both senses et re et tempore For by the Relation of the Waiver it is as if no Ioynture had been made and the Heir is to have the profits of the Land from the death of his Ancestor And so the descent of Hinton immediatè et re et tempore And that the same time hath had such reasonable Construction is now to see The Statute of 18 H. 6 Cap. 1. is That the Chancellor shall make Patents to bear date the same day that the Warrant was made and not before It hath been taken That if the Patents bear date after the Warrant entred they are good Which see 19 Eliz. Plow Com. 492. in Ludford and Gretton's Case The Statute of Acton Burnel is That if the Extendors extend the Land too high statim respondeant illi qui fecerunt extent This word of time statim shall not be construed that the Extendors shall pay presently but that they shall pay without delay i.e. at the day limited in the Statute See 2 H. 4. 17 18. It hath been Objected That it is a great inconvenience that the King for his third part should attend the pleasure of the Wife the time of her Election and therefore the Will shall be void But the same is no inconvenience for the Ioynture never was actually in the Wife to her prejudice until she entred into the Land c. And now by the Waiver the Ioynture is avoided ab initio to all intents as if it never had been made So as the King shall be answered of the entire profits after the time of the death of the Husband and may seize the whole Land presently without staying the Election of the Wife or taking notice of her Ioynture And so are the words of the Diem clausit Extremum Tibi praecipimus quod omnia Terras Tenementa of which c. et ea salvò Custodias donec aliud tibi praeceperimus And that may be before any Office found And those who have any Interest in the Land or otherwise may shew the same upon the Traverse of the Office or in the Court of Wards and have allowance of it And so there is not any prejudice to the King No more than when Tenant in Knight-service Deviseth all his Lands There Division is to be made and the King hath not any prejudice by it In the true Construction of this Statute it is very necessary to consider the intention and meaning of both Statutes And it is certain That the said Statutes were made for the benefit of the Subjects to enable them to dispose of their Lands for the preferment of their Wives advancement of their Children and payment of their Debts whereof they were restrained by the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses The Savings in the said Statute are for the benefit of the King and the Lords So as Provision is made not only for the benefit of the Subjects but also for the profit of the King and other Lords The disability of the subjects to dispose of their Lands to the intents aforesaid appears in the Preface of the Statute of 32 H. 8. And the favour and grace of the said King towards his Subjects to supply the necessity of Subjects appeareth by the Prefaces of both Statutes The later Statute is an Explanation of the former in divers Points The first Statute to persons Having Mannors c. Ex vi termini includes Tenants in tail Ioynt-Tenants Enfants Idiots Feme-Coverts but the same is explained by the later Act to be of Feesimple only and of sole Estates and to persons of sound memory not of Coverture And so If the Kings Tenant Deviseth all his Land the same is good for two parts of it so if he Devise all which he hath in Feesimple and leaveth the third part to descend in tail This Statute shall be taken strict against the Heir For the whole Scope and Intent of the Parliament was to bind the Heirs and to enable their Fathers to dispose so as the third part be saved to the King and the Lords And that is manifest For the Estates made by Collusion are preserved and by an express Clause in the Statute kept in force against the Heir but void as to the Lords As to certain Readers Cases which have been put to prove That these Statutes ought to have a strict Construction I conceive Nihil operatur A Man seised of one Acre by Disseisin and of two Acres by good Title all holden in chief by Knight-service Deviseth the two Acres which he hath by good Title and dieth so as the Acre which he hath by Disseisin descends to the Heir being within age the King seiseth the third Acre is devested by Eigne Title the Devise of the other two Acres is good against the Heir for it is within the express words of the Statute Having a sole Estate in Fee-simple And yet by another Branch of 34 H. 8. the King for his time shall have recompence out of the other two Acres and he agreed the Law to be so but the same doth not conclude our Case A Man seised of two Acres in Socage and of one Acre holden by Knight-service in Chief of equal value is disseised of the Acre holden in Chief and Deviseth the other two Acres in Fee the same is a good devise for it is within the first branch expresly Having a sole Estate in Feesimple and not having any Lands holden by Knight-service for during the disseisin he hath not the Land whereof he was disseised and therefore the devise is good for the benefit of the Devisee and the Lord is not at any Mischief For the Disseisee notwithstanding the Disseisin remains Tenant of the Lord as to the Avowry and the Lord shall have the Wardship of such Heir and may enter upon the Disseisor and so have a third part And that Case was put out of Gilbert's Reading A Man seised in Fee of two Mannors of equal value holden by Knights-service in Capite and a third Mannor of the same value is conveyed to him by Deed of Bargain and Sale acknowledged and before Enrollment he deviseth the two first Mannors to J.S. in Fee and dieth and afterwards the Indenture is enrolled yet the devise is not good for the said two Mannors by any Relation of the Bargain and Sale enrolled That Case may well be agreed to be Law For the Estate doth not vest in the Vendee before Enrollment and so the Estate was not perfectly in the Devisor at the time of the Will For although that the Enrollment shall relate
Also the words Of the Mannor of Fremmington and Hundred are put amongst others which are Mannors in truth By which he conceived That the Devisor did not intend to pass but one Mannor and no other Herediatments by this Mannor of Fremmington There is a Rule in Law That in the Construction of a Will a thing implyed shall not control a thing expressed But here If by implication the Rent shall pass then the Mannor of Camfield is not passed which was the intent of the Testator to pass and that by express words See 16 Eliz. Dyer 330. Clatches Case No Implication of any Estate in remainder can serve when a special Guift and Limitation is made by the Devisor himself See also 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman's Case But in our Case here there are not sufficient words to warrant any Implication for neither in truth nor in common reputation was it taken for a Mannor 27 H. 6. 2. Green-Acre may pass by the name of a Mannor although it be but one Acre of Land because it is known by the name of a Mannor See acc 22 H. 6. 39. And see Where before the Statute of Uses A Man had recoverors to his use and he willeth by his Will That his Feoffees sell his Lands they might sell And he said That if a Man seised of a Mannor parcel in Demesne and parcel in Service and he granteth the Demesnes to one and his Heirs and afterwards deviseth his Mannor peradventure the Services shall pass but this Rent hath not any resemblance to a Mannor Gawdy This Rent shall pass by the name aforesaid Favourable Construction is always given in Wills according to the meaning of the Devisor and no part of his Will shall be holden void if by any means it may take effect Then it here appeareth that his intent was That upon these words something should pass to the Devisee concerning the Mannor of Fremmington for otherwise the words Of the Mannor of Fremmington are void and frivolous which shall not be in a Will if any reasonable Construction may be made For it is found expresly by the Iury That neither at the time of the Will made nor at the time of the death of the Testator the Devisor had any thing in the said Mannor of Fremmington but the said Rent of 130 l. per annum And it may well be taken That the Devisor being ignorant what thing a Mannor is thought that this Rent was a Mannor because that she had Rents and Services out of the said Mannor For in Construction of a Will the words shall serve the intent And therefore if a Man Deviseth That his Lands shall be sold for the payment of his Debts his Executors shall sell them for the intent of the Devisor names the sellers sufficiently And See Plowden 20 Eliz. 524. L. after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Executors shall be seised to the use of A. and his Assigns in Fee whereas then there was no Feoffees to use the same was holden a good devise of the Land to A. But the Iustices conceived That the Devisor was ignorant of the operation of the Statute in that case and therefore his ignorance was supplyed See Br. Devises 48. 29 H. 8. A. had Feoffees to his use and afterwards after the Statute of 27 H. 8. and 32 H. 8. he willed That his Feoffees should make an Estate to B. and his Heirs It was holden by Baldwin Shelley and Mountague Iustices That it was a good Devise And see 26 H. 6. Fitz. tit Feoffments Faits 12. A Carue of Land may pass by the name of a Mannor therefore a fortiori a Rent for Rents and Services have more affinity and more resemble a Mannor than a Carue of Land. And it cannot be intended that the meaning of the Testator was to grant the Mannor it self in which he had not any thing especially by his Will for Covin Collusion or indirect dealing cannot be presumed in a Will. Also The Marchioness for 4 years together before her death had the Rent and Services of the said Mannor and she well knew that she her self had not any thing in the said Mannor but the said Rent and Services and therefore it shall be intended that the same was her Mannor of Fremmington A. seised of a Capital Messuage and great Demesnes lying to it Leased the same for years rendring Rent and afterwards devised to another all her Farm in such a place And it was Ruled in that Case That by that Devise the Rent and the Reversion passed See the Case between Wrottesley and Adams Plow 19. 1 Eliz. by Anthony Brown and Dyer Periam Iustice conceived That this Rent might be divided well enough But by Anderson It is but a Rent-Seck Periam It is distrainable of Common right Anderson doubted of it But all the Iustices agreed That the Rent might be divided but there should not be two Tenures The Lord Mountjoy being advised that this Rent did not pass but descended to the Heir being the full third part of the Lands entred into the Residue and made a Lease of the Mannor of Camfield unto the Plaintiff upon which the Ejectione firmae is brought And afterwards the Plaintiff seeing the Opinion of the Court to be against him and for the Devise of the Rent for the reasons aforesaid Discontinued his Suit c. CCXIX. Williams and Drew's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Widow of Williams who was Speaker of the Parliament brought Dower against Williams and Drew upon the Grande Cape Williams made default And now came Drew and surmised to the Court That he is not Tenant of the Land But further he saith That the Husband of the Demandant Leased the said Lands to him for 50 years and that this Action is brought by Covin to make him lose his Term and prayed to be received And the Opinion of the whole Court was That although he was party to the Writ yet he should be received and that by the Statute of Gloucester for he is in equal mischief And the Court was also clear of Opinion That upon the default of Williams the Demandant should not have Iudgment for a moyety for that the Cause of the receipt trenched to the whole And by all the Iustices but Rhodes If Iudgment had been given upon the deault of both i. e. Williams and Drew yet the Term of Drew should stand but Drew should be put out of possession and put to his Action And Anderson conceived That the Resceit upon that Statute did not lie unless that Covin be alledged betwixt the Demandant and the Tenant to make him to lose his Term and that Covin is traversable Which all the other Iustices denyed for the Covin ought to be averred but ought not to be traversed And also they all but Anderson were clear of Opinion That in this Case of Receipt the party shall not plead upon his Receipt as upon the Statute of Westminster but he shall be received