1 ACTIONS.

Actions of trespas tryed in a forraigne County. DOmina Chandois contra Chan­dois, the Court ordered that an Action of Trespasse shall bee tried in any forraigne County in July 37. Eliz. Reginae.

Barlow contra Wogan, in 8. Jacdi. A. so. 186.

The like between Tigh and Tigh, in Hillar.. 15. Jac. Regis.

Page cont' Page, li. A. fo. 74. Eliz. 44. & 45.

Barreston contra li. B. 40. Eliz. fo. 724.

Mulcaster cont' Mulcaster, Pasch. 44. Eliz.

Gregson contra Everard, in Trin. 21. Jac. Regis.

Comes Bedford contra Russell, further [Page 2]part of the County, in 3. Car. Reg.

Dominus Windsor contra Wright, in Pasch. 2. Car. Regis.

Flood contra Tracie, in Mich. or Hill. 5. Car.

I Isley contra Dom. Parham, in 32. Eliz. li. B. fo. 839.

Circuity of action pleaded. Kirkham contra Saunders, Circuity of Action, the Defendant not prohibited to plead severall Leases for defence of his title, in 34. Eliz. li. A.

Ownen contra Lort, an Action of Travers [...]yed in a forraigne County, in 10. Car. Re­gis.

2 Acts of Parliament.

Act of Parlia­ment. Bowes contra Comitem Northumbrit, concerning the relation of an Act of Par­liament.

3 Accompt.

Accompt. A Mer­chants Accompt perfected whether within the Stat. &c. Lumley contra Garret, when Merchants and Cotraders have made an Accompt, shall not be compelled here to make a new Accompt, 12. Car.

Sands contra Bladwell, Merchants Ac­compts. Whether an Accompt perfected shall be within the compasse of the Statute of lymitation of Accompt, 13. Car.

4 Admission.

Admissi­on. A Lord to admit a Tenant. Lunsford contra Popham, a Lord to ad­mit a Tenant, 23 Janu. 14. Jae.

Newby contra Chamberlame, the Court compells a Lord to admit a Tenant, in Mich, or Hillar. 5. Carol.

March cont. Gage eod' to admit a Tenant.

No advā ­tage to be taken, notwith­standing the sta­tute of li­mitation. Gravener contra Rake, the Court com­pells the Lord to admit a Tenant Copihol­der to sue at law, without any forfeiture of his Copihold. in Mich. 31. & 32. Eliz. fo. 21.

5 Advantage.

Comes Pembroke contra Hacket, no ad­vantage to be taken at law, notwithstand­ing the Statute of limitation, 10. Car.

6 Advowson.

Magister Coll' Emanuell' contra Ewens, Advow­son. concerning an Advowson which passed but by generall words, Decreed in Equitie, in Hill. 21. Jac. li. A. fo. 572.

7 Affidavit.

Hill contra Tiller, Affidavit. upon a Certificate from the Major of a Town under the Com­mon Seale, that an Affidavit was made before him for serving of Proces, an At­tachment was awarded, in 19. Eliz. fo. 63. li. A.

8 Agreement.

Agree­ment made be­fore Com­missioners Decreed.A draught of an Agreement before the Commissioners Decreed, notwithstanding the Defendant refused, Inter Pope & Ma­son, 11. & 12. Eliz. fo. 301.

Smith contra Gouch, A man that mar­ries the Executrix of one that makes an A­greement, shall be as farre bound, as hee himselfe that made the Agreement. Trin. 40. Eliz. li. B. fo. 118.

Agree­ment to convey lands in tayle though imbezil­led de­creed. Bates contra Heard, there was agree­ment between the said Parties, that lands should be conveyed in tayle, that the same being taken away, was confirmed by De­cree to be performed according to the said Articles, in Maij 11. Jac. li. A. fo. 864.

Throckmorton contra Dom. Throck­morton, Articles of Agreement decreed by the Judges advice, in Novemb. 7. Jac. li. B. fo. 301.

Wadbroke cont' Cheeke, an Agreement for surrendring of a Copihold (though made when the party was in Prison) upon Bonds for performance thereof, in 3. Car.

Foster cont' Eltonhead, an Agreement decreed, & Beuther cont' Denton. 25. Eliz.

Kinnersley contra Waller, concerning examination of some parties to a Joynt stock, after an Agreement made by some other parties, 3. Car.

Erby cont' Evans, concerning a promise or bare Agreement in Mich. or Hillar. 5. Car.

Penniston cont' Com' Downe, concerning Articles of agreement, and would avoyd an [Page 5]Estate upon pretence of no delivery, De­creed in Mich. or Hillar. 5. Car.

Pollington cont' Pollington, about 6. Car.

Owen cont' Deane, the Defendant got an assurance of Lands of one in Remainder of an Estate by Fine, contrary to an Agree­ment made to him that had the Remain­der, and the Plaintiffe decreed notwithstan­ding that the Defendant should reassure it to the Plaintife in Nov. 4. Jac.

Agree­ment for a Custome, binds a Purcha­ser If by threats otherwise. Spicer cont' Dockwray, an Agreement for a custome shall bind a Purchaser or Heir, 12. Car'.

Plowden cont' Marsham, if Agreement be compelled by threats, it shall not bind, in Hillar. 3. Car'. look tenth of June 1602. the contrary between Lord and Tenant.

Agree­ment or promise to passe lands of Inheri­tance. Moyles Case cont' Horne and others, by reason two hundred pounds was deposited towards payment, decreed.

Wilkinson cont' Deane, Mich. 2. Car. which afterwards passed away against the Buyer, because notice of Agreement.

Fithing cont' Portman, 43. Eliz.

Aubery cont' Concerning an agreement made by a Joyntenement, in 6. Car. li. B.

Page cont' Bishop, concerning an Agree­ment in 8. Carol.

9 Alyen.

An Alien cannot sue. Proud cont' Proud, a Demurrer because an Alyen cannot sue, and because a Legacie given one in ventre sa mere, look the Judges Certificate, in 14. Car.

10 Allowance.

Allow­ance to children where there is none by Will. Bright cont' Chappell, children allowed seaven or eight pounds per centum for their Education, where there is no allowance by the Will, in 5. Car'.

Fisher cont' Valence, the Defendant to allow damages for profits received, in Mich. 3. Carol.

Dorrington cont' Skinner, in 8. Car.

Charlish cont' I liffe, Eight pounds per centum look whether the Mortgage was before the Statute of 21. or since, it was for a Portion, Ju. 3. Car. fo. 268.

11 Annuities.

Annuity. Fage cont' Waller, A Lease devised to one, out of that, there is by Will Annuities given, one of the Annuities dyed, one other of them claimes that Annuity by Admini­stration, stration, Decreed against the Executors 20. Octob. 1631.

Annuity devised out of lands good, &c. Baynham & Newland com' Goche, an Annuity devised out of lands holden in Ca­pite to charitable uses, holden good not­withstanding the statute of 44. Eliz. li. A. fo. 520. [Page 7] Jesus Colledge case in court of Wards in 13. Jac.

Gardiani de Eltham in June. 15. Jac.

Aldsey cont' Place, a case made in Mich. 2. Car.

Major de Reading cont' Lane, gift to poore, because no Corporation voyd, yet re­lieved in 42. Eliz. A. fo. 706.

Annuity intayled thought not good. Pavier cont' Pavier, an Annuity granted, but because the lands are not chargeable at law, this Court will not in equitie, but de­creed to be paid in 14. Car. fo. 213.

Wiard cont' Mosse, an Annuity intailed thought not good, in Hill. 15. Car.

12 Answers.

Answers. Toy enforced at the suit of Kirke, to set down upon his Oath, whether his Lease was expired or not, 25. Eliz.

The De­fendant not infor­ced to an­swer to his own hurt. Mildmay was not inforced by Answer to the Bill of Cary and Cottington, to disco­ver a Forfeiture to his own hurt, 32. & 33. Eliz.

The plain­tif admit­ted to proofes, because the defen­dant be­ing in pri­son would not an­swer. Persons of Corporation charged as private persons, answered upon Oath.

Warr' cont' Societatem Feltmakers, in 20. or 21. Jac.

Gowen cont' Taylor, 38. & 39. Eliz. The Defendant being in Prison would not answer, therefore the Plaintife was admit­ted to proceed to proofes.

Becket cont' Waller, 28 Novemb. 40. Eliz. The Defendant being in Prison, and not in the Fleet, would not make a better Answer, though two Subpena's were served My Lord Keeper said, Let that be deposed, and hee should be shut up close Prisoner in what Pri­son soever he was. Butt cont' Ward, the De­fendant enforced to answer without his wife, 28. Eliz.

Elizabeth Breneton cont' Hart, Mich. 1587. the like.

Kirkham cont' Saunderson, Saunderson having two leases, was allowed to stand by Answer upon them both, and not restrained to one at his perill, Hillar. 35. Eliz.

Burgony contra Machell, the Defendant divided his title by a Lease and Assignment, which was before his knowledge, and there­fore pleaded that he heard say, that such a Lease and Assignment was made; The Ma­ster of the Rolls was of opinion, because it was anothers Act, the Oath is, that hee thinkes it to be true; The Defendant might have pleaded directly, that they were made as he thinketh 37. Eliz.

Rotheram cont' Saunders, the Defendant Answered, that he had no Evidencs belong­ing to the Plaintife, that Answer was disal­lowed, because the Defendant therein will be his own Judge, whether they belonged [Page 9]to the Plaintife or not. And therefore hee was ordered to answer what he had, and to bring them to be viewed to whom they be­longed. Pas. 37. Eliz.

A mans own acts must be answered di­rectly upon Oath, in the affirmative or ne­gative, without Traverse. As Master Justice Beamont held in the Case of Williams & Leighton: 38. Eliz.

Stauden cont' Bullock, the Defendant, forced to set down to whom he assigned his Lease, because otherwise the Leassor would have no action of Wast, and to set downe the names of the persons, whom hee had caused to fell trees, whereby the Leasor might have his action against them, 38. & 39. Eliz.

Wilcox & Yates cont' Fisher, after Repli­cation, a better Answer ordered, 38. & 39. Eliz.

To An­swer di­rectly.Whether a Lycence to assigne a Lease were granted or not, being but three yeares past, the Defendant ordered by my Lord to answer directly, and not to his Remem­brance. Oswald con' Pennant, 38. & 39. Eliz.

Part of the Title omitted out of the An­swer, and the Defendant would have put in a second Answer with the full title, and my Lord said not for all hee is worth. Ward & Colmer. 1597. & 40. Eliz. and Dacres & Stanhop, eod.

Harbert contra Morgan, 1597. the De­fendant ordered to set down his Terme cer­taine.

The Defendant could not answer cer­tainly what consideration hee had a Lease for twenty yeares past, and not confessed it directly, but my Lord said it was a crafty Answer, for he said directly that it was not upon trust, and it was of good value. Ran­dall was Plaintiff in 1597.

Willoughby contra Dom. Wharton, she ap­pointed to answer upon Oath, and not upon her honour, and so they ought to be sworne as witnesses (as my Lord held) or else no Attaint lyeth, if the Jury do not according to Evidences, 1597.

Michell' cont' Webb, 1. Novemb. 4. Eliz.

The Defendant by Answer accuseth him­selfe and fellow Defendant, and is believed against himselfe, but not against his Fellow.

Whether a Joyntenant should be infor­ced by law to disclose a partition in the life of his Fellow. Best cont' [...] did, two Orders in 22. or 23. Eliz.

Cromer cont' Penniston, in 39. & 40. E­liz. doubted.

Infants to answer upō oath. Infants to answer upon Oath, and bound by Decree.

Warberton contra Fanshaw. Mich. 39. Eliz. li. B. fo. 289.

Infants to Answer by Guardian, Com' Dorset cont' Puckle, in Hillar. li. B. 683. 1361.

Westerne contra Talpit, 12. Mai [...] 37. E­liz. li. B. fo. 106.

Langley contra Marke, primo Eliz. li. B. fo. 71.

Arch. cont' Collins, 6. Maii primo Eliz. fo. 113.121.

Phillips contra Owen-ap-Howell. 2. Eliz. li. A. fo. 121.

Posthumus Hobbie cont' Smith, 18. Jac. 229.

To answer upon Oath. Rivell cont' Com' Salop, the Defen­dant to answer upon Oath, Mich. 10. Jac.

Comes Pembroke cont' Wainman, an In­fant of 12 yeares, but not upon Oath, 5. Jac. li, A. fo. 1051.

To answer though excommu­nicated. Tichborne cont' Edmonds, the Defendant to answer the Bill though excommunica­tod 37. Eliz. li. A. fo. 376. Plumpton contra Belloes.

To answer a Bill of perjurie. Philips cont' Benson, the Defendant or­dered to answer a Bill of perjurie, 19. Eliz. li. B. fo. 165.

Wolley cont' Long, Pasch. 10. Jac.

Answer voluntari­ly. Gargrave contra Gargrave, in 1597. the Defendant answered voluntarily.

Jervace & Baxter, Trin. 22. Eliz.

A Report in 39. Eliz. between Rumney and Wentworth.

Trentham contra Kinnersley & Uxor, the Wives answer admitted without the Hus­bands, hee pretending pleading Jurisdiction of Court, 4. Jac. li. B. fo. 90.

2. Defen­dants one answering and the other re­fusing shall be bound by the others answer. Ordered to answer though to his preju­dice. Criminall causes to be answe­red unto. Mathew contra Mathew, two Defen­dants, one having answered, the other re­fused, but shall be bound by the others An­swer, if the cause passe against them, 7. Jac. fo. 702.

Chester contra Hicks, Hill' 1633, to a­mend an Answer in the mistaking.

Eland contra Cottington, ordered to Answer, though it bee to his prejudice by Statute lawes, in Trinit. or Mich. 4. Car.

Wakeman contra Smith, although cri­minall Causes are not here to be tryed di­rectly for the punishing of them, yet inci­dently for so much as concerneth the E­quitie of the cause, they are to bee an­swered.

Sir Mathew Carews Report in 27. E­liz.

Winn contra Swayne, a Commissioner, to Answer Briberie and Corruption, Trin. 6. Car.

A Bishop to answer upon oath. Major Sarum contra Episc' Sarum, a Bishop to answer upon Oath, 8. Car.

Eyre contra Wortley, one Defendants an­swer shall not prejudice the other Defen­dant, about 3: Car.

Answer not to be amended after issue joyned. Chettle contra Chettle, a Rejoynder and a Commission, the Defendant to a­mend her Answer, but my Lord saith not to amend an answer after issue joyned, Mich. 9. Car. Quere further what was deter­mined.

Exche­quer man to answer. East contra Bettison, Pasch. 21. Eliz. li. A. fol. 176. an Exchequer man to an­swer.

Menell contra Fenton, eod. fo. 231.

Reader contra Ceble, after a Dedimus to answer, libertie to demurr. 9. Car. li. B. fo. 333.

Pridgeon contra Lambe, or Thornburst contra Lambe, 7. Car.

Perry contra Gunter, in Pasch. 2. Car. li. A. fo. 546.

A feme covert to answer. Acton contra Decanum Elye, the Defen­dant to answer as a Politique body, 9. Car. Quere whether upon Oath.

Portman contra Popham, a Wife to an­swer without her Husband, he being beyond Sea in 11. Car.

13 Arrerages.

Arrerages. Saris contra Strudhay, the Plaintiffe to have Arrerages before Attornment, 25. Eliz.

Drury contra Drury, concerning how far a Joyntenant shall allow arerages before partition, 6. Car.

14 Assignement.

Assigne­ment be­fore a Commssi­on of Bankrupt sued out good. Yardley contra Knight, a Debt' assig­ned before a Commission of Bankrupt sued out, good, 7. Car.

Knight & Chambers contra Gregorie, codem.

15 Assurance.

Assurance Kempe cont' Palmer, in 1594. further assurance not demanded within the time, yet in equitie ordered to make further assu­rance afterwards.

The Wife to make an Assu­rance. Inter Carrington & Uxor quer', & Humphrey Defendant. It is ordered, that the Defendant and his wife, shall make an absolute assurance for the extinguishment of her Right in the lands, in primo Edw. 6. fo. 306. & in li. C. fo. 3019.

Beeston contra Langford, further assu­rance compelled 41. Eliz. li. B. fo. 222.

16 Attachments.

Attach­ment a­gainst Lords. An Attachment against the Lord Crom­well against Tavernor about 14. Eliz.

The like against the Lord Dacres, 32. E. liz. li. A. fo. 65.

An Attachment about June, 37. Eliz. a­gainst the Lord Barkley, at the motion of the Countesse of Warr'.

Attach­ment a­gainst the wife with­out the husband for not answer­ing. Keies contra Macher, an Attachment against the Wife alone, and not the Hus­band, for that shee would not answer the Bill, Mich. 4. Jac.

Farmer contra Fox, because the Defen­dant maketh Oath, that he cannot answer without sight of Writings in the Country, and then puts in a Demurrer, therefore an Attachment is awarded against him, Pasch. 21. Eliz.

Attach­ment against Infant. Savill contra Slingsby, an Attachment against an Infant, to make him to choose a Gardian, Hillar. 7. Car.

Witham contra Robert, an Attachment awarded against the Plaintiff, for arresting the Defendant, upon an Attachment in the Court of Requests, against the Priviledge of this Court, the Defendant being formerly a priviledged man, and an Injunction to stay proceedings there, 9. Car.

Attorney.

Might an Attorney, sued at Law upon an Action of the Case, for confessing an Action without Warrant for one Har­gate, for whom he had been an Attorney, wherefore Might sought Reliefe in this Court, and could not have it, in 1595.

18 Attornement.

Attorn­ment ordered. Huish & Blond & Fowler, 39. Eliz. Trin. & Pasch. 36. Eliz. li. A. fo. 19.

Notwith­standing a Disseisin. Dannet cont' Blackall, an Attornment ordered notwithstanding a Disseisin, and it was for a Lease 11. Car. vel Jac.

Pie cont' Bevill, the Defendant ordered to shew Evidences, to direct what Tenants ought to Attorne, and to discover who is Tenant, 11. Car.

Sands cont' Lewes; an Attornement or­dered and arrerages and damages since Rent became due 11. Car.

Viviun com' Tresayer, notwithstanding no Attornment before Quid juris clamat, ordered to goe to law directing a speciall tryall in it, 14. Car.

19 Award.

An Award not to be decreed. D [...]i [...] contra Wood, Trinit. 24. Eliz. An Award made, the Defendant recovered mo­ney thereby, the Plaintiff would have had it Decreed, could not, because it was not made by any Warrant of this Court.

An Award concern­ing a lease to be per­formed. Twyn contra Twinn, the Court ordereth an Award or agreement to be performed concerning a Lease and other things, 40. E­liz. l. B. fo. 463.

Sands con' Carvil, in 9. Car.

Award vo­luntary decreed. Car contra Heron, an Award decreed with the advice of the Lord chiefe Justice, in 22. & 23. El. li. A. fo. 596.

Hall contra Hocks, in Nov. 38. & 39. Eliz. It is a voluntary Award.

Award decreed no party to the Ex­change bound. Godderick contra Swansell, an Award de­creed by this Court, and a man bound, though no partie to the Exchange, 9. Jac. li. B. fo. 1456.

Bishop contra Bishop, a voluntary Award decreed, but some part being to bind Te­nant in tayle not to alyen, the Court would not decree that, but gives reliefe against the Award, being to make a perpetuitie, and a man not bound to Answer, as to cause him to be subject to the penalty of a Bond, and the Statute of lymitation (as this case stands) is over-ruled, Mich. 15. Car.

Colt contra Smith, an Award made by Cordall and the Bishop forty yeares since, decreed against the successor for the man­ner of tithing, Mich. 21. Car.

Baile.

A Baile in this Court, or in the Civill law, is discharged upon bringing in the prin­cipall, as he may at the Common law.

Archboll contra Barrell, 23. & 24. Eliz.

Bargaine.

Bargain for horses by doub­ling of Oats. Rogers contra Smith, the suit is touching two Horses, for which the Defendant was to pay by doubling an Oate. demurred be­cause but an Action of the case, over-ruled in 15. Car.

Fage contra Browne, concerning the [Page 18] For a Lute by the strings.buying of a Lute by the strings, in 1. or 2. Car.

22 Barrester.

Barrester being free of a Com­pany. Swallow contra Man, a Barrester of the Temple, being free of a Company, and by his Will disposeth of profits of lands, how far shall it trench upon the Custome, Pasch. 15. Car.

Bill.

One which had a Covenant to deliver Evidences, exhibited his Bill, supposing cer­taine Deeds to remaine in the Covenanters hand, the opinion of the Court was, the Defendant needed not to answer, because he should thereby disclose cause of Forfei­ture of the Bond. Wolgrave contra Coe, Mich. 1595.38. Eliz.

A Bill to examine Witnesses in perpetu­all memorie touching common not thought fit but a Bill upon the title, and to examine Witnesses and publication thereupon, and then to goe to law. Throckmorton contra Griffin, 38. & 39. Eliz.

The Father complaineth for a Lease which is in the sonne to the Fathers use. Pomeroy contra Ford, Pasch 1597.

A Bill upon a penall Statute, clayming one halfe to the Queen, and another to the party, disallowed by my Lords opinion. Coward & West, Trin, 39. Eliz. though [...] [Page 19]not mentioned in the Order..

Bill taken off the file and new put on. Clifford contra Adams. 11. & 12. Eliz. li. A. fo. 294. the Plantife having put in his Bill being misconceived, notwithstanding Answers put in, and proceedings had there­upon, was taken off the File and new put in.

Old and new proofes read upon a new bill. Stanley contra Young, Hillar. 1590. The Lord Chancellours opinion was, that the old and new proofes should be read up­on a new Bill, to prove better matter.

Bill for mony won at dice. Cromer exhibited a Bill against Champ­ney, to be relieved of a Bond made for mo­ney wonne at Dice, the Defendant would have been dismissed but ordered to answer it, 22 Maij. 38. Eliz.

And the like case between Hubbard, and the Lord Compton, about 44. Eliz.

Bill for Legacie dismissed. Piggot contra Parson, 44. Eliz. Because the ground of the Bill is for a Legacie, thought fit to be dismissed.

Pennington contra Cooke, a Bill to pre­vent Dower, being her Husband was past memory at time of Marriage, but it was dismist to law, 3. Jac. li. B. fo. 6.

Hare cont' Hide, a Bill preferred against an Infant, and he ordered to Answer, Hill' 3. Jac. & Pasch. Prox'.

Scoble contra Holman, if the Plaintiffs Bill were exhibited before Judgement the [Page 20]Defendants proceedings to stay, or else nor, 38. Eliz. fo. 79.

No Bill of Revi­vor after Marriage. Vaux contra Dowell. 39. Eliz. lib. B. fo. 132. no Bill of Revivor after Marriage.

Dale contra Dale, the like.

In 25. Eliz. Sloper contra Bacon.

Creswell contra Luther, 19. & 20. Eliz. li. A. fo. 210. A Bill to find who is Tenant of land whereby to ground an Action.

No Bill of Review admitted upon new matter, Lovegraie contra Webb, 3 Jac. 259. Mudget contra Davies, 15. Jac. li. B.

Bill to be relieved upon an escape. Carnsew contra Coad, a Sheriffe preferred his Bill, to have reliefe upon an Escape of one that was in execution, Mich. 20. Jac. li. B. fo. 306.

Reynell contra Quintin, li. A. 7. Jac. fo. 933. contrary.

Reynell contra Longcastle, Hillar. 19, Jac. Boll & Farrington, 10. Jac. li. B. fo. 178.

A Bill in the nature of an A­vowric for Rent. Caesar contra Cater, Pas'. 9. Car. A Bill in the nature of an Avowrie for Rent, and service, the Defendant ordered to set out a place, and stand upon right, or goe to hearing.

Bill to re­verse a Decree at York. Askwith contra Turnor, Mich'. 1633. A Decree at Yorke, a Bill preserred in this Court to reverse it, the matter was heard at large, not withstanding any pleading of the Defendant.

Preston contra Proctar, 2 Car.

Boucher contra Barwicke Pasc. vel Trin. 10. Car.

Bill a [...]yo­luntary promise without prefer­ment dis­mist. Alexander contra Cresheld, A generall and voluntary promise (and no considera­tion) of the son, to dis-ingage and pay the Fathers debts, where, no advancement by his Father, dismist, 28 Octob. 7. Car.

Bill to be tenant by curtesie. Cowley contra Anderson, 20 Jac. li. B. fo. 77. the Defendant conveyed land to the use of his Daughters,the Plaintiff married one, and had children by her who are dead, the plaintiff preferrs his Bill to bee Te­nant by curtesie, but held not so, because the Daughters had Joynt Estates, and so goes to the Survivor.

Bill pre­tending more land pasted then was intended, yet no re­liefe a­gainst the Purcha­sor. Clifford contra Laughton, the Plaintife preferrs a Bill in this Court against the De­fendant, supposing that more lands passed then was intended, but because the Defen­dant was a Purchaser upon valuable consi­deration, would give no reliefe, 4 Jac. li. B. fo. 340.

Bill for contribu­tion to a Surety. King smill contra Etheridge, the Defen­dant sueth for contribution after Judge­ment, which was assigned for that purpose in June, 20. Jac.

Newman contra Lloyd, a Demurrer o­verruled about 20. Jac.

Hill Mil'. contra Penty, Walsh & al'. [Page 22]about 17. Jac. another in the Queens time between Agar and Curson.

Bill upon escape not relieved here. H [...]de contra Burges, upon a Bond 3, Car. A Bill preferred to be relieved upon point of escape, but dismissed.

Brackin contra Dom. Perpoint, 25. No­vember 21. Jac.

Reynell contra Darling, 6 Octob. 19. Jac.

Reynell contra Whiting, 14. Maij. 19 Jac.

Bill to find a te­nant to ground an Action. Dom' Kempe contra Risbie, A Bill to find a Tenant to an Estate whereby to ground an Action of Dower, in Mich. 2 Car.

For an E­scape. Lello contra Lamplugh, concerning an Escape, Mich. 5. Car.

Tenant pur auter vie prefers a Bill, or an Execu­tor sues for land. Hemming contra Leigh, Tenant pur auter vie, exhibited a Bill, or an Execu­tor sues for title of land, whether this shall hold in li. B. Car. 6. about two yeares after referred to Master Justice Jones.

For Fees dismist. Harding contra Tedwell, a Bill for Fees was dimissed, & Moore contra Rowe, 5. Car.

Yelverten contra Rolfe, 6. Car.

To set out bounda­ries. Tipping contra Chamberlaine, a suit to set out Boundaries, Mich. 2. Car.

2. Bils the first in the Court of Requests, th' other here, the Defen­dant pleads the proceed­ings there over-ruled For mony wonne at dice, &c. Samuel contra Samuel. a Bill first pre­ferred in the Court of Requests, and the same being mistaken there, prefers another [Page 23]Bill here, the Defendant pleads the pro­ceeding in that Court, notwithstanding o­ver-ruled, 9. Car.

Sucklyn contra Morley, the Bill being to discover, what money the Defendant wonne at Dice or play of the Plaintiffe, over­ruled, and an Injunction, to stay suit upon a Bond entred into for the money, 11. Car.

To assist a Covenant Dayrell contra Pollard, a Bill to assist a Covenant, 11. Car.

In perpe­tuall me­morie. Potts contra Scarborough, the Bill be­ing to examine. Witnesses in perpetuall memorie concerning common reteyned, 11. Car.

dismissed upon an­swer. Walker contra Lipscombe, for that the Plaintiffe sheweth by his Bill, that hee hath no Witnesses to prove the same, and the Defendant denyed upon Oath, therefore dismissed, Mich. 12. Car. li. B.

Read contra Gilbert, a Demurrer put into a Bill for Fees for solliciting to dis­charge a Tenure done accordingly yet De­murrer to stand. 12. Car.

A Bill for a way. Savill contra Timperley, a Bill to bee relieyed for a way which hath been aboli­shed, a Commission to set it out in 8. Jac. fo. 855.

Rembolt contra Iames in Mich. 15. Car.

Vpon a promise to aslure lands of Inheri­tance dis­missed. Miller contra Blandist, to bee relieved concerning a promise to assure land of In­heritance, but because there was no executi­on thereof, but onely fifty five shillings paid in hand, dismissed in 30. Jac. li. B. fo. 234.

Towne contra Traherne, a Bill preferred here to stay a suit, brought upon false Im­prisonment, in 10. Jac. lib. A. fo, 477.

Arundell contra Drew, A Bill entred into to procure a Marriage, cancelled. A Case between Cov [...]nors and Comes Suff. 10. Jac.

Ireland contra Jefferey.

Delabarr contra Cox, the Bill to bee re­lieved upon Articles of Agreement, but (because the bargain at Dice) would not decree it, in Mich. 14. Car.

Price contra Palmer, A suit to reverse a Decree made against a Wife, shee consent­ing to a Feme Coverts Answer, shall nor bind, in M [...]ch. 9. Car.

To per­forme a Will. Hire contra Wardall, the Bill is to have a mans Will performed 9. July, 4. Car.

Aprice contra Aprice, a Bill preferred for a personall Estate because he makes an Estate title or Interest to himselfe, dismis­sed in M [...]ch. 13. Car.

Gerrard contra Deering, because a Pro­hibition to stay suit in the Court of Re­quests prefers a Bill, and desires Depositi­ons [Page 25]in that Court to be used, Pasch. 1. Car.

To dis­solve a Contract of Mar­riage. Bateman contra Wells, a Bill to dissolve a Contract of Matriage, and to have Bond up, because the woman denies to have him, Hillar. 8. Car.

How far a man must Answer. Cotton contra Foster, the Plaintiffe pre­ferrs his Bill to have the Defendant answer, whether the Contract was to receive more moneys for Interest then warranted, De­murred unto, but over-ruled, and if found that the Defendant lent it without conside­ration, then to take the forfeiture in 25. E­liz. fo. 15.

Walsh contra Marshall, a Bill upon a Recognizance, the Defendant pleads the Statute of Usuric, and the same is insuffi­cient, Ordered to put in such a Plea as hee will stand unto, 25. Eliz. li. B. fo. 28.

Vpon an Action of the case after a tryall re­ferred a­gain thi­ther, but reserving equitie. Mallery contra Vintner, a Bill to be re­lieved upon an Action of the case upon an Accompt, after a Verdict, Judgement, and Execution at Law, referred againe to law, because a Verdict passed upon the Oath of one Vintner, who was thought not to have dealt fa [...]ly at the tryall, and after, the cause referred to this Court for Equitie, Hill. 15. Car.

Of the nature of conformi­tie. Muffet contra Crack-place, the Defen­dant and two more, ordered to conforme themselves to an agreement of other [Page 26]Creditors. 11. Iac. li. A. fo. 104.

Many Plaintiffs in one Bill for severall causes, and much disliked. Bristow and Par­ker in 1590.

24 Bonds.

Bonds an­tient to be cancel­led. Garford contra Humble, Antient Bonds put in suit, ordered to be cancelled, about Mich. 16. Jac. 169.

Monson contra Bettison. simile in 5. Car.

For To­bacco can­celled. Hubberstie contra Dumethalls, Bonds entred into for Tobacco here cancelled, Mich. 11, Jac.

Put in suit ordered not to proceed. Pearcy cantra Bardolfe, the Defendant seeks to put a Bond in suit against the Plain­tiffe, having married she that promised not to marry without the consent of friends. Or­dered not to proceed in 32. Eli. li. A. fo. 21 3.

Released by the Fa­ther taken in the sons names good. Simonds contra Lomley, Bonds released by the Father, which he had taken in the names of his sons being Infants, thought good and allowed in Hillar. 20. Jac.

Entred into by menaces, &c can­celled. Watts contra Lock, 4. Car. Bonds can­celled which have been entred into per Me­naces threats, and Imprisonments.

Othy con' Daniel, point of cosenage bonds cancelled & concerning wares, in 5 Ca. li. B.

For re­signing a Benefice Wood con' Berry concerning Bonds given for resigning a Benefice Me Lord Keepers di­stinction concerning Simony in Trin. Car. 6. li. B. fo. 653.

Snell contra Still, concerning Bonds to present to a Benefice, M. 3, Car.

For pay­ment of mony and a release made all in one day relieved. Topp cont' Roberts, Mich. 12. Car. li, A. fo. 66. the Defendant would avoyd the pay­ment of money upon a Bond, because the Plaintiff made a Release the same day after the Bond entred into, relieved here.

Wynne contra Swayn, & Man con' Ham, Bonds entred into for performance of an Award, upon non-performance sued, yet stayd by Injunction, 6. Car. li. B.

Lever cont' Arsents, 6. Car. li. B. Bonds en­tred into for fees, & Lords favors cancelled.

Mistaken, no advan­tage. Colston con'Carr. a Misnosmer in a Bond no advantage to be taken, 11. Mai [...] 33. Eliz.

A volun­tary bond entred in­to cancel­led. Wright cont' Moore, 7. Car. A voluntary Bond of 1000. l entred into for no conside­ration, cancelled in the presence of Judges.

Arleston contra Kent, Bonds entred in­to for procuring a Marriage, cancelled Febr. 17. Jac. For pro­curing marriages cancelled.

Gotts contra Gibson, Feb. 10. Jac. An In­junction awarded.

Wiseman contra Pascell, the Bond brought into Court, 3. Car.

For first fruits one delivered up. Trobridges case, 9. Car. Two bonds for first fruits entred into, the first must be de­livered up.

Forfeited, and after the money tendred, no use from that time al­lowed. Malton contra Pennell, 12. Car. though a Bond be forfeited and money tendred after­wards [Page 28]shall be allowed no use after the tender.

Dom. Cavendish contra Forth, Bonds en­tred into in 22. Eliz, because it was not in­ventoried,Antient to be deli­vered, up and can­celled. and some money proved to bee paid to the Testator, it was conceived the money was all paid, and the Bonds decreed to be delivered up.

For per­formance of Cove­nants mi­staken, cancelled. Tisdall contra Danvers, a Covenant that a Meadow was haimeable at May day, and a Bond for performance of Covenants, that the Meadow was haimeable at April, the Bond was put in suite upon that Covenant, decreed to be cancelled, in 10. Jac. li. A. fo. 231.

Without use by the Father, the Son shall have none. Archer contra Bartlet, in 10 Car. where the Bond is made without use by the Fa­ther, the sonne shall be concluded.

Volunta­ry. Bridges contra Wimbleton, concerning a voluntary Bond entred into, 10. Car.

Entred into to procure a Pardon. Mainwayring contra James, & Moie, concerning Bonds entred into, to procure a pardon, the Bill and Answer expresseth the Bonds to be without any consideration, and no personall Estate to satisfie, and how farr the pardon shall take away the civill Action of another, and the Lord Keepers Declara­tion, if a man enters into a Bond for pay­ment of a summe certain, at a day certaine, the Obligee shall not be put to prove the Bond in Novemb. 1629.

25 Broccage.

Broccage of Citi­zens and Gentle­men. Sands contra Greshall, the great cause con­cerning young Gentlemen being brought in by Londoners. Hill 31. or 32. Eliz.

26 Cattell Tythable.

What manner of cattell tithable. Southby contra Meere. 5. or 6. Car. con­cerning what manner of Cattell are tith­able.

27 Charitable uses.

Money gi­ven to a charitable use de­creed with damages. Seymor contra Pauperes de Twiford, Mo­ney long since given to a charitable use, de­creed with Interest, Trin. 1634.

Wolrich contra Inhabitant de Frempton, Charitable uses upon the statute of 43. Eliz.

Burford contra Pauperes de Sudbury, Trin. 5. Car.

Slater cont' Phillips, concerning a charita­ble use, and the Judges Certificate upon the statute of 43. Eliz. 5. Car. & Mich. 2. Car.

Charita­ble uses when con­firmed by Lord Kee­per not to be altred, and the Lord Kee­pers pow­er. Pauperes de East-Greensteed contra Ho­ward, My Lord declared, that when he had altered or confirmed the Decree made upon the statute of 43. Eliz. the Decree is to bee perpetuall, and then to remain in the Petti­bagg, and it is in his power to make a De­cree good, which is defective in 8. Car. & 10 how far a Purchaser shall be bound.

Hungate experte Inhabitant de Shorhorne [Page 30]3. Car. A debt which is a charitable use in Action, was given for the erection of a Schoole, and this was a good appointment within this law.

Steward contra Jermyn, 41. Eliz. when a Donor appoints lands or goods to be sold for to maintain a charitable use, and doth not appoint by whom the sale shall be made by such as the Commissioers shall appoint.

Hellams Trin. 5. Car. a devise to the Company of Leather-sellers London, for a charitable use, was holden a good devise.

2. Jac. lands in Grates-Inne-lane, given to build a Schoole at Rugby in Com' Warr', the Commissioners did sit at Rugbie to en­quire, and held not good.

Wingfield 4. Car. Mony was given for the good of the Church of Dale, and this was ruled good upon these generall words.

Kensham 41. Eliz. that a Copihold may be charged with a charitable use.

Goff contra Webb, 44. Eliz. upon the Will of one Hunt, of the Lease of the Rectory of Haines in the County of Wilts, it was resol­ved by Egerton and Popham, that a devise of money be distributed to twenty of the poorest of his kindred, shall be a good de­vise, notwithstanding it doth not appeare that he had any poore kindred.

Champion contra Smith, 3. Jacobi, one [Page 31] Ridley being seised of Copyhold lands in Barking in Essex, did devise that the Parson and Church-wardens in Thames-street London, and foure honest men of that Pa­rish, should sell the land, and employ the money for the poore and charitable uses in that Parish. And it was objected that the devise was voyd, because the Parson and Church-wardens were not a Corporation to take land out of London, nor to sell it for such uses, but it was decreed that the devise was good, and that they had a good Au­thority to sell the same.

Stoddard 20. Jacobi, who devised by pa­roll a yearly rent of 10. pounds per annum for ever, out of his house called the Swanne with two necks, in the old Jury London, for the maintenance of two schollers in Ox­ford and Cambridge, and willed that Hugh le Scrivenor should put it into writing, which he did accordingly; And this was found by Inquisition, and decreed.

And it was objected, that the Devise was not good, for that a Rent could not be de­vised by a Will Nuncupative, but the De­cree was confirmed to be good, for a Rent may be created and granted without Deed in case of a Petition, much more for a cha­ritable use.

Hire contra Cordall, Pasch. 4. Jac. upon [Page 32]the Will of one Thompson, who being seized of lands in London, did devise that it should be sold after the death of his Wife, for Daughters Portions, and made his Wife his Executrix, and it was ruled, that the Executors of his Wife might sell, for land in London devisable by Custome before the Statute of Wills, but it was doubted that it had been of lands not devisable by Custome.

Major & Burgensis de Reading contra Lane, in 43. Eliz. A devise to the poore people maintained in the Hospitall in the Parish of Saint Laurence in Reading for ever, Exception was taken that the poore were not capable by that name for no Cor­poration, yet because the Plaintiffe was ca­pable to take lands in Mortmaine, and did govern the Hospitall; It was decreed the Defendant should assure the lands to the Major and Burgesses for the maintenance of the said Hospitall.

Sir Thomas Middleton, Hillar. 15. Jac. The Master and Mariners in a voyage to Sea, agreed that a ratable proportion should be deducted out of their wages, for reliefe of such seafaring men, as should be maymed at Sea, and Sir Thomas Middleton (being Treasurer for the Navy, Anno 1590.) had paid their wages, and deteyned this money [Page 33]for the maymed sea-faring men, and not paid it, and although no certain particular men could claime it, yet he was adjudged to accompt for it by this Law.

Major Bristoll contra Whitton, 9. Car. A man deviseth by his Will, moneys to a cha­ritable use, to be bestowed for poore people, and the residue of his goods to be employed to such uses as his Fecoffecs shall thinke meet, Devise is good, though it be devised to a Corporation, &c. in 8. & 9. Car. Two Judges Certificate afterwards.

Fisher contra Hill, when no use is men­tioned or directed in a Deed, it shall be de­creed to the use of the poore, and the Feoffe­ment being made to Gentlemen out of the Towne, sought to bee avoyded, because it ought to be the Townesmen onely, Decreed in 10. Iac. li. B. fo. 238.

Pie contra [...] in 14. Car.

Estcot contra Cooke & Mannington, in Mich. 15. Car.

Allen contra Cooke Mich. 14. Car.

Peacocke contra Thewer, M. 14. Car. If lands be given to a charitable use, to dispose an overplus, if the Purchasor had no notice, cannot bind him, but if rent issue out of land, the Purchasor must pay it, but will not charge him to pay arrerages before purchase, nor lay it upon one, nor excuse the other.

Mansell contra Middleton in Mich. 14. Car.

Penniman contra Iennings, Lands given to Church-wardens, voyd in law, decreed hereabout, 2. Car.

Pember contra Inhabitant de Kington, Whether money given to maintain a prea­ching Minister bee a charitable use, the Lord Keeper, and the Judges did decree (notwithstanding it is not warranted by the Statute to be a charitable use) that the same shall be paid by the Executor to such maintenance, in Trin. 15. Car.

Pensterd contra Pavier, A. Deviseth 20 pounds per annum, to a preaching Minister, dyes, leaving lands and Assets, the Defen­dant will not pay it accordingly, the Court with the Judges chargeth her out of the As­sets, to buy lands to perpetuate it in Trin. 15 Car. shee having but a third part of the lands, and so ought not to bee chargeable with any more.

Bramble contra, Pauperes de Havering, Feme covert makes a will of 30 shillings per annum to a charitable use, out of some of her own lands and (though an Award) it shall be paid; and Bonds given to performe the same, yet the Heiro is not bound to performe the same in Trin. 15. Car.

Windfor contra Pauperes de Farnham, [Page 35]whether after appearance upon exceptions, the Decree may be revived in Pasch. 2. Car.

Chose in Action.

Chose in A­ction good in this Court. Burrell contra Siday, a Devise out of a Chose in Action, good in this Court, in 3. Car. li. B. fo. 792,

Roch contra Guntur, Assignee of Chose in action, in Mich. 15. Car.

Assigned and dis­position of things by a feme Covert. Greenvile contra Com' Suff. concerning assigning of Chose in Action, and disposition of things by a Feme Covert, in li. A. fo. 5. Car.

Georges contra Chancey, Mich'. 15. Car. Greenvile contra Cutteford in Hill' 1632.

Assigna­ble by this Court. Seaten contra Ferrers, concerning the as­signing of money decreed in li. B. 22. Jac. and a second Purchaser ordered to pay the money, although but chose in Action, and not privy to the Assignement.

29 Colluder.

One Col­luder to bring in another. Forth, to bring in Mary Dick with whom he colluded, The Lord Audley and 32. & 33. Eliz.

30 Common.

Common. A Com­mission to distin­guish bounds & meats. Magister & societat' Christ-Church in Cambridge contra Martin, The Bill con­cerning title of Common, and the Court A­wards a Commission for the distinguishing [Page 36]the Meats and Bounds in 32. Eliz. li. A. fo. 207.

Sands contra. Beale, in Pasch. 20. Jac. fo. 866.

Determi­ned here and stint­ing of cat­tell. Tenants of Dosthorpe contra Loveday, point of Common determined here in 33 Eliz. fo. 400. li. B.

Raremeadow contra Beacle, and stinting of Cattell in Nov. 7. Jac.

French contra Eyer, in 33. Eliz. concern­ing Comons, Walts, and Customes.

Cockaine contra Dom. Howard, for Ap­portionment of Common 9. Car.

Goodman contra Wood, This Court de­termines the liberty of Foldage and Pasture, and what number of sheep shall bee kept, 21. Jac.

Hartley contra Dively, a Bill here for common of Pasture for him and his Te­nants, and comon of Turbary in the wast grounds in a Mannor allowed here, in 33. Eliz. fo. 192.

After try­all at law a Commis­sion to set forth Cō ­mon. Lamott contra Hitch, Whether a com­mon for sheep lyes now in the Parish of Melborne or Folmer, though sent to Law, yet reserving Equitie, to th'end a Commissi­on may be awarded to set it out in 14. Car.

To be ac­cording to the plow land, and Cottages not to be excepted. Sewell contra F [...]nch, findes that the Town hath had alwaies Common, and ma­ny Deeds speake of use and trust, the Court [Page 37]adjudgeth the Common to be according to the plow-land and Cottages not to be ex­cepted, but to have a proportionable rate in 2. Car.

Prescrip­tion of Common how farre relieved. By lawes for stint­ing of Common dismissed. Tucker contra Coppleston, because the Plaintiffe could not prescribe any Title of Commoning in the Wasts, no Reliefe, in Pasch. 15. Car.

Mole contra Mole, An Agreement be­tween Townsmen concerning stinting and restrayning cattell, and other Orders in the Fields, dismissed in 15. Car.

Commissions.

Commissi­on speciall to private persons. Cage contra Elrington, a speciall Com­mission to private persons to apprehend one in contempt, and to bring him to the Fleet, Trin. 3. Jac.

Of Rebel­lion. The parties shall be bayled if good Sure­ties be offered, or else they shall be sued a­bout 37. & 38. Eliz.

For pos­session. Because the Defendant had set out all Proces of contempt, 1. Ed. 6. fo. 144. or 244.

Another for Lawson, 37. H. 8.

Evans crontra Bingham, 30. Eliz.

Lovis contra Lovis eod.

Brereton contra Young, about 33. Eliz. Commission to take possession, and appre­hend the contemners.

Brocas contra Savage, To put the Defen­dant in possession.

Wildgosse contra Ragland, 36. Eliz. Be­cause the Defendant stood out all Proces of contempt for not Answering, the Bill was taken pro confesse, Denton Mill' was Plain­tiffe contra Brown in Pasch. 11. Jac. li. A. fo. 736.

Another between Comes Oxon contra Gouch about 13. Jac. fo. 104.

Comes Hertford contra Gerrard, because the Defendant would not Answer the Plain­tiffes Bill, it was taken pro confesso, 10. Jac. li. A. fo. 371.

Devoreux contra Stephens, Maij 11. Jac. fo. 632.

To exa­mine wasts. Poshall contra Reresby, A commission to examine Wasts in 12. Jac. li. B. fo. 74.

Sacheverell contra Sacheverell, One of the Commissioners letting the Defendant escape, being taken upon a Commission of Rebellion, was to stand committed to Pri­son, till hee brings in the Defendant in Hil­lar. 18. Jac.

To prove whether a child be legitti­mate. A Commission out of this court, to prove whether a child be legittimate, Cressey con­tra Hull, Pasch. 11. & 12. Eliz. li. A. fo. 130. The contrary in 22. Jac. inter Hob­by & Smith.

Townley contra Clench, or Clench contra Townley, about 40. Eliz.

To set out lands for payment of debts. Mullineux contra Mullineux, the Court orders that a Commission shall goe forth to set out lands that lye promiscuously to be lyable for payment of debts, in Feb. or Jan. 14. Jac. li. B. fo. 427.

To set out Coppy­hold land from Free­hold lands Peckering contra Kimpton, a Commissi­on to set out Coppyhold land from free land which lye obscured, if the Commissio­ners cannot sever it, then to set out so much in lieu thereof, in Mich. or Hill. 5. Car.

Lovelace contra Coffin, whether a Com­mission to Answer and examine Witnesses, may in one be concluded,To prove Customes but par­ties inte­ressed not to be exa­mined. 9. Car.

Hopton contra Higgins, a Commission awarded to prove customes, but parties in­teressed shall not be examined as Witnesses in 10. Jac. li. B. fo. 309.

After Cō ­mission an examiner to goe down to examine. Bartley contra Eyre, where a Commission is awarded to Commissioners to examine Witnesses, and they cannot agree, or where there is an undue carriage, or the Commis­sioners great, or Witnesses old, the Court a­wards an Examiner to goe down into the country in 1 Augusti, 41. Eliz.

Maton contra Culpepper, 25 April, 15 Eliz.

Stampe contra Clarke in Iune 32. Eliz.

32 Commissioners.

Commis­sioners. Nelson contra Yelverton, Commissioners upon a Commission of Rebellion, letting [Page 40]the partie in contempt goe where hee listed, ordered to be committed till they pay the the debt, in Trin. 18. Jac.

The like between Sacheverell and Sa­cheverell.

Morgan contra Bowdler, Commissioners to be examined upon occasion of partialitie and practise, 9. Car.

Norton contra Hodgetts, Trin. Car. 5.

33 Commitment.

Commit­ment, one delivered, and after apprehen­ded and commit­ted. Brasier & Crosse, in 39. & 46. Eliz. Wheatley contra St. John, the Husband and Wife committed in 38. Eliz. li. A. fo. 63.

S [...]r [...]ope and Steward, the Defendant shut up close in the Kings Bench, and not to have Habeas Corpus.

Pope contra Newmon, aut aliter, in Mich. 22. Jac. committed to Bridewell.

Husband and Wife commit­ted. Cutler contra Barber, the Defendant to stand committed, till his wife be examined upon Interrog. 9. Jac. li. A. fo. 787.

Walker contra Arderne, It was Decreed, that if the personall Estate of the parties would not pay all debts, that a Lease should be sold for the payment thereof, and that the Defendant and his Wife were com­mitted, because they refused, in 13. & 14. Eliz, l. B. fo. 70.

Partridge contra Partridge, a man com­mitted [Page 41] One com­mitted for terrifying a witnesse.for terrifying a Witnesse, which is to be examined at a Commission in. Trin. 15. Car.

34 Contribution.

Contribu­tion of a Bond. Parkhurst contra Bathurst, Contribution of a Bond in Mich. or Hillar. 5. Car.

Peter contra Davis, in Hillar. 5. Car.

Fleetwood contra Charnock, sureties com­pelled to contribute for payment of debt upon a Joynt Bond in Pasch. 5. Car.

Wilcox contra Dom. Dunsmore, A De­murrer put in upon point of Contribution, over-ruled, 12. Car.

Hall contra Offley, how far the Court will restraine a Lord to distraine for rent where he pleaseth in Mich. 3. Car. But for the present thinkes fit, that there should be a Contribution.

35 Contempt.

Cotempt.A Defendant at contempt and pardoned, the Plaintiffe was inforced to serve a new Subpen [...], to doe that which was first orde­red. Young contra Chamberlaine, Trin. 37. Eliz.

One Wit­nesse suffi­cient to prove a contempt. Sands contra Knighton, one witnesse suf­ficient to prove a contempt in Mich. or Hillar. 13. Car.

36 Conveyance.

Convey­ance.The Plaintiffe (depending the suit) con­veys over his Interest but in trust, and yet [Page 42]the Court would hold no longer in his name, Hill. Contra Portman 1584.

Lands conveyed away by an Ideot holpen for him in Re­mainder. Rushloy contra Mansfield, lands con­veyed away by an Ideot, by Fine holpen for him in Remainder, being in Fee against a Purchasor, and concerning notice also, Trin. 10. Jac. fo. 119. or 1190. li. B.

A re­straint from ma­king a Convey­ance to children by a se­cond ven­ter. Ayloff contra Ayloff, the Court restrains the Defendant from making any convey­ance to his children by a second Wife, to dis-inherit the Plaintiffe being his Grand­child and Heire, and concerning a promise, in Trin. 12. Jac. li. B. fo. 1040.

One seeks to avoyd a Convey­ance for want of Livery. Conquest contra Newdigate, the Defen­dant seeks to avoyd a conveyance for want of Livery, yet holpen, and Common and Farmes whether parcell of the Mannor, was sought to be avoyded by unitie of possession, yet decreed here in Mich. or Hillar. 9. Jac. li. B. fo. 604.

Finches Case, in Trin. 41. Eliz.

Convey­ance in trust to Infants being af­ter indeb­ted, ina­bled to sel the lands to pay debts. Grant contra Edes, the Plaintiffe made a Conveyance to Feoffees in trust, to the use of his sons being Infants, with severall re­mainders over, the Plaintiffe being after in­debted, the Court inables him to convey and sell those lands, in Hillar. 18. Jac. li. B. fo. 758.

Lewis contra Vaughan, the Plaintiffe be­ing simple, the Defendant got a Convey­ance [Page 43] Of lands was ob­teyned the Plain­tiffe being simple re­assured.from him, of his lands, and although the land was sold to Purchasors, and a dis­cent, yet the Plaintiffe had the land reassu­red to him in 4. Jac. li. B. fo. 835.

Plasted contra Algood, whether (a Con­veyance in trust) a man may dispose of the same by will, or otherwise, in 4, Car.

Dom. Buck contra Paul, in Mich. 5. Car. This is concerning an Office.

Moreton contra Briggs, a Conveyance sought to be a voyded for want of livery, re­lieved, Hill. 16. Jac.

To tru­stees by the Wife before marriage to use, who sells the same, though the hus­band joyn shall not prejudice the wife. Fitz-James contra Hirsley, a Widow before Marriage, makes a Conveyance to the use of her selfe to friends, because her Husband shall not have benefit, the Trustees assigne this Lease to one for valuable consi­deration, and though the Husband joyne, shall not prejudice her, but because the As­signee came in upon a valuable considerati­on, shall keep it till he receive all disburs­ments, and the Wife to have benefit of the same, 32. & 33. Eliz. l. A. fo. 464.

Intrust to uses, needs no livery. Thomas contra Powell, a Conveyance in trust to uses, needs no livery, and concern­ing Tenants in Common, in li. B. 6 Car.

Episcopus Heref. contra Bright & Bark­ley, A Conveyance made to avoyd a Ward­ship, decreed not to be given in Evidence in Mich. 6. Car.

In trust and after sells the Inheri­tance. Dominus Roberts contra Lea, the Defen­dant makes a Conveyance in trust, and af­ter sells the Inheritance, the trust shall go in equitie to the Purchasor, in 8. Car.

Lamplughs case.

Defective for want of livery decreed. Paul contra Wilkins, Three Copartners, one for a valuable consideration sells this land but before Deed executed dyes, de­creed against the Defendant, in Mich. 14. Car.

Defective intention supplyed. Cooke contra Cleere, though a Convey­ance be defective, yet because there was a full intention to make better assurance, De­creed in 2. Car.

37 Corpus cum Causa

Corpus cum­causa. Subpena Compl' quia Def't. prosecutus est per Billam Midd'. Ward contra Mar­ston, 36. H. 8. fo. 125.

38 Coppihold.

Coppy­hold. Severance from the Mannor hurts not, Gunn contra Buckmaster, 21. & 22. Eliz. li. A. fo. 360.

Lands which had gone Fifty years al­lowed, till recovered by Law, Trin. 27. Eliz. fo. 630. li. A. Baspoole contra Roberts.

The like 21. Eliz. between Wrayford and Carew, for lands enjoyed 60 yeares as Copihold, li. A. fo. 232.

Lands which had gone but five years as [Page 45]Coppihold of Inheritance, allowed.

Trin. 26. Eliz. li. B. fo. 757. between Radcliff and Raunce, (though a Mannor) some Coppiholds were but for life, and some of Inheritance, and in 22. & 23. Eliz. Fifty yeares possession allowed, between Freeman and Penny.

A Coppihold granted at a Court kept out of the Mannor, confirmed against the Lord which made it, Marke contra Sulyard, 25. Eliz.

The Father commits a Forfeiture and dyeth, the son is admitted as heire by discent, this purgeth not the forfeiture, because the Father dying seised of no Estate, the sonne cannot be admitted to any, Smith con­tra [...] 30. Eliz.

An admission by the Lord, dispenseth with a former forfeiture, as it was held be­tween Clerke & Wentworth about 35. Eliz. The Father committed a forfeiture, the lord neverthelesse seized a Herriot upon his death, and yet would avoyd the heires estate for that forfeiture, which he could not, be­cause the taking of a Herriot, alloweth of a dying seized. Bacon contra Thurley, Hillar. 1592.

A suit to compell a Lord to grant a Ly­cence to let a Coppihold, but because the Defendant said by this Answer, that the [Page 46]Coppihold was forfeited, this court would not inforce him to grant a Lycence, till the forfeiture was examined, Bullard contra Agard, about 1592.

Justice Clench fuit D'opinion en case inter Commin & Kingsmell & se Copiholder prist marisme sives lycence &c. ce' imploy sur son Customary allowei' Dee' releeve in equit ie, payant un competent fine, in 1591.

A Copiholder can have no Assize of Com­mon against his Lord, but is to be relieved in equitie, The Tenants of Petworth, and the Earle of Northumberland, in 38. & 39. Eliz.

Common for Copiholders and termi­nors is to be relieved here, Colcot contra Lea. 43. Eliz. & 38. & 39. Eliz.

Rich contra Erth, Judges of opinion, that a Tenant out of the court cannot take a surrender of a woman Covert, for that shee is secretly to be examined by the Steward in 38. Eliz. li. A. fo. 420.

39 Costs.

Costs.No costs for a contempt discharged by the generall pardon, 27. Eliz. Fulwood con­tra Fulwood.

The Defendant not being served with Proces, found the cause set down for hea­ring, and attended, and was dismissed with costs, because the Plaintiffe was not rea­dy, [Page 47] Clayton contra Leigh, 15. Eliz.

Brothers contra Ringrosse, Pasch. 25. Eliz.

Brown & North contra Grove, in 36. & 37. Eliz.

A matter put to compromise to be ended by, &c. before the returne of the Subpena, it was not ended, the Defendant got Costs for want of a Bill, and yet not discharged. Slater contra Finch, 1596.

The Plain­tiffe al­lowed 20 l costs. Creditors ordered to take low rates. Coles contra Champneys, the Plaintiffe is allowed costs in 7. Car.

Creditors.

Creditors are ordered to compound with their Debtors, for to take a small rate in the hundred. Maldmay contra Wentworth, Mach. 11. Jac. committed for suing a Surety.

Bret contra Shurley, in Pasch. 2. Car. For good of Creditors.

41 Court Rolls.

Court rolls, to shew which is Copy­hold, and which Freehold. Corbet contra Peshall, ordered that Court-Rolls shall be brought and shewed to coun­sell, to shew which is Coppihold, and which is free-hold, in 12. Jac. li. A.

42 Covenant.

Covenant to levy a Fine. B. Covenants to levy a Fine to P. of lands given in Marriage with his Daughter at a day, by negligence of payment, the Daughter being dead, P. passed away the lands to Purchasors, but B. ordered to an [Page 48]Estate of 100 Marks, Hillar. 15. Jac. li. A.

Relieved in equitie after time expired. Tunstall contra Lassells, one Covenants and enters into Bond for discharging of In­cumbrances within a time, none stirred within that time, untill afterwards, how far shall bind. A case to be made 2. Car.

Ill penned supplyed. Vanlore contra Bartlet, A Bill to be re­lieved of a Covenant ill penned, demurred unto, but in regard of some precedent A­greement, over-ruled to Answer, Mich. 3. Car.

43 Councellours Clerke.

Councel­lors Clerk. Breame contra Breame, the Councellours Clerke not to be examined in the cause, 13. & 14. Eliz. fo. 93.

Lee contra Markham, the Councell of the parties cause, not to be examined in the same cause, 11. Eliz. li, A. fo. 17.

Thimblethorpe contra Thimblethorpe, the like in li. B. 6. Car.

44 Customes.

Customes. Customes referred to Law.

Astill cont' Danvers, No, 30. Eliz. fo. 236.

Lort contra Hutchin, Maij 18. Eliz. li. B. fo. 1344.

Maning & al' tenen' de, [...] con­tra Ep' Worr' sibi & suis, made an Estate of Inheritance, & contra Fines, 34. Eliz. li. A. fo. 826.

Michelborne contra Fines 27 Junij. 33. Eliz.

Binxie contra Smith, two yeares and a halfe value in Hill' 12 Jac.

Weedon contra Stepney, in 28. Eliz. li. A. fo. 327. if any Tenant should goe about to defraud the Lord of the Mannor, then hee to pay a yeare and a halfe more.

Tenants de [...] contra Arm­strong, one yeares value and not above, to be paid in 40. Eliz. li. B. fo. 595.

Corbet contra Tenants de Beannister in Mich terme, 21. Jac. halfe a years value.

Stafford contra Pasch. in Mich. & Hill' 15. Jac.

Parker cont' Ten' de Eatmister in Mich. 21. Jac.

Sterling contra Tenants of Burton, a Composition formerly made between Lords and Tenants ought to bind a Pur­chasor or an heire, so decreed in Octob. 40 Eliz. li. A. fo. 434.

Pincheon contra Keeling, whether Fines be Arbitrable or not, determined here, and how to ascertaine them in 9, Car.

Custome certaine proved dismissed. Wingfield contra Bedford, in 38. Eliz. Custome proved of 16 pence an Acre for Tythe of Wood, and no Wood in kind, yet the Court would not decree a Custome.

The opinion of the Court is of advise contrary to the custome of London.

Nicholas contra Dutton, 32. Eliz. li. A. [Page 50]fo. 677. the Plaintiffe had two sonnes and two Daughters, if the one Daugh­ter dyed before twentie one, or Mar­riage, devised by Will, th'other should have her full part, after the Defendant marrying the Survivor, was promised to have both Portions, and made Joynture ac­cordingly, now the sonnes were preferred in the Fathers life, the Will is voyd in that point, because by Custome they should have a part.

Custome in London, and pro­mise in London wil not hold. A Decree in Bacons case of the like.

Hall contra Lumley, a verball promise in London will not hold, and therefore to answer here to that in 11. Car. and in Nov. 13. Car. Decreed to bee good here between those parties, and concerning a Child preferred in Marriage, shall come af­terwards into the Orphans Court.

Gebo ne contra Dutton; the Custome of London whether a child preferred in life­time of his Father, shall after decease goe into hotchpott, an order in it 41. Eliz. li. A.

Knivet contra Freeman, because the Bill is for the manner and custome of Tything, dismissed, in 10. Jac. li. B. fo. 322.

Carter contra Bateman, Trin. 6. Car. concerning the Custome of London, how [Page 51]farre a Mortgage shall bee put into the state.

Greleeves contra Pope, the question is, whether the Lord of a Mannor, can by the Custome of a Mannor, grant a Reversion for lives, decreed here upon view of the Court Rolls, 31. Ian. 9. Jac.

Topp contra Topp, Deeds of gift made to defraud the Plaintiffe of her customary E­state of London, adjudged voyd, in 40. Eliz. li. A. fo. 522.

Page contra Page, a Decree concerning the Custome of the Province of Yorke, in 13 Car. li. B. fo. 51.

Morris contra Evans, about 5. Car.

Boice contra Wilkinson, and concerning other Customes, in Mich. 10. Car.

Carter contra Maund, a Citizen of Lon­don, deviseth 3000 l to his Wife and 3000. l to Orphans, and Legacies to divers others, presuming his Estate to be greater then it was, Quere who shall sustaine the losse, either the Legatees, or the Orphans shall a­bate, a Certificate in Septemb. 1626.

Hopton contra Simcotts, in Hillar. 14. Car.

45 Damages.

Damage given for wast com­mitted. Browne contra Dom' Bridges, Damages given to the Plaintiffe for Wastes commit­ted by the Defendant, upon the Plaintiffs [Page 52]woods, as much as hee was damnified, in 32. Eliz. li. B. fo. 838.

Blackenden contra Hidem, 6. Jac. li. A. fo. 915.

The like, Hastings contra Cooper, in Pas [...]. 4 Jac. And ordered that no antient Pasture or Meadow ground shall be plowed, 3. Jac. li. B. fo. 652.

Damages allowed for chil­drens por­tions where no allowance by Will. Horton contra Long, where there is no Provision by a Will for maintenance, be­cause the Legacies to be paid after the debts, yet the Defendant allowed maintenance, and to accompt for the profits of the state as long as it is in his custody, in 2. Iac. li. B. fo. 807.

Barwick contra Barwick, Executors or­dered to put in good securitie to allow five pounds Per centum, for Education, and to make good their Portions, 44. Eliz. li. A.

Farrington contra Throckmorton, in Trin. 15. Jac. fo. 987. Mich. following, fo. 99. & 144.

Coriton in Mich. 21. Iac. fo. 37.

Birch contra Chambers, in Maij 11. Iac. fo. 686.

Argentie contra Young, in Nov. 37. Eliz.

Rol [...] contra May, 1. Car. not to put in Sureties.

Moulson contra Moulson, Trin. 16. Car.

46 Debt.

Debt up­on word satisfied before o­thers up­on speci­alty. Cole contra Ferrand, the Plaintiffe was satisfied of a debt upon word by order of Court before others upon specialty, 3. Jac. li. B. fo. 238. & 241.

Vpon a Recogni­zance cannot be Attached in London. Skeggs contra Smith, whether a Debt upon a Recognizance may be Attached in London or whether an Attachment made of a Debt in London, may be pleaded in bar of a Scire facias, upon a Recognizance in this Court, it hath been over-ruled, in law it cannot in 38. Eliz. li. A. fo. 431.

To be paid be­yond the statute of limitation A Debtor is made Executor, shall not drown the debt. concern­ing a me­diat debt of Custo­mers and Recei­vers, &c. Halsted contra Little, Debts though be­yond the Statute of limitations, ordered to be paid, because directed to be paid by will Hill. 1632.

Askwith contra Chamberlaine, a man makes a Debtor Executor, there shall be no Extinguishment, but it shall goe to the E­state, Hill. 15. Car.

Englefield contra Nicholas, Lord Kee­pers Declaration of the Chancerie and Ex­chequer concerning the mediate Debt of a Customer, and Receiver to the King, and other matters, in Hill. 15, Car.

Deeds.

The court will not order the Defendāt to shew the Cove­nants or contents of his Lease or Deed. Saltonstall contra Wilbore, the Court would not order the Plaintiffe to see what Covenants, and ending of a Lease or Deed, Mich. Jac. li. B.

Dominus Darcy contra Allerton, A se­cond Assignement made without conside­ration being in force, Decreed, 31. Iune 1631.

Two vo­luntary Deeds. Defective for want of Livery. Byden contra Loveden, the Defendant would avoyd an Estate for want of Livery and seizin, but because the Plaintiffe en­joyed twenty five years; It was Decreed he should enjoy it quietly, 14. Iune 11. Iac. li. A.

Barrow contra Barrow, Mich. 2. Car. Upon a Deed for want of Livery or At­tachment.

Dom. Darcie contra Allerton, two vo­luntary Deeds, the first shall take place, unlesse the last be for payment of Debts, Hill. 7. Car.

Dominus Rex ordered that a Deed shall be inrolled, though it concernes lands in Scotland, or Ireland, 7. Car.

A sleep­ing Deed of Intaile not favou­red. Pountney contra Pilkington, where the Father conceives his land to be Freehold, gives part thereof to a younger sonne, al­though an old sleeping intaile be set on foot, shall not prejudice the younger sonne, 18. Car.

Made in trust which take place. Singer contra Bennet, concerning two Deeds made in trust, which shall take place, in 8. Car.

Row contra Chessick, A Deed for want of Livery, in Mich. 13. Car.

Not inrol­led, de­creed a­gainst the heire one­ly. Paul contra Michell, a Deed not inrol­led, decreed against the heire, but if any other Estate challenged by survivorship or other precedent Estate, will not bind, in 14. Car.

Franck contra Reepe, how farre a De­fendant shall be compelled to shew a Deed of Intaile, and to be examined upon Inter­gatories where the same is, Mich. 14. Car.

Pollard contra Hall, in 13. Car. & Mor­gan contra Morgan.

Vicecomes Rochford contra Lovell, the Plaintiffs Wife had a deed of gift or grant made to her of sheep, and other personall Estate, but kept the same still in his owne hands, and alters the propertie and dyes, and makes the Defendant Executor, and the Te­stators goods which came to his hands farre more then the debt, though the goods were altered by the Testator, yet the goods which came to the Testators Plaintiffes hands, shall bee lyable in 3. Car. li. A. fo. 223.

Barkley contra Barkley, my Lords Decla­ration of a voluntary Deed, how far to hold or nor, in Hillar. 15. Car.

48 Decree.

Decree.IN the Judgement Roll of 36.37. and 38. H. 8. there is a Decree to be seen to the [...]o effect hereafter mentioned, where Daniel and the rest of the Inhabitants of Crud­worth, in the County of Warwick, exhibi­bited a Bill against Thomas Arderne for ti­tle of Common, and to have certaine inclo­sed lands open. It was decreed that Ardern and his heires should hold the same lands so inclosed, discharged of the Common, be­cause it seemed that the Inhabitants had Common enough besides, and that the lay­ing open the lands called Martinmas Leyse, would be a great decay of Husbandry,Rotulo Ju­dicial' 3. pars. Ro­tul' Iudicial' Ed. 6.2. pars, there is a De­cree between Dudley and his Wife, pretend­ing to be Executors of one Morgan, who supposeth himselfe to be Administrator to that Morgan, And because the Plaintiffe had not sufficiently proved such Will, and for that the Defendant sued forth his Let­ters of Administration, therefore all the goods of the Intestate were decreed to the Defendant, allowing Debts, Legacies, and Funerall charges.

A Decree betweene Tur [...]on and Cooke Plaintiffs, and Goddard, Defendant, where­by it appeares that the controversie was [Page 57]touching the Messuages or Farme houses, and three hundred Acres of land in Haugh­ton, in the County of Southamton, which the Plaintiffe supposed to have been Demi­sed to Robert Tanner, and which the De­fendant claimes as Executor unto Thomas Goddard, and that because the Plaintiffs proved not the contents of their Bill, and the Defendant made proofe of his Answer, therefore the premisses and the Lease therof made to the Defendants Testator, were de­creed to the Defendant against the Plain­tiffe, and that the Defendant after Midsom­mer then next, should enter and hold the premisses (without En [...] to be made by the Plaintiffe) till hee should recover the same by Action at the common Laws and furthermore it was ordered that the Defen­dant should be dismissed.

The like Decree in the same Roll between [...] Plaintiffe and Gittins Defendant, whereby it appears, that the Plaintiffe had purchased certain lands of the Kings, where­of he supposed Iohn Brown Clerk (to whom the Plaintiffe was Executor) had an Ab­bots Lease, and the Defendant pretended that the two Messuages and one Yard land, was letten unto him by Lease under Cove­nant and Seale for fourscore and one yeares, and traversed the Plaintiffs title and the [Page 58]Plaintiffe proved not his Bill, and therefore the premises were decreed to the Defendant according to his Lease, for all the years then to come therein, and the Plaintiffe adjudged to pay him sixteen shillings eight pence.

Note that it is decreed to him without any quousq that it should be recove­red at law and without any liberty, to shew better matter in this Court.

The like Decree in that Roll, between William Messinger Quer', and the Major and Burgesses of Gloucester, touching di­vers Mannors; Forasmuch as upon the hea­ring of the matter, the Defendant shewed a Tripartite Feoffement of the premisses, from John Cooke to the Major and Burges­ses, to the use of a Free-schoole and other purposes, And because the Plaintiffe proved not the matter of his Bill and Replication, therefore the said Mannors and lands. &c. were decreed to the Defendants and their Successors, to their uses, and that the Plain­tiffe should by Christmas next deliver them all the Evidences concerning the same.

The like Decree in that Roll between Thomas Stowell and Anthony Capps, reci­ting, that where the Lord William Pawlet, Lord President of the Councell, and Lord Keeper of the great Seale, 22 Oct. Anno 5. Eliz. 6. because the Plaintiffe had not pro­ved [Page 59]his title to the Mannors, &c. decreed the said Mannors to the Defendant and his heires till the Plaintiffe should recover the same at the Common Law, and that the Defendant should also have the Arrerages, and twenty shillings costs; The Plaintiffe being grieved with that Decree, and exhibi­ting a new Bill to the Lord Rich, having at the Plaintiffs instance heard the Cause, and given divers dayes to the Plaintiffe, to shew what he could to reverse that Decree, did afterwards, because no just cause was shew­ed, to frustrate or alter that Decree, dismisse the Defendant.

Also a like Decree in that Roll, between Richard Lewknor, and Dame Elizabeth his Wife Plaintiffes, and Robert Barwick De­fendant, because the Plaintiffs proved not the matter of their Bill and Replication, and because the Defendant proved a Lease to be made to him six yeares since of the Farme of Elleston, by one Sir Roger Lewk­nor, therefore the Defendant was dismissed. And it was further by the Authority afore­said decreed, that the Defendant should en­joy his Lease, without interruption of the Plaintiffs, or either of them, and the Plain­tiffs should pay him forty shillings Costs.

A Decree between Fotheringall and Ed­sington Defendant,Rotulo Ju­dicial' E. 6 4. pars. the question was touch­ing [Page 60]certain lands which the Plaintiffe clai­med by Lease, and which the Defendant claimed as Copihold; And forasmuch as he failed in the proofe, and the Defendant shewed his Copy and antient Court Rolls, proving it to be antient Coppihold, there­fore the lands were decreed to the Defendant according to his Copy, against the Plaintiffe his Executors and Assignes, till the Plain­tiffe should prove a better title before the Councell at Yorke, and yet if the Plaintiffe did trouble the Defendant or his Wife at Yorke, or any other the Kings Courts, then hee should pay five pounds Costs, and the Defendant was then dismissed with twenty shillings Costs presently.

Another Decree in the same Roll be­tween Gervas and Gawen, to the same effect aforesaid.

The like decree in the same Roll between Westwood and Westwood.

A Decree between ap-Edward, Rotul' Ju­dicial' Edw. 6.8. pars. and Tre­vor, whereby it appeares that the Plaintiffe having first a Decree by default, did coun­ter feit an absolute Decree, and put the Lord Chancellours name to it, and therefore it was then ordered that the Defendant and his Assignees should enjoy the lands, and take the profits thereof against the Plain­tiffe and his heires, till hee or they should [Page 61]prove a better title in this Court.

Brocas contra Savage, a Decree made for the Defendant, notwithstanding it was alleaged by the Plaintiffe in respect the possession of the premisses was in question, in 31. Eliz. li. B. fo. 295.

He in re­version comming in by sur­render bound by Decree. A Decree against the Lessee and all claim­ing under him, he surrenders to him in Re­version, and he was adjudged to be bound by the Decree for so long time as the Lease should have endured.

Chapman contra. Bissow, 23. & 24. Eliz. The Tenant in possession wasted the houses because dispunishable, by reason of a meane Estate for life, yet decreed that he should re­paire two parts in Judgement Roll, Edw. 6. Vaneerant & Eyre.

Strelley contra Throckmorton, & Foli­amb, & Fitzwilliams, Two parts of Judge­ment Roll, Edw. 6. and Woodley & Read.

Goodman contra Kinnerley, Jennings con­tra Blunt, Re [...]d contra Rawlins, Nicholas Scot in the second part of Judgement Roll, H. 8. and in the same Roll two Decrees for divorses. Terrell and his Wife, Jeffery and Jenny.

• Moore & Taylor 29. Eliz.
  After ver­dicts in Kings Bench.
• Some & Poyntell 26. Eliz.
• Hoskins & Perry 26. Eliz.

A Decree made for an Heire at the Com­mon [Page 62] For an heire touching lands con­veyed by a Recu­sant.law against certain Feoffees, who had lands conveyed unto them to maintaine Schollers, who should use holy Orders, Crofts & Evetts, Mich. 3. Jac. Another 4. Jac. Witering contra Peshall, 18. Jac.

A Decree made to relieve one which had double taken from him (as a concealer) by vertue of the statute of Bankrupts, upon indirect dealing by Commissioners, in the execution of the Commission, Wood contra Hayes. 4. Jac.

Allen con' Edwards, 2. Jac. Et Edwards, Smith & Wood contra [...] in 8. Jac.

The Court decrees that the Husband and Wife shall make, seale and deliver, or suffer livery of a Lease of the lands to bee made to the Plaintiffe by the said Husband and his Wife. Hungerford contra Hutton, 12. Eliz. li. A. fo. 91.

Dom' Culpepper contra Parslow, the Court decrees the thing promised, and the Hus­band is bound by the wives promise. The question is, whether the Wife was married at the time of the promise made or not, Mich. Jac. li. A. fo. 138.

Decree and Com­mission. Frankland contra Graie, the Plaintiffe bought land of the Defendant, which the Defendant had conveyed before, to the use of himselfe, his Wife and Son; It was de­creed that the Plaintiffe should have the [Page 63]land against all, in 13. & 14. Eliz. li. B. fo. 81. The Defendant refused, a Writ of Ex­ecution went out, and hee could not be found, served upon his Wife who refused, all Processe of contempt went out against him, in lib. eod. fo. 159.264.350. Where­upon in respect he could not be found a Commission was directed to take possession of the said lands, and the Tenants to pay their rents to the Plaintiffe, or else Attach­ments to be awarded against them.

Without a Bill. Bull contra Huddleton, Decree without a Bill in Mich. 9. Jac. li. B. fo. 27. or there­abouts.

West contra West, and a Sequestration, 12. Car.

To resign a Bene­fice. Harris contra Smith, a Decree resigne a Benefice, in Mich'. 8. Car.

Reyner contra Reyner, in Mich. 22. Jac. Dom. Effingham contra

A Without proofe for quieting of posses­sion. Decree without proofe for quieting of pos­session.

Denis contra Carew, in 16. Jac. An In­junction or Decree here without any proofe to quiet possession had at law, and to avoyd Multiplicity of suits, in 3. vel. 4. Jac.

Durham contra Dearing, 4. vel. 5. Jac.

Sawyer contra Pomery, li. B. fo. 786. in libro novo.

Standen contra Bullock, 41. Eliz. li. B. fo. 284.

For a lease supposed to be voyd &c. Manwaring contra Peck, A Decree for establishing of a Lease which is supposed to be voyd, and against a statute law, being Priors land, in 11. Iac. li. A. fo. 342.

Confir­mation of a Decree in the Court of Requests. Francis contra in [...]vace, the Court doth decree and confirme the Decree in the Court of Requests, without any proofes of the sub­stance of the matter, notwithstanding the Prohibition out of the Court of Common Pleas, or Kings Bench, li. B. 9. Iac. fo. 277.

Parcell or no parcell decred here. Decanus Windsor contra Kinnersley, the point being parcell or no parcell, Decreed and being uncertain, the lands lying inter­mixt, ordered to be set out, notwithstanding the Defendant by generall words in a Bar­gain and sale, have enjoyed the same long, yet ordered in Michaelmas 9. Iac. li. A. fo. 321.

Decanus Windsor contra Bouliant, the like in Mich. 8. Jac. li. A. fo. 390.

Sincton contra Greeno, upon point of Re­putation, in Nov. 7. Iac. Decreed in Pasch. 9. Car.

Vpon one witnesse. Eland contra Wright, a Decree upon one Witnesse appeareth by a Judges Certificate, in Hillar. 9. Car. vel Iac. or Pasc. following.

Swan contra Atkins, A Decree upon one Witnesse which proves his Pedigree, from whence he claimes, in 16. & 17. Eliz. li. A. fo. 213.

Fawkner contra Winchcombe, in Pasch. 10. Iac. vel Car. li. B. fo. 788.

Vpon a verball promise. Hunt contra Cheeseman, a Decree made upon a verball promise in Pasoh. 10. Jac. vel Car. li. B. fo. 813.

A Decree pronounced in the Testators life­time, not to be passed under Seale by the Executor. Ewer contra Frere, Pasch. 1634.

To avoyd a Decree. Dominus Peter contra Elimozinarius de Westm. A Decree to avoyd a Decree made according to the statute of 43. Eliz. in Trin. 3. Jac. li. B.

This cause was, where the lands came into the Kings hand, but not by the Statute of Chantries, and the King being so seized de facto & non jure, grants these lands to a common person, whether the grant be good yea or no in Equitie.

Noxon contra Browning, in 3. Iac. li. B. fo. 515. and afterwards if there be a Decree made in this Court, upon the Decree of the Commissioners upon the statute, as shall not be maintainable by the said statute, fo. 864.

Pauteres de Trinbury contra Chapman, in Mich. or Hillar. 4. or 5. Car.

Ewderby contra Huddleston, examined a Decree in the Court of Requests in October 9. Jac.

Kitson contra Cropley, May 37. Eliz. A [Page 66]Decree to prohibit a man from sowing of Ridges which lye in Sheepcourse in May, 37. Eliz.

Iervace contra Bullen, 12. Jac.

To pro­hibit one from preach­ing. Villa de Yarmouth contra Decanunt Norwich, a Decree to prohibit a Parson 0118 0683 V 3 from Preaching, and the Town to pay Costs, in Hill. 5. Car.

Holme contra Wild, the Defendant en­tred into a Bond to leave his Fellowship, and after takes away his Bond, the Court doth displace him, and decreed him to leave it, Pasch. 15. Car.

For by lawes. Shipwa [...]e contra Pilkington, concerning the decreeing of By-lawes for the good of a Town, a Decree in 5. Car. and a Decree in 25. Eliz.

Dodford contra Sessions, the contrary in 14. Car.

In the Court of Requests confir­med. King contra Burrell, a Decree in the Court of Requests upon a verball promise, a Prohibition thereupon, this Court con­firmes that Decree, because the Plaintiffe is antient Tenant, and been at costs in build­ing. Hill. 2. Car.

Reverst though no new mat­ter. Episcopus Dunelmen' contra Martin, a Decree reverst though no new matter, in Trin. 5. Car. the case upon which the De­cree was mistaken, and notwithstanding his translation, sues as for the right of the Bishop of Oxon'.

Comes Devon contra Leake, some mista­king in a Decree amended, &c. in Hill. 14 Car.

Irons laid on a man in Fleet for not perform­ing a De­cree. South contra Gardiner, Irons to be layd upon a man in the Fleet, because he will not performe a Decree in 6. Car. li. B.

Patent of conceale­ment. Barker contra Shepheard. about 3. Car. Swan contra Turborvile, concerning a Patent of Concealment, Decreed, and other Patents, in Car. li. B.

Comes Pembroke contra Zouch, a Legacy decreed in Mich. 7. Car.

Legacie decreed. Against an Infant. Monke contra Winch, decreed against an Infant, and one bound in 500 l to performe when he comes to age, Hill' 2. Car.

To con­firme a Decree at Yorke. Portington contra Beamont, a Decree here, to confirme a Decree at Yorke, to pre­vent Prohibition, Trin. 2. Car.

Almioney. Lashbrooke contra Tiler, Almiony de­creed here 8. Car.

Gresham contra Dee, & Dee contra Woodhouse in 4. Car. a man may affirme a Decree though not in possession.

Ma [...]or Norwich contra Decanum Nor­wich, Decree for Precincts and parcells, 8. Car.

Wright contra Middleton, this Court ex­amines a Decree made at Yorke, 8. Car.

After a Decree in London. Coventry contra Major London & West, 6. Car.

For da­mages. Paine contra Pattison, a Decree for Da­mages for a Lessee for yeares, in Mich. 7. Car.

Hill contra Michell, Mich. 9. Car.

Richman contra Gislinhans, looke Justice Crookes Certificate, 9. Car.

Askwith contra Turner, the Court will not reverse a Decree made at Yorke, unlesse it was unduly obtained, or Erior therein, 9. Car.

A suit re­teyned here after a Decree in the Court of Requests. Devisteed contra Englested, 38. Eliz. li. B. fo. 426. Notwithstanding a Decree in the Court of Requests, this Court referrs as­well matters decreed there, as here, to Re­ferrces, to cast up Accompt.

For tithes in kind. Farmour contra Trost, Tythes in kind decreed, notwithstanding a Decree in Lord Bacons time, 12. Car. and what is a Yard­land, and how to set it out.

Episcopus Heref. contra Awbrey, Hill'. 14. Car.

Kenrick contra Temple, 15. Car.

Magister Trin. Coll. contra brooke, 12. Car.

Birch trees, tim­ber trees. Comitissa Cumbries contra Com' Cum­brie, Birch trees are decreed to be Timber­trees, in 8. Jac. fo. 349.

And se­questrati­on in In­fants hands, or to their use. Sere & Eland contra Colley, the Plain­tiffs being Creditors of Colley preferred their Bill against the Defendant, being all [Page 69]Forreyners, but the goods were passed over into England, into Merchants hands by Col­ley, and this Court taking notice in respect of the different computation of the Realm, First to be paid at the Feast of the three Kings heads secondly because the Bill was not sealed; Thirdly, because the debts grew in France, and he came over hither to keepe his body from Arrests the Court decreed the debts, and caused a Decree to be drawn up pro Confesso, because the Defendant would not answer, and Sequestred moneys in other mens hands to pay the debts, al­though they were passed over to others to the use of an Infant, 8. Jac. li. A. fo. 1184.

Cooke contra Trewman, a Decree upon a verball Agreement, in Trin. 4. Jac.

For tithe Conies & Wood. Shires contra Burgaine, a Decree for Tythe Coneys and Wood, 12. Car.

Holme contra Fletcher, concerning a Legacie, in Mich. 2. Car.

Poole contra Co [...]well, Trin. 4. Car. the Father entred into Articles for land, the sonne no partie, yet having consented de­creed.

An inten­tion with a Decla­ration supplyed. Redman contra Torrell, for that the Plaintiffes Father did fully intend and re­solve, that the Plaintiffe should have the Lease and did give the same accordingly, and that she at divers times declared, that [Page 70]shee had given him the said Lease, and for that Christopher Torrell himselfe protested, as he was a Christian man, did promise that the Plaintiffe should, and for that the said Torrell did purpose to send to the Plaintiffe for some agreement, and made offer of 200 pounds for the said Lease, therefore decreed in 28. Eliz. fo. 682.

A high­way de­creed. Wotton contra Wotton, a high way de­creed in 10. Car.

Powell contra Parsons, a piece of ground sold, but no reservation of a high way, but decreed that a way should be continued as formerly, Mich. 3. Car.

In the Court of Wards over-ruled here. Roberts contra Harccourts, a Decree in the Court of Wards decreed here, notwith­standing the Decree there, Hill. 14. Car.

Attorac. Dom. Regis contra Episc. Oxon', a Bill here to unite a Parsonage to the Bi­shops sea about 12. Car.

Dom. Scroope contra Lazenby, a Decree at Yorke being for lands, is adjudged to be coram non judice, Pasch. 2. Car.

Against an Infant. Cromwell contra Carey, Mich. 7. Car. A Bill of Review, because the Decree was a­gainst an Infant my Lords Declaration; It shall bind an Infant as well as at full Age.

Plate de­cred to be goods Turner contra Williams, whether Plate doth passe by the name of goods, decreed to be goods, in Mich. 15 Car.

A Portion decreed to a child in ventre sa­mere. Pope contra Courtney, the Court decreeth that allowance shall be given to a daughter that was in Ventre samere primment enseint at the time of devise, although voyd in law, decreed in Mich. 3. Jac. li. A. fo. 306.

49 Defendant.

Defendā A Defendant examined touching a con­tempt, and discharged thereof, shall have Costs of Course, if a Commission bee not presently taken out to prove it, and if he prove it not, thou increase of Costs, Atkin­son contra Ailoff. 37. Eliz.

Ordered to assure lands ac­cording to a devise. Pike contra Higgons uxor & al', The Defendants ordered to assure lands accord­ing to a devise, 12. & 13. Eliz. li. A. fo. 182.

Gwynn contra Petty, to examine the De­fendant upon Intergatories at the hearing, Pasch. 6. Car.

Bradshaw contra Bradshaw, a Defendant ordered to be examined upon Oath at the hearing, Hill'. 8. Car.

Freed of Executi­on upon security. Lamer contra Smith, the Defendant de­livered out of Execution upon Securitie, in 3. Car.

Pollixfen contra Short, the Defendant examined upon Intergatories after a hear­ing in 5. Car.

Examined after hea­ring. Drewry contra Watson, to examine a De­fendant after hearing, in 7. Car.

Not com­pelled to disclose Vsury. Fenton contra Blomer, a Defendant not compelled to disclose matter of Usurie, 22 Eliz. li. A. fo. 66.

Commit­ted for procuring an Injun­ction of th' Exche­quer. Symmes contra Plowden, This Court di­rects a tryall, the Defendant to avoyd the order of this Court, procures an Injunction out of the Exchequer, the Defendant com­mitted, in Trin, 14. Car.

Adjudged to be un­der twen­ty one yeares. Wood contra Wageman, the Court upon view of the body, and upon examination of severall Witnesses, and upon view of the Church book, adjudgeth the defendant to be under the age of 21. yeares, in 28. Eliz. fo. 262.

Pollard contra Evelin, if a Defendant cannot be found, or hath no house, then to give notice to the Clerke in Court, which is sufficient, in Hillar. 15. Car.

50 Demurrers.

Demur­rer. A Bill laying a promise to assure lands for ten shillings in hand, and 2100 pounds at daies, demurred and allowed because it was but a preparation for Action upon the case, William & Nevill, Trin. 38 Eliz.

Wright contra Eitch. 13 Jac. li. B. fo. 42. The matter being concerning Serjeants for Arrest in London, demurred because of their places, yet over-ruled and paid good Costs.

The generall pardon pleaded to discharge [Page 73]an Utlawry after Judgement, and not al­lowed till the parties be agreed. Weekes contra Newborow, Trin. 1590.

Harris contra Beadle, Hill. 18. Jac. li. A. fo. 823. Fitton contra Proctor, 36. Eliz. li. A. fo. 499.

A Demurrer for Utlawry must be upon Oath shewed under seale, Hulst contra Hulst. 36. Eliz. li. A. fo. 625.

Paschall contra Points 1597.

A Demurrer because of a former dismis­sion must bee upon Oath, Brooke contra Smith. 36. & 37. Eliz.

A Demurrer by Deponentem allowed, Mollineux contra Stanhope, 23. Eliz.

Demurrer, because the matter was dis­mist in the Court of Requests, over-ruled in 30. Eliz. li. B. fo. 206. & 493. Haddon con­tra Salter.

The husband alone cannot demurre for his wife, by the opinion of the Court, Stur­ling & Green, 36. Eliz.

A Demurrer because ce q' vy not shewed to be in life, and over-ruled the Demurrer not to be good, Victor & Read, 37 Eliz.

A Demurrer, because it concernes the Queens title proper for the Exchequer, yet over-ruled, Mich. 33. Eliz. li. A. fo. 33.

Biller contra Elliot, Demurrer, because the matter was depending in th'Exchequer [Page 74]before the Bill over-ruled, Jan. 35. Eliz.

Plumpton contra Headlam, Demurrer, because Excommunicated, over-ruled about 4. Car.

Execu­tors. Two Executors are Plaintiffs,one is excom­municated, th'other shall be severed, and the Defendant shall answer him, Tomes con­tra Vaughan, Hillar. 39. Eliz.

Hamblin contra Dom. Sherringham, the Defendant demurred because she promised to pay money when she was Covert Baron over-ruled, 25. Eliz. li. R. fo. 103.

Crocker contra Hamden, Demurrer, pre­tending one Executor cannot sue another, over-ruled, because the matter is meere Te­stamentarie, 20. Eliz. li. A. fo. 131.

Gotts contra Hicks, a Demurrer at the Defendants suit over-ruled, in Hillar. 16. Jac. li. A. fo. 674.

Skies contra Rawson, the Defendant put in a Demurrer to the Plaintiffs Bill, because the Plaintiffe was Utlawed at the suit of strangers, yet ordered to Answer, in Mich. 9. Jac. li. A. fo. 234.

Audley contra Harris, Hillar. 1633. A Defendant lyes in the Fleet for breach of a Decree, the Plaintiffe neverthelesse preferrs a Bill to discover an Estate, demurred, be­cause a double Execution, yet over-ruled.

Brookes contra [...] about 5. Car. [Page 75] Because excommu­nicated over-ru­led.A Demurrer, because excommunicated, over-ruled.

Dom. Plummer contra [...] Hillar. 6. Car.

Donn contra Donn, in Mich. 7. Car.

After Re­plication disallow­ed. Leighton contra [...] a Demurrer put in after execution Replication, disal­lowed, in 5. Car.

Evans contra Leasure, a Demurrer upon a Replication although answered, being up­on a promise sixteen yeares, dismissed not­withstanding the Answer, and Sir Richard Moores Report, but in respect the pro­mise is annexed to a trust reteyned 6. Car. [...] notwithstanding the statute of limi­tation.

Comes Kingston contra Wakeman, in Hill. 8. Car.

St. John contra Doni' Thornburgh, a De­murrer to a second Bill of Revivor over-ruled, Hillar. 7. Car.

Wild contra Middleton, a Demurrer, be­cause Moore a Bankrupt, and the Credi­tors dwell out of England in Galicia, over-ruled, in Trin. 8. or 9. Car. or June 2. Car.

Leake contra [...] a Demurrer, because lands lye in Ireland, and there to be determined, over-ruled in 8. Car.

By contra Forth, A Demurrer, because a dismission in the Court of Requests, if any [Page 76]new matter over-ruled here, 26. June 1606.

Artson contra Wolverston, a Demurrer, because the Defendant had Execution at Law over-ruled, 10. Jac. li. B. fo. 291.

Morris contra Owen, a Demurrer, be­cause the Plaintiffe was Utlawed, the De­fendant ordered to answer, 10. Jac. fo. 457.

Bland contra Comitem Cambrie, a De­murrer pleaded, because remedie at Law over-ruled, Pasch. 7. Car.

Arnold contra Arnold, if a man be ut­lawed, and sues as Executor to another, the Plea to the same is over-ruled, 12. Jac. li. A. fo. 353.

Ratcliffe contra Tolston, Common of pasture in Wast grounds lying in the North, a Bill here demurred to, but because it con­cerneth lands, and the lands be Tenant Right, and some dwell out of the Parish, cannot so well maintain their Condition by reason of unity of possession, over-ruled, in 33. Eliz. fo. 191.

Salter contra Bennet, a Demurrer because a Decree in the Exchequer, over-ruled and decreed here in presence of the Barons of the Exchequer, Mich. 14. Car. fo. 38.

Osborne contra Pagett, because the De­fendant did not put in his Demurrer accor­ding to the rule of Court, moved to have it entred, but denyed, in 14. Car.

Thynn contra Westrop, a Demurrer, be­cause the Plaintiffs wife outlawed and pleads a Release, overruled to Answer, in 25. Eliz. li. B. fo. 134.

51 Depositions.

Depositi­on no a­mend­ment af­ter pub­lication. Chamberlaine & Pope, 39. & 40, Eliz. After publication, the Court would not amend a Deposition mistaken.

Wynn contra [...] A man after examination supplies his Deposition ad in­formand' conscientiam about 5. Car.

Kinnaston contra com' Bridgewater, Re­cording Copies of Depositions to be allow­ed in Hill. 2. Car.

52 Devise.

Devise. Serjeant & Serjeant, 8. Nov. 39. Eliz. A breach of a Condition of a Devise hol­pen against the heire.

Of intai­led terme. Cornwallis contra Penruddock, concern­ing the Devise of an intailed terme, Hillar. 1. Car.

Webb contra Smith, in 4. Car.

Holditch contra Phillipps, in Pasch. or Trin. 4. Car.

Palmer contra Turnor, 41. Eliz. fo. 540.

Of ten pounds per annum out of a Lease without clause of distresse. Watts contra Kancie, a man possessed of a Lease for fourscore yeares, devised out thereof: Ten pounds per annum without clause of distresse, and made his Wife his [Page 78]Executrix, and shee thereby had the said Lease, and afterwards th'Executrix and hus­band, and Assignes in trust, sold away the same Lease, discharged of all Incumbrances, th'Executrix shall be charged, and not the land, 31. Jan. 9 Jac.

Tennant contra Braie, 8. Novem. 6. Jac. Carewes Report, a Devise made to the Daughter to pay her a summe of money if she will be divorced from her husband, the gift made good, though the Condition voyd.

Kirrington contra Astie, the Grandfa­ther deviseth lands to his Sonne to pay ten pounds per annum to the sonnes three Daughters, the Father gives two hundred pounds in Marriage with one, whether the ten pounds per annum, shall be included in the two hundred pounds or not, Decreed it shall be included, in Mich. 13. Car.

Phillipps cont' Springett, not withstanding a Release of a Portion relieved in 10. Car.

Grimston contra Willington, 2. Car.

Higate contra Higate, a Mortgager of a Copyhold, and a surrender to that pur­pose, and after deviseth this land to a se­cond sonne, but no Surrender, in Mich'. 14. Car.

Poford contra Pavier, Pasch. 15. Car. the Court will see the Will in the same [Page 79]case, but difference is upon some matter of fact.

Para fa­milia. Davenport contra Dom'. Robinson, the Husband by will gives goods which the Defendant pretends belong to her as Para­familia, the Devise good, in 5. Car.

Crowther contra Lucie, the Plaintiffe be­ing heire to lands in taile, and likewise De­vised unto him by his Mothers Father, the lands being in Mortgage, and redeemed by a stranger, having fold it againe with the consent of his Father and Mother, could not be relieved here, in 39. & 40. Eliz. li. B. fo. 4.35.

Tenants in com­mon by devise. M [...]ther contra Godbold, two joynt Pur­chasers, one deviseth his part for payment of debts, ordered in Chancerie, Mich. 7. Car.

Lowen contra Lowen, 41. Eliz. li. A. fo. 230 & 683. lands devised to two, to bee equally divided betwixt them, and to their heires, are Tenants in common, and not Joyntenants, and so decreed, that the survivors shall receive no profit by survivor­ship.

Bacon contra Bull, a Devise voyd in Law by reason of a misrecitall of a graunt, and by reason of an Attornement, yet hol­pen in equitie, 38. Eliz. li. A. fo. 698.

53 Directi­ons how to libell in the spi­rituall Court. Williams contra Fawcet, Directions by this Court, how the Defendant or his Te­nant shall libell in the spirituall Court, 13. Jac. fo. 292.

54 Dismissions.

Dismissions. Hayward contra Timber, 4. Jac. li. B. fo. 602. The matter heard there after a Dis­mission in the Exchequer upon hearing, but there appearing no matter to relieve the Plaintiffe, the matter was dismissed, the ra­ther, because there was a former dismission in the Exchequer.

Roe as heire, exhibited a Bill against Wa­serer, to prove a Condition, perpetuitie, and Conditions broken, and dismissed in 1594.

Because under va­lue. Reynolds contra Davy, 12. & 13. Eliz. li. A. fo. 87. because the matter in question, is under the value of forty shillings per annum, therefore the Court dismissed it.

Because Defen­dant and lands in the Coun­ty Pala­tine. Botely contra Savile; in 13. & 14. Eliz. li. B. fo. 95. & 104. because the Defendant, and the Lands in question lye within the Country Palatine, the matter was dismissed.

Brereton contra Jarmin, 23. Eliz. li. A. fo. 428.

Because the lands in question lye within the limits of the Commons of the North, the cause was dismissed primo & secundo Edw. 6. li. A. fo. 72.

East contra Fish, 12. Eliz. fol. 100. Be­cause the lands in question is parcell of the Queens, therefore the matter was dismist into the Exchequer.

Jay contra Simcox, dismissed to Law, but shall not plead the statute 12. Car.

55 Disinherison.

Dis-inhe­rison. Harrington contra Markham, the Court was assisted with Bishops and Noblemen, at the hearing of a Cause in Chancerie, in Iuly 5. or 3. Jac. upon point of Dis-inherison.

Woodley contra Woodley, a Dis-inherison, and a Decree for confirmation, yet after twenty yeares, the Decree reversed, and Dis-inherison avoyded in 8. Car.

56 Distringas.

Distringas Parker contra Bowlesse, a Distringas a­warded where cannot have benefit of Ex­tent, 7. Car.

57 Distresse.

Distresse.Possession and Rents ordered to Moli­neux contra Molineux, Hill. 1590. the Te­nants would not pay the rents, therefore a Distresse ordered.

58 Divorse.

Divorse.A Divorse causa frigitatis, the Woman sued for her Marriage portion, yet her Fa­ther was alive who gave it, to which excep­tion was taken, yet the Master of the Rolls said, he would be no Formalist. Barrow [Page 82]contra Butten, in 1594. & 37. Eliz. fo. 195.

59 Dower.

Dower. Wild contra Wells, Bill to be relieved for Dower, and a Commission to set out the the lands in 25. Eliz. li. B. fo. 112.

60 Dutchie.

Dutchie. Hulse contra Daniel, Mich. 5. & 6. Car. Dutchie Court where lands are granted of the Crowne in Fee-Farme, reserving ront, are pleadable and determinable in this Court.

Leving ston contra Wise & al'. about 8. Car.

Tenants of Barwick contra Caesar, 8. Car.

Hampden contra Ferrers, in 14. Car.

Demurrer by a Clerke in the Dutchie Court over-ruled 30. Maij 1606. Jordan contra Pawson.

61 Elegit.

Elegit.PAImer contra Bolls, an Elegit returned and fyled being out, and thereby with­out remedy renewed by this Court to be executed, 2. Car.

62 Entaile.

Intaile. Baile contra Read, 38. Eliz. li. A. fo. 728. an Entaile cut off contrary to a Proviso, to the intent onely to make a Joynture, and then the I emainders were settled in taile as [Page 83]before, wherefore the Forfeiture dispenced within Equitie.

Tatton contra Molineux, Of a Chattle how farré good. a Lease made to Feoffees in trust to the use of the Plain­tiffe for life, and after to the Heires males of his body, the said Plaintiffe hath full power to dispose of his Lease, so long as he hath an heire, and that an Intaile of a Trust of, or out of a chattle is not good, nor any such perpetuitie, Presidents being produced to that purpose and the Judges opinion be­tween a remainder of a Chattle and the is­sue in taile of a chattell in 7. Jac. li. A. fo. 1183. the lands lye in the Countie Palatine.

63 Equitie.

Lock contra Hunt, 7. Car. no advantage by unitie, discent, Fine, or discontinuance.

34 Estates.

Estate. King contra Blundavile, the Defendant having an Estate for life without impeach­ment of Wast, was ordered not to do Wast both upon woods and houses, 5. Jac. li. A. fo. 327.

Piggott contra Piggott, in 8. Jac. li. A. fo. 766.

Banister contra Banister, an Occupants Estate maintained in Pasch. 12. Jac. li. B.

Marchio Winton contra Bushon. an E­state reserved without Impeachment of wast, this comming to a Lessee, hee would [Page 84]have it in the like manner, but restrained here, Janu. 11. Jac.

Prince contra Greene, although an Estate cannot be created by Covenant by law, yet made good in Chancerie, in Iune, 40. Eliz.

Reynell contra Peacocke, concerning an Estate in Fee, depending upon an Estate taile, his Lordship would not alter the E­states in li. B. 6. Car.

Merrifield contra Merrifield, about 1634.

Rousewell contra Knight, in 10. Car. raysing of an Estate by an Agreement.

Barrow contra Smith, in 10. Car. a man makes a graunt to friends of an Estate, to the use of three Daughters and their heires, this is Joyntennancie, and the Survivor car­ries it.

Lister contra Yelverton, an Estate is made to friends in trust to the use of the woman, to commence after her husbands death, shee joynes in a Fine with her hus­band of the lands leased in trust, this Fine shall cut off the trust, and there being an Extent upon the lands leased, this trust shall not prevent the Extent by reason of the Fine, Trin. 15. Car.

Exchange.

Cottington cont' Leversage, an Indenture of Exchange decreed, 13. Jac. li. A. fo. 229.

66 Examination.

Examina­tion.Examinations of Plaintiffs and Defen­dants, and Witnesses after a hearing.

Throckmorton contra Cromwell, 10. Jac. li. A. fo. 18.

Touck contra Thomas, 19. Iac. li. A. fo. 829.

Lea contra Band, 1591. & 32. Eliz. the Defendant was examined upon Intergato­ries, and yet the Plaintiffe was left to his proofe.

And in Mich. 36. & 37. Eliz. li. A. fo. 422. Dom. Burleigh contra Shute.

The Court would not examine the De­fendant unlesse hee would absent 38. Eliz. Bowser contra Savage.

A Defendant upon a hearing where the Plaintiffs proofe served not, appointed to be examined. Bellamy contra Radcliff, 38. & 39. Eliz.

Waterman contra Pope, Pasch. 37. Eliz.

York contra Haidon, the Plaintiffe was ordered to be Examined, or Proces to be had against him, 11. & 12. Eliz. li. A. fo. 71.

Lady Amcotts, being a Defendant, was to be examined upon Intergatories, 11. & 12. Eliz. fo. 328, Major Feversham cont' Ance.

Cotton contra Paget, the Defendant not to be examined upon all Intergatories co­dem, fo. 367.

Preston contra Powell, the Wife to be examined as a Witnesse, 41. Eliz. li. B. fo. 10.

Glaster case concerning an Examinati­on about 6. Car.

Exceptions.

If a man except against an Answer and hath it referred if thereupon it fall out to be good, the Defendant shall have Costs for that trouble upon motion, Beswick con­tra Fox, Hillar. 39. Eliz.

Executors.

Executor not infor­ced to put in bond but in cer­tain cases. Executors not in equitie compelled to put in Bond to persorme the Will or An­swer Legacies, unlesse it appeare, they have either broken the trust in them reposed by the Testator, or bee decayed since his death, for at his death it seemed hee trusted them without Bond, Browne contra Purton, 32. Eliz. li. B. fo. 641.

One Executor may sue another in this Court, though not at law, Allen contra Sto­ry in 1585. and Okely & Barnard, 39. Eliz.

Two executors, one of them is made De­fendant he shall be charged no further, then for the goods came to his own hands, Her­bage contra Backshaw, 35. Eliz.

Englesield contra Inhabitant, To pay Costs. de Rother­strop Executors, to pay costs adjudged a­gainst the Testator, because he had Assetts, 28. Nov. 1631.

Brereton contra Roberts, Sues' th'-executor of his ex­ecutor. the surviving Executors, sues the Executor of his Execu­tor, and likewise where there is a great state come to the Executor, which was not dispo­sed of by the Testator, the Executor shall not have it, but shall be disposed of to the Testators kinsfolke, and to charitable uses; An Executor of an Executor, ordered to ac­count upon Oath, and to be examined upon Intergatories to discover the Estate, in 6. Jac. li. A. fo. 638.

Bacon contra Bell, Two Exe­cutors one discents, the act of the other good. Two 0218 Executors the one discents' yet the Act of the other shall be good, in Febr. 39. Eliz.

Holland contra Owen, an Executor shall not be charged with a Trespasse committed by the Testator, in 3. or 4. Car.

Warmstrey contra Dom'. Tanfield, a Sub­pena against an Executor to shew cause, why he should not be bound by Decree made a­gainst the Testator, in Hill. 5. Car. and con­cludes accordingly.

How farre a Judges or an Officers Exe­cutor shall be bound for a neglect done in his Office, in Mich. or Hillar. 8. Car. or Iac.

Moore contra [...] in Mich. 8. Car.

Two Executors and Joynt in the Bill,Coexecu­tors. shall be severed upon hearing.

John contra Kingston, Coexecutors shall [Page 88]not be charged for more, then comes to his hands in 8. Car.

Downes, Jux, & Wiseman, concerning an Agreement, and if one Executor doe Wast, the other shall not be charged, Trin. or Mich. 7. Car.

Townley contra Shurborne, Two Trustees of a Lease or two Executors, one wasteth the goods, the other shall not be charged, unlesse he was a Coactor, in Trin. 9. Car.

Deane contra Ward, two Executors, two answers for mean profits before partition, in 11. Car.

Allen contra Burton, an Executor sues the Executor of his Coexecutor towards payment out of an Estate which came to the Defendant, who is not chargeable in law with the Legacies, but the Plaintiffe is (as surviving Executor) decreed to be lya­ble in 10. Jac. li. B fo. 243.

Hankinson contra Pell, an Executor, cal­led in question, after question demurred, yet over-ruled in 12. Car.

Capell contra Gostow, two Executors, the one trusteth the other to receive all Rents and dyes, the Plaintiffe calls his Executor to an account, being th' executor of a Trustee, ordered to make satisfaction, in 12. Jac. li. A. fo. 421.

Terrey contra Fowler, an Executor ma­keth [Page 89]doubt, whether he shall pay debts be­fore a Decree in Chancerie, decreed they shall be protected.

Dominus Craven & Comes Dorset, Cre­ditors about 6. Car.

Wolverston contra Amherst. 13. Car.

Kemp contra Lamplugh, 14. Car.

Rowe contra Billing, two Executors be­ing decreed to pay Legacies and debts, the one paying it, the other shall upon a Bill be compelled to pay the moity and Costs, in 10. Car.

Martin contra knowles, concerning two Co-partners Executors, the estate being not divided before death, 28. Eliz. fo. 257.

Houghton contra Hampden, & e contra, One Executor receives money for Interest, it shall be accompted as principall for five per centum, in Mich. 9. Car.

Viceeomes Conway contra Crooke, a Bill preferred against the Executor of one that committed Wasts, demurred unto, and good in 15. Car.

But an accompt for an Estate which came to the Defendants hands called in question, pleaded the Statute of limitation, over-ruled in 15. Car.

69 Exemplification.

Exempli­fication. Fisher contra Hawkes & Smith in 1590. the Plaintiffe allowed without shewing a [Page 90]Deed inrolled, to plead the Exemplification of it.

If a Demise of lands, want sufficient words to carry that which was meant to passe, it shall not be holpen in equitie, Kent contra Kent. in 1591.

Fisher contra Smith, the Court orders an Exemplification of a Deed to be pleaded at law, where the Deed cannot be brought, in 33. Eliz. li. A. fo. 26.

Extent.

Extent not well layd, a­new a­warded. Trion contra Michell, the Plaintiffe sued out an Elegit, being not well layd, and the Extent not good, sues here in Equitie for the money, decreed 12. Car.

To accompt for profits upon Extent ac­cording to true valuation, and not to the extended value, but not use for those profits, in 5. Car. li. B.

Haughton contra [...] 4. Car. or thereabouts.

Lands ex­tended at low rate to answer trua va­lue. Re-ex­tent. Aldred contra Wilkinson, 5. Car.

Dom. Deancourt contra Hampson, accor­ding to the Receipt, and not to the extended rate, in 2. Car.

Chivers contra Bampton, Trin. 5. Car. A Reextent awarded upon a Statute, the lands being not known upon the former extent.

17 Evidence.

Bourn contra Debest, Evidence. Shop-bookes read [Page 91]as an Evidence at the hearing, Mich. 15. Car.

Harrison contra Bludder, the same terme, and concerning the Statute of Limitation by great advise.

Feme Covert.

BAcon alias Prior, le feme vend le use (que) le feme ad cer' les Deniers vncorpus le mort le Baron quel clayme le use mere, & nient remedie in equitie, 7. E. 4. vouch un ease de Tasborough & Danvers, are in que­stion, Hillar. 1590.

The Husband sold lands and debts due to the Wife before Coverture, and tooke Wares for it, hee dying she surviving re­leased the debts, and decreed she should not, 36. H. 6.134. & 142.

Waterhouse Defendant, was Grauntee of a Lease in trust, to the use of the Wife of Witham, she dyed, and made Waterhouse Administrator, Witham complained, and would have had the Lease in equitic, the order and opinion of the Court was, hee should not, but the Grauntee and Admini­strator should, 38. Eliz.

Seekes to avoyd a Lease. Ireland contra Pavie in Mich. 13. Car. The Plaintiffe held two Tenements of the Husband and Wife, and surrendred both, in consideration that the Husband and Wife [Page 92]should make a Lease for one of them for three lives, the Husband dyed, the Wife be­ing but Tenant for life, and so by the Sta­tute would have avoyded the Lease for three lives, but the Court thought good it should be holpen in Equitie. Donnery & Weston 36. & 37. Eliz.

Feme ad Estate dïspunishable del wast un [...]'. wast en measons prohibit & puis en Mare sine auxi, Morgan & Peury, 37. Eliz.

Not boūd by Decree. Feme covert partie by Articles, and to a Decree, but she assented not, the effect of it was, to forgoe the Joynture for other re­compence, after that the Husband dyed, she tooke a new Husband, and they left to the law to recover her Joynture. Slater contra Foliambe, 37. Eliz.

Styward contra Jarmy, & Iarmy contra Stayward, Iarmy was enforced to make as­surance, Mich. or thereabouts decreed in 39. & 40. Eliz. li. A. fo. 660. li, B. fo. 41. & 42. Eliz. fo. 220. & 551, and because shee refused to performe, was committed till she did agree.

The like between Twyn & Box, in li. A. fo. 487.22. & 23. Eliz.

Egerton contra Townsend, li. B. fo. 954 11. Jac.

Voux & Uxor, contra Gleas & Uxor, 4 [Page 93] & 5. Ed. 6. fo. 35. the Court doth order that the Husband shall become bound in a Re­cognizance, that his Wife shall release her Right.

Compel­led to le­vy a Fine. Barty contra Herenden, 2. & 3. Eliz. li. A. fo. 62. the Court compells the Hus­band and Wife to levy a Fine.

Wiat contra Wiat, in Mich. 16. Jac. li. B. fo. 476. The Wife being no partie to the Bill.

Hausly contra Hausly, Trin. 17. Jac. & Hillar' prox.

Commit­ted to Newgate for not perform­ing an Order. Westdeane contra Frizell & Uxor', the Defendant and his Wife committed to Pri­son for not performing the order in Maii 10. Iac. The Decree and their Commit­ments in 12.13. & 14. Iac. Regis in 14. Iac. li. B. fo. 14. She was committed to Newgate.

Compel­led to le­vy a Fine and per­fect assu­rances. Sands contra Tomlinson, Mich. Iac. li. A. fo. 679. a Wife compelled to levy a Fine and perfect assurances.

Pope contra Moore, the Defendants Wife being priviment enseint at her husbands death, the child could not be provided for by law, but the Court ordered, that the Child should have sufficient allowance, li. A. fo. 307.3. Car. vel Iac.

Sueth her Husband and o­thers. Rivet contra Lancaster, the Wife sueth her Husband, in 39. Eliz. li. A. fo. 201.

West. contra West, 12. Car.

And feme Covert sueth others, 17. Iac. li. A. fo. 940.

Kiffin contra Kiffin, 17. Iac. li. A.

Dom. Crispe in Pasch. or Trin. 18. Iac. li. A. fo. 1088.

Comitissa Dorset contra Comitem Dorset about 7. Iac.

Fleshward contra Iackson, Money given to a Feme Covert for her maintenance, be­cause her Husband is an unthrift, the Hus­band pretends the money to be his, but the Court ordered that the money should be at her disposing, 21. Iac. li. B. fo. 719.

Rust contra Whittle & al', Pasch. 8. Iac. li. B. The Court doth decree a Report where­in it was thought fit, that the Defendant should compell his Wife, and another mans Wife, being th'other Defendant, to levy a Fine and joyne in assurance.

Sued o­thers without her Hus­band and in her friends name. Dom. St. John contra Englefield, in Mich. 14. Iac. a Bill preferred without the privitie of her Husband, allowed.

Gascoigne contra Francklyne, a Feme Covert sues others, 42. Eliz. li. A. about fo. 593.

Haynes contra Duncombe, in Trin. 21. Iac.

Milward contra Bradborne 5. or 6. Car.

Examined against her Hus­band. Lake contra Deane, 38. Eliz. li. A. fo. 157. a Wife examined to discover her Hus­bands deceipt.

Chargeth lands with a paroll trust. Cary contra Ley, in Mich. 21. Iac.

Land charged with a paroll trust, though made by a Feme Covert.

Sambroke contra Ramsey, in Mich. 13. Car.

May dis­pose of a Trust. &c. Baskervile contra Sinthome, the Plain­tiffe conveyed a Lease to Feoffees in trust, to the use of his Daughters, and to his Chil­dren lynially, the Daughter married and had issue, which dyes, marries againe, the Feoffees conveys the Lease to the Wife and Husband, and discharges the trust, the wo­man gives this trust to the Husband & dyes, the Heire sues the Husband for this land, but ordered that the land should goe to the Husband, notwithstanding the Conveyance, 12. Jac. li. B.

To an­swer. Palmer contra Shonck, a feme Covert to Answer Mich. 5. Car.

An Infant bound by Agree­ment. Stiles contra Stiles, an Agreement binds a Feme and an Infant, in Hillar. 2. Car.

Sankey contra Golding, 21. Eliz. li. fo. a Feme Covert sues without her Hus­band.

Sues. Farewell contra Curson, Feme covert sues in Chancerie sa Baron in vie ouster la Ma­re, 31. & 32. Eliz. fo. 8.

Baker contra Newbery, about 5. Car. though the Husband released.

An Infant compelled to answer. Moore contra Dom'. Greenvile, will not [Page 96]Answer because a Feme covert and within Age, compelled, 11. Car.

Throckmorton contra Calver, a woman returning her Answer, being married after the Commission awarded, ordered, 11. Car.

Bound by Agree­ment. Randall contra Tynny, a single woman did agree to have a moitie of land, and after Marriage, subscribed her name with her Husband, to a latter Agreement, though Feme covert decreed in 10. Jac. li. B. 25. or 250.

Holman contra Awdley, 10. Jac. li. B. fo. 309. a Wife not to bee examined against her Husband.

Demurrs ordered to Answer. Court contra Popham, the Wife demurres without her Husband, because charged with conspiracie and combination, ordered to Answer upon Oath about June. 6. Car.

Comes Danby contra Peele, a Release by the Husband shall not prejudice the Wife, to sue for her Jewels in 13. Car. and a Wife sues another in a friends name.

Keeling contra Bodley, Mich. 14. Car.

Rowe contra Comitem Newburgh, 14. Car. Looke in it otherwise, because separate.

Comes Exon' contra Dom. Morley, how farre it binds an heire more then Common law, for payment of debts, 13. Car.

To an­swer. Portman contra Popham, a Wife to an­swer without her Husband being beyond the Sea, in 11. Car.

Batson contra Conney, the Defendant de­murres that at the time of the Agreement, the Defendant was an Infant at sixteen years old, and now married, and so not bound, ordered to answer in Mich. 14. Car. and in Hill. 15. or 16. Car.

Poole contra Harrington, or econ'. A Wife hath a stock for her own use and dies, who is buried by a friend without direction of her Husband, he that buries her must bee at the charge, and not the Husband, in Mich. 14. Car.

Roe contra Dom. Newburgh, a Feme co­vert cannot sue, unlesse there be a severance, this suit is for a promise in Marriage, after twenty yeares, the matter was dismissed, be­cause the Plaintiffe could not find Presidents suting this case. in Trin. 15. Car.

Georges contra Chancie, a Feme Covert being separated, having an Allowance of two hundred pounds she improved it, and disposed of it by her Will, Mich. 15. Car.

Clarke contra West, how far a man Non compos mentis shall be concluded by a Feme Coverts disposing of his Estate, in Mich. 15. Car. a case made and referred to Judges.

Simpson contra Simpson, a man cannot sue his Wife, nor a Wife her Husband, in 3. Car fo. 394.

Received 1000 l for her right yet not barred. Dookwray contra Poole, a man having three Daughters, intailes his land upon thom after one of them married, and being a Fems Covert, with the consent of her Husband was contented and agreed, to take one thousand pounds in consideration and extinguishment of her right as Co-heire, the Judges hold it to be no good barr to her, in Trin. 7. Jac. The Judges Certificate.

Feme sole.

Feme sole before marriage conveys a­way her Estate to, &c. avoy­ded. Povy contra Peart, the Plaintiffs Wife be­fore Marriage, conveyed away her Estate to the Defendant being her Son, and after the Defendant conveyed the same to his Chil­dren being Infants, because (as the Court conceived) it was passed without any consi­deration it was decreed for the Plaintiffe a­gainst the Defendant, and the Infants in 32. & 33 Eliz. li. B. fo. 430.454. & 484.

Reserves power when feme revokes that not good A [...]w [...]d contra Stubbs, one Amy Pyms did cause one Light foot and the Defendant to enter into Covenants, and a Bond for performance to leave one hundred pounds to pay to such persons as shee should ap­point and if she did nominate none, then the some hundred pounds was to be paid to two grand children, after she caused the said S [...]bbs and Light foot to cancell these Co­venants and Bond, to make voyd this her intention yet decreed to be made good to [Page 99]the Plaintiffe, in 10. Jac. or Car. li. B. fo. 442.

Sues to set forth her Dower. Thomas contra Thomas, sues to set forth her Dower, 13. & 14. Eliz.

Takes a Commissi­an, &c. Winter contra Dancie, feme sole onely, takes a Commission to examine Witnesses, marries before Witnesses be examined and after examined whether the Depositions should stand, ordered to stand, 10. Car.

Marries before an Injuncti­on, &c. Webb contra Wise, a Marriage before an Injunction, the Court declares that it shall go and be revived notwithstanding no Bill of Revivor, 10. Car.

Kempe contra Dom' Reresby, or econ'. The Lord Keeper declares that a woman cannot have Dower of a Trust, in M [...]ch. 2. Car. but compelleth the Defendant to Answer, who is Tenant to the land, to enable her to bring her Writ of Dower.

A Farme with the lands usually set there­with to be lett, and the Scrivenor put in the Farme with th'appertenance, and then got a Lease himselfe to avoyd it, Harbin & Straw.

74 Fines.

Fines. A Fine and Recovery got by circumven­tion, the party which got it, may bee com­pelled in equitie to recompence the partie circumvented, As the Master of the Rolls was of opinion, at the hearing of the Cause [Page 100]between Welby and Welby, primo Mait 1595.

Fines arbitrable for Coppiholders.

Tenant Right.

Middleton contra I ack son, in Hill'. 5. Car. one years moderate value.

Popham contra Larcesse, Trin. 13. Car.

Monsier contra Ducket, Mich. 14. Car. These after a Decree at York.

Cooper ailas Staynning contra Blunt, A Fine arbitrable rated under value, 29. Eliz. li. B. or li. A. fo. 515.

Stoner contra Smith, a Fine arbitrable rated at two years and a halfe rent, which was the higher, in respect of the multiplici­tie of Plaintiffs, 31. Eliz. li. A. fo 484.

Tenants de Accledon contra Kinnesley, 21. & 22. Eliz. li. B. fo. 86.

Gittings contra Browe, 41. Eliz. li. B. fo. 486. Two years reasonable value.

Lake contra Jetherell, Nov. 9. Jac. Two years value.

Atwood & Apsley, 41. Eliz.

Tenants de Gaddesden contra Carey, A years value, and book upon change of Te­nant, and halfe a years value upon change of Lord, 4. Jac. li. B. fo. 435.

Fox contra Huddleston, 4. Jac. li. B. fo. 204. A years value.

Tenants Right.

Watson contra Maihne, Mich. 15. Jac. li. B. fo. 328. one years value.

Nevill contra Albany, 12. Jac. li. B. fo. 768.

Beare contra Seymor, Mich. 9. Jac. li. A. fo. 343. & Pasch. li. A. fo. 797.

Dom. Gerrard contra Parker, 12. Jac. li. A. fo. 1404.

Certaine examined here. Elrington contra Whetstone, in 39. & 40 Eliz.

To be paid be­fore en­largement Eaton contra Gwyn, 11 & 12. Eliz. fo. 206. The Defendant not to be released out of Prison, till he hath paid the Fine to the Queen.

Levied by fraud by a Te­nant five years past shall not bar. Farmor contra Smith, that a Fine levyed by the practise and fraud of a Tenant at will, Copyholder, or a Terminor for years upon Covin, to barr the Lord of his Inheri­tance (though the Proclamation and five years past without claime) doth barre the Reversion of his Inheritance or Free-hold, 43. Eliz. li. B. fo. 367.

Fined for putting in a long re­plication. Milward contra Welden, the Plaintiffe for putting in a long Replication, was fined Ten pounds, and imprisoned, and a hole to bee made through the Replication, and hanged about his neck, and he to go from Barre to Barre, in 8. Eliz. li. B. fo. 678.

Thorold contra Thorold, 17. Jac.

Wright contra Booth, the Plaintiffe (be­ing [Page 102]simple) was drawn to levy a Fine of his lands,levyed by a simple man yet ordered to be restra [...] ­ned. yet ordered that the lands should be reassured, if the Defendant did not pay a valuable consideration or if hee failed of payment thereof, then the said lands should be re-assured, 3. Juc. li. B. fo. 508.

Lewis contra Vaughan, 4. Jac. li. A. fo. 835.

Voyd yet relieved. Scambler contra [...] , in May 13. Car. because a Fine was not levyed accor­ding to Covenant, a power became voyd to make Leases, but decreed but the last Or­der, in 15. Car.

Longman contra Hopgood, a Fine impo­sed for breach of a Decree, Trin. 6. Car. li. B.

Imposed to take mony and goods, &c. Russell contra Read, 11. Car. a Warrant to the Serjeant at Armes to goe into the Fleet, and to take the Defendants money and goods to satisfie a Fine.

Barker contra Shepheard, about Mich. 9. Car. a Fine imposed, and parties Pillored and imprisoned, and layd in Irons for abu­sing a man for serving a Subpena in the Kings Bench.

Modera­ted. Long contra Snagg this Court doth rate and moderate a Fine 12. Jac. fo. 157.

Hopton contra Higgins, a Fine is not to be decided by witnesses but by Court rolls, and ordered to goe to hearing upon them in 10. Jac. li. B. fo. 176.

Thynn contra Carey, how far a Fine at Common law after five years, shall bar a title in Equitie, 10. Car.

Regula­ted by the most num­ber of Court-Rolls. Barraston contra Walsh, whether Fines be certain or not to regulate the same the most number of Court Rolls to determine the same, and the time 14 Car. & Mich. 15. Car.

Clarkeson contra V [...]gerons, halfe a years full value.

Sacheverell contra Brimington, the De­fendant pleads a Fine levied by a Lunati­que, over-ruled in Trin. 15. Car. and an Or­der too for a Commission to examine whe­ther a Lunatique or not.

Sur Con­cessit rehe­ved, &c. Ashfield contra Crispe, a Fine sur con­cessit after five years upon a Mortgage in Mich. 13. Car.

75 Forgerie.

Forgerie here pu­nished. Barker contra Ireland & Morris, a per­son Sentenced in this Court for Forgerie, in 8. Jac. li. A. fo. 1172.

76 Feoffees.

Feoffees a surviving joynt Fe­offee to make sale of lands, &c. Billingsley contra Mathew, the Court or­ders the surviving Joynt Feoffee, to make sale of lands for payment of debts aswell as if the other had bin living in Mich. 12. [...]ac. and before.

In trust to be exami­ned as, &c. Mildmay contra Com. Warwick, Feoffees in trust to be examined as Witnesse, in Hill. 1. Car.

For Wife compelled to joyn. Ayre contra lenningss, Feoffees trusted for the good of a Wife, compelled to joyn in sale of lands, in Hill. 2. & 3. Car.

Clotworthy contra Hunt, Feoffees for a a Town, nor Recorder, to be examined, but for matter of fact, Trin. 2. Car.

Feoffement.

Liddalls contra vanlore, about an Occu­pant to uses, or a Feoffement in trust, 2. or 3. Car.

Dux Buckingham contra Paul, in Mich. or Hillar. 5. Car.

Lilley contra Gilbie, Mich. or Hill. 5. Car. to compell a man to execute a Feoffe­ment.

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture of a Co­pyhold relieved. Poore contra Oxenbridge, although a Tenant hath forfeited her Coppihold, yet relieved here, in 9. No. 44. Eliz.

Whistler contra Cage, Pasch. vel Trin 7. Car.

79 Goods.

Goods. POpham contra Hinton, to goe into the personall, and whether a statute bee goods, and betwixt goods Inventoried and a peraporconalia. How far shall go into estate, after it was in Orphans Court.

Haynes contra Child, concerning the contingencie or Goods, 9. Car.

Leate contra Turkey, Company of Mer­chants, if a Consull beyond Sea hath pow­er, and doe levy Goods upon a private Mer­chant, the Company must beare it, if the Factor could not prevent the Act of the Consull, Hill'. 1630.

80 Heire.

Heire is not bound by the Fa­thers bar­gain. THe Heire is not in Equitie bound to as­sure lands, which his Father bargained and tooke money for, Weston contra Dan­vers 1584.

Of a Mortga­ger not to be relie­ved. Michill contra Chamberlaine, in 7. Car. an Heire of Mortgagee not to be relieved after severall dismissions and Decrees un­lesse can prove an extraordinary value of the land.

Porter contra [...] in 11. Car. one Brett provides, that his Heires, Executors, or Administrators, shall have power to redeem lands, the Plaintiffe is neither, but as an Assignee from Brett, yet shall have power.

Breach of condition holpen a­gainst the heire. Salmon contra Vaux, an Heire at Law seeks to take advantage upon breach of Condition, because Legacies were not paid according to the Will, but because there was an intention to pay it, and an Agree­ment between the Sisters, decreed against the Heire, in 11. Car.

Archer contra Partridge, 9. Car.

Cooke contra Tookey, Pasch. 15. Car. by great advise.

Bound by his fathers Covenant though claims not by dis­cent. Pooke contra Poole, the Defendant com­ming in by grant and not by discent from his Father, 'tis pretended he ought to bee bound by the Fathers Covenants and as Ex­ecutor hath no Assers, yet ordered to be ly­able, in Mich. 14. Car.

82 Husband.

Husband. The Master of Kings Colledge in Cam­bridge contra Ragland, the Defendants Wife would not bring in Evidences accor­ding tö an Order, the Husband was bound that she should doe it, 4. Eliz. li. A. fo. 73.

Ackland contra Dom' Perriam, the Plaintiffe marrying one Malletts Widow, who made a Conveyance to the Defen­dants Husband in trust and received the profits of the land accordingly, but dyed be­fore any satisfaction made the wife being sued demurres, because the Plaintiffe doth not sue as Administrator, and that the pro­fits were received before she was married to the Defendant, nor hath made any title to himselfe to the goods of the said Mallett, which notwithstanding was over-ruled in 9. Jac. li. A. fo. 78.

Dom. Griffin contra Tailor. 3. & 4. Car. the Court ordered a man to procure his wife to acknowledge a Fine of Mortgaged lands.

82 Induction.

Induction WEbb contra Smart. 5. Iac. li. A. fo. 302. the Plaintiffe being inducted to a Parsonage, the Defendant notwithstanding keeps the possession by force; whereupon the Plaintiffe was inforced to preferre his Bill in this Court but the Defendant De­murred, because the Vicarage is as his Free­hold and Inheritance, and so properly de­terminable at law, yet the Demurrer over­ruled.

Bird contra Smith, 3. Iac. li. A. fo. 819.

83 Infants.

Infants. Copihold surrendred to the use of an Infant, to the intent he should pay an An­nuity to another at full Age, which he refu­sed to doe, and it was decreed he should pay it, and the Arrerages. Sawyer contra Gillet, 9. Eliz.

Bound. In a cause between the Lady Russell and the Earle of Lincolne, the Plaintiffs Coun­cell moved the Court, to give Order against the younger Earle of Bedford being an In­fant, Vouched a case, 11. Nov. 6. Eliz. li. B. fo. 426. Between Altham and the Lord Morley, where between the date and seal­ing of a Conveyance, the Lord Morley con­veyed the land to an Infant, wherefore Al­tham had order against the Lord Morley [Page 108]and Infant, an Infant concluded 6. Jac. 36. Eliz. Preston. Trin. Colledge & Wood in li. A. fo. 330. and a bad Lease in and Wester and Talpitt, 37. Eliz. li. B. fo. 206. Infants bound till they come to Age and undo it by a Bill. Burch contra Mor­ris, Land conveyed to Feoffees to the use of an Infant bound in 5. Jac. li. A. fo. 323.

Oliver & King contra Challinor, the Plaintiffe being an Infant, was committed to the Prison of the Fleet, for not obeying a Decree, 11. & 12. Eliz. li. A. fo. 213.

Digman contra Hamond, 12. Eliz. fo. 356. the Defendant made secret Convey­ances (depending the suit) to defraud the Plaintiffe being an Infant, the defendant bound by Recognizance to discharge all Estates so made.

Made Ex­ecutor to prevent payment yet lyable. Dom. Leppington contra Barnes, the Plain­tiffs Husband made an infant Executor to prevent payment of debts not fit to under­take it, but another Administrator for him during his Nonage, yet lyable for payment of debts in Mich. 9. Iac. fo. 362. & 1092.

To an­swer. Hare contra Hide, a Bill preferred a­gainst an Infant, and he ordered to Answer, Hillar. 3. Jac. & Pasch. prox'.

Bound by Decree. Wadham contra Moore, an Infant bound by Decree, albeit he was but twelve yeares, 37. Eliz. li. A. fo. 489.

Wood contra Norton, a Demurrer, be­cause sues not as Guardian, but because as prochein Amy, ordered to Answer in Hill. 2. Caroli.

To [...]exa­mine a Guardi­an. Hill contra Hill, in 7. Car. to examine a Guardian as a Witnesse.

Young contra Stowell, concerning the granting of an Office in Reversion to an Infant, 8. Car.

Rayner contra Rayner, in 13. Car. How farre an Infant shall be bound to give a le­gall discharge of money due to them.

Rivers contra Comit' Dorset, how farre this Court shall bind an Infant by consent of Parentage, in 6. Car.

May sur­render. Lyde contra Somister, the Mannor of an Panington, an Infant of twelve years may surrender, Trin. 15. Car.

Hartwell Contra Ford, a lawfull age of Infant shall be intended twenty one years, unlesse in a particular case of Guardian in soccage 11. Car. fo. 341.

84 Inclosures.

Inclo­sures. Piggot contra Kniveton, 4. Iac. li. B. fo. 101. because lands had been inclosed thirty yeares by consent of most of the Parishio­ners, therefore they should continue in­closed.

Comes Huntingdon contra [...] in Hill. 8. Iac.

Cartwright contra Drop [...], the Court com­pells certain men that would not agree to Inclosures to yeild unto the same, and binds a Colledge that would not consent, having lands within the said Mannor so inclosed, Mich. 17. Iac. li. A. fo. 549.

Another between the Prebends and Schol­lers of Magdalen Colledge in Oxon contra Hide, compelled to an Agreement, Pasch. 10. Iac. li. B. fo. 826. & 10. Iac. li. A. fo. 426.

Danvers contra Dodford, concerning In­closures, Iune 7. Iac. vel Car. fo. 995.

Eaton contra Hill, 16. Iac. li. A. fo. 981.

Morgan contra Clarks, 5. Car. li. B.

Cripps contra Clamor, 17. Iac.

Tirwhit contra [...] 15. Iac. li. B. fo. 480. Inclosures.

Freake contra Loveden, Inclosure of Wastes and Common Decreed being for the common good, 12 Iac. li. A. fo. 372.

Decanus & Capit Westm' contra El­dridge, Maii 15. Iac. li. B. fo. 892.

Fleetwood contra Lenton, about 5 or 6. Car.

Monson contra Broxholme, Trin. 11. Car. vel Iac. li. B.

Tiffin contra Harris, 6. Car.

Gilpin contra Hillersden, 20. Iac. li. A. fo. 887.

Barkley contra Evet, concerning inclosure, [Page 111]where some not consent, are compelled, 8. Car.

Trigg contra Payte, A Decree made to overthrow Inclosures if the Defendant will not recompence the Plaintiffe so much as he hath been prejudiced by the Inclosure be­ing a depopulation, although a remedie at law upon the statute, in Mich. 20. Iac. & Mich. 22. Jac.

Capella de new Elmes contra Erbury, De­murrer over-ruled where a Parson will not answer, nor be compelled to an Inclosure, though for common good, in 5. Car. li. A. fo. 461.

Ingram contra Wells, the Court will not bind a man to an Inclosure that never assen­ted, 2. Car.

Fox contra Shrewsbury, the Defendant, because agreed to an Inclosure, but after disassented, decreed according to the Agree­ment, 13. Car.

Theed contra Hamwell, two Inhabi­tants, no parties to Articles for an Inclosure, in Mich. 2. Car.

Wright contra Stamford, my Lord Kee­per will not confirme Articles upon an In­closure, unlesse the same Arrable way bee maintained as before the Inclosure, 10. Car.

Dom. Lumley contra Sands, an Agree­ment fourteen years since for good of seve­rall [Page 112]Towns and high-wayes set, Decreed in Hill. 14. Car.

Moreton contra Winton, inclosing and continuing of Inclosures, and stinting of Cat­tell, in 12. Car.

85 Interrogatories.

Interroga­tories not admitted after a Commis­sion. Berryman contra Berryman, no Interro­gatories admitted here in Court after Com­mission taken away to crosse the Plaintiffs examination, Mich. 13. Iac. li. B. fo. 27.

Lewis contra Owen, examined in Court upon new Interrogatories if it be joynt-Commission, Mich. 13. Car.

86 Interest.

Interest. Weldon contra James, if a Surety payeth Brocage, in some cases Interest upon Interest allowed, 14. Car.

87 Injunctions.

Injuncti­ons. Cock shot & Parke, an Injunction was a­gainst the Plaintiffe, and all clayming un­der him, to suffer the Defendant to enjoy possession, one Wilkinson bought the Lease which Cockshat the Plaintiffe claimed by, and then to avoyd the Injunction, tooke a Lease till it should be seen how the old Lease should be avoyded.

Servington contra Webb, 12. Eliz. li. A. fo. 176. An Injunction for possession, be­cause the Defendant would not perfect as­surance to prevent a mischiefe.

Barkley contra Pierson, an Injunction to stay proceedings at law upon treble dama­ges, notwithstanding the cause dismissed to the Ecclesiasticall Court, Trin. 17. Jac.

Buck contra Wood. 12. Jac. li. B.

Against Crediters. Tiffin contra Tiffin, Hill. 17. Jac. An Injunction against Creditors, although none have, about Trin. 16. Jac. or after.

Finch and his Creditors in Hill. 17. Jac.

Finch cont' Hicks, Hill. or Pasch. 17. Jac.

Sine die. Troit contra Wallen, Injunction sine die awarded, and the money unjustly procured, restored, Mich. 12. Jac. li. B. fo. 322.

An Injunction to stay proceedings in the Spiritual Court, 30. Eliz. li. A. fo. 528. or 28.

Catwallell contra Wynn, an Injunction to stay Judgement and Execution in the Ex­chequer, Hill. 35. Eliz.

Episcopus Hereford contra Carpenter, an Injunction to stay proceedings after a Judge­ment, the Defendant taking out Execution notwithstanding is in Contempt, Trin. 6. Car.

Fisher contra Payne, about 6. Car.

Parker contra Bowers. Uvedale contra Harvy, &

Beamont contra Harvy, all in 7. or 8. Car. and to stay proceedings in the Ecclesiasticall Court.

Treswell contra Guibon, 9. Car. an Injun­ction [Page 114]to stay proceedings in the Exche­quer.

Miller contra Societat Girdlers, an In­junction to stay suit upon an Action brought for perjurie, before the cause in question here heard, 22. Eliz. li. A. fo. 497. And concerning a promise to make a Lease from the Corporation.

Knight contra Parson, an Injunction for stay of a suit at Law in an Assize for Writ of Redisseisin, touching the Office of Chester Herald, and the profits thereof, in 10. Iac. li. B. fo. 177.

Hewes contra Blewet, an Injunction to stay proceedings upon a Quare Impedit, in 10. Car. fo. 202.

Curteen contra Heveene, Marsh grounds stayed from plowing, Hill. 8. Car.

Aylett contra Aylett, an Injunction to stay proceedings in the Arches or Admiral­ty, 33. Eliz. fo, 172.

Smith contra Snotsbull, an Injunction to establish possession, and to stay suits in the Court of Wards, and an Attachment awar­ded for serving an Order of the Court of Wards, to stay suit here, in 33. Eliz. fo. 176.

Tanfield contra Davenport, the Defen­dant sues in the Ecclesiasticall Court for a Portion due to his Wife, this Court orders an Injunction to stay proceedings there, till [Page 115]he shall make a competent Joynture in 14. Car.

Shelton contra Stanley an Injunction and Commission to the Sheriffe by one Order of 13. or 14. Car.

Dominus Baltimore contra Reynell & Sands an Injunction to quiet possession such as at Bill onely, Hill. 15. Car.

Arundell contra Arundell, an Injuncti­on granted against the issue in tayle, to stay the reversing of a Fine levied by himselfe, and (I thinke) his Father also, in 40. Eliz. li. A. fo, 270. & 640.

Bury contra Conisby, a Verdict at the Common law to avoyd a Lease for three lives, because the Lease was to commence at a time to come, which is voyd in law, yet an Injunction to continue possession, 23. Eliz. li. A. fo. 38.

88 Judgements.

Indge­ment.Upon Affidavit, endeavour used to have served Proces to heare Judgement and could not find the Defendant, the Court procee­ded, Windham & Harwood.

A Judgement no lett to examine in E­quitie, so the truth of the Judgement not examined, as where Judgement against the truth of an Acquittance without a seale, or where the money paid after the day. Heard contra Doddington.

Owen contra Dom. Deancourt, a Judge­ment of a Debt, and a Fine to a Purchasor, acknowledged all in one day, the Judge­ment to be preferred. in 4. or 5 Car.

Godshall in Mich. 5. Car. for assigning of a Judgement for Contribution.

Judge­ment at law de­creed here. Comitissa Winchelsea contra Tuston, con­cerning signing over Bonds. 6. Car. li. B.

Allen contra Glomvile, 4. Jac. a Decree after Judgement at law.

Courtney contra Glanvile, 10. Iac. li. 1. fo. 474.

Ioynture.

Ioynture in money not to bee touched for hus­bands debts. Ash contra Dom. Forrest, a Joynture in money not to be touched for the debts of her Husband, Mich. 9. Car.

Nash contra Preston, concerning a Joyn­true, and not the Inrollment of a Deed sup­plyed in Pasch or Trin. 6. Car. and Judges Certisicate.

Knivet contra Raxter, a Joynture in mo­ney or lands, the use thereof in equitie shall goe to the payment of debts. Pawlet con­tra Dom. Malburgh in 8. Car.

Knightley contra Bevill, in Mr. Church-hills note of Trin. 8. Car.

Palmer contra Cleveland, the contray, in Mich. 8. Car.

Dom. Howard contra Comit' Notting­ham, a Joynture confirmed although by [Page 117]Tenant. Mich. 9. Car. & Pasch. 7. Car. The order upon hearing.

90 Iurisdiction.

Iurisdicti­on of Che­ster allow­ed. Davenport contra Deane, the Court will in no wise reteyne a suit of the lands which lye in the Countie Palatine of Chester, 12. & 13. Eliz. fo. 399.

Monshall contra Iewce, in 17. Eliz.

Daniel contra Jackson, Nov. 17. Eliz.

Cleeve contra Brooke, 15. Eliz.

Bradley contra Browne the like 15. Eliz. fo. 400.

Wentworth contra Taccon, in 16. Eliz.

Dom. Savill contra Savill, concerning the Custome of the Province of Yorke, in Mich. 1634.

This Court not to be stayd by an Injun­ction out of the Dutchie. Barnard ontra Langley, in 1633.

Tenants of Barwick contra Caesar, De­cree here, after a Decree in the Dutchie, be­cause it was ordered they had no Jurisdicti­on, the lands being out of the Dutchie, but held off East-Greenwich, 8. Car.

Levingston contra [...] about 10. Car.

Of Cinque Ports o­ver-ruled. Against the Stan­naries. Scofield contra Finch, Feversham Privi­ledge over-ruled, in 25. Eliz. li. B. fo. 131.

Trinick contra Bordfield, to stay procee­dings in the Stannaries, in 14. Car.

Dom' Scroope contra Lasonby, De positi­ons taken at Yorke to be used here, Pasch. 2. Car.

Against the Court of Re­quests. Simonds contra Harbie, this Court de­clareth that the priority of a suit in the Court of Requests, shall not hinder the pro­ceedings in this Court, in Hill. 15. Car.

Tollakerne contra Steward, a Demurrer because the matter was dismissed in the Court of Requests, upon a full hearing over-ruled, in Hill. 15. Car.

Askwith contra Chamberlame, though one Miller (no partie to a suit here) pre­ferred a Bill in the Court of Requests, an Injunction awarded to stay proceedings there, in Pasch. 16. Car.

91 Joyntenancy.

Ioynte­nancie. Dorne contra Dorne, concerning the dis­posing of a Joyntenancy, in 5. Car.

Pettit contra Styward, Two Joyntenants, one by Will giveth his part good in equitie, and whether a Wife of a Feoffee shall have Dower or not, in 7. Car.

92 Inventorie.

Invento­rie. Howet contra Baker, in Pasch. 15. Car. Where the Defendant did not exhibit an Inventorie, the Court chargeth the whole Legacie on him after twenty years, though pretended not sufficient.

93 Land.

Land sold away and tenure re­served.WHere new annexed Land is sold away in Fee, and a tenure in Capite reser­ved, it is pleadable here, Crompton contra Clifford, in Pasch 37. Eliz. li. A. fo. 128.

Skinner contra Skinner, in Trin. 42. Eliz. the Father of the Plaintiffe and Defendant, Devised certain Lands to the youngest son, which he purchased, the eldest son suing for the same, is decreed according to the Devise.

Thynn contra Kinsmell, Money devised by the Plaintiffs Father to the Plaintiffe, out of certain lands which were to be sold by the Defendant, the lands were intailed, and provided, that if the heires went about to sell the same, it should be voyd, being a­gainst the statute of 32. H. 8. It is ordered to be sold in 38. Eliz. lib. B. fo. 97. and concerning a discontinuance.

Manwayring contra Dudley, the Plain­tiffs Wives Father made a Feoffement to uses for thirteen years, to raise Portions of foure hundred pounds for his Daughters, the Father being dead, the Feoffees suffer the sonne and heire to enter into the said land, and sold the same, and yet after a discent, after the death of the first Purchasor, at the third hand, although the money be due, yet the Court would not charge the lands with [Page 120]the said money, the Example being dange­rous, in Hill. 43. & 44. Eliz. li. B. fo. 306.

Hungate contra Hungate, the Plaintiffs Father being a Batchelour, purchased an E­state in the Defendants name, but after ha­ving issue, the Plaintiffe, the Court decreed that the lands should go to the Plaintiffe, and be reassured by the Defendant, in 4. or 5. Jac. fo. 1070.

Bowell contra Hancocks, a Purchasor dis­charged from a statute in 11. Jac. li. A. fo. 344.

7. H. 7.10. A. Had lands discended to him in antient Demesne, extended by statute Merchant, B. purchased the lands, and had a Recovery by sufferance, in the Court of an­tient Demesne upon a Voucher, and ousted A. A. brought a Subpaena, and it was hol­den that A. could not satisfie the Recovery, and therefore should be restored to the pos­session by the Chancerie, for he had no reme­die by law, where, notwithstanding a dou­ble Judgement, yet the Judges directed them to the Chancerie.

Buggs contra Sumpnor, 8. Junii 43. Eliz. Lands given for the discharge of poore In­habitants of a Parish, for discharge of Fif­teens and Taxes, with a proviso, that the Rents should not be to the discharge of Gentlemens lands of the Parish, but of [Page 121]poore mens onely, the Defendant being but a Yeoman (though he have purchased some of the Gentlemens lands, and sought to have benefit of the gift) yet not allowed in 8. Junii, 43. Eliz.

Townsend contra K [...]lmurrey, Feesimple laud purchased by the Father, and descended to the Son, this land shall not be Assetts in law, nor equitie to pay debts, 13. Car.

The Countesse of Exeters Case.

Episcopus Heref. contra Awbery, where the quantitie of a yard-land is not known, a Commission to sett out so much land as the Commissioners shall thinke fit, upon common intendment, in Hill. 14. Car.

Eborall contra Hunt, Lands passed in a Feoffement more then was meant, was hol­pen in equitie, notwithstanding a Verdict and Judgement at law, supposing some cir­cumvention.

Hire contra Wordall, lands Devised to be sold and the money thereof comming should be devised to Children, but the lands could not be sold because there was none appoin­ted by the Will to sell the same, yet ordered to be sold, and the Lease was for a thousand yeares, which is most commonly to prevent the Kings right, in 39. Eliz. li. B. fo. 134.

94 Lease.

Lease de­fective not sup­plyed in equitie. A Lease conteyning a Mossuage in the [Page 122]demise but land also in the habend', which land had been many years enjoyed accor­dingly, yet the Lord Chancellours opinion was, no continuance would make a voyd Lease good, especially against a Purchasor, Meld contra Cooper in 25. Eliz.

Bradshaw contra Bradshaw, in 16. & 17. Eliz. li. A. fo. 309.

Collins contra Syms, look from Febr. 26. Eliz. li. fo. 358.

Ellis contra Beswick, the contrary, 36. Eliz. li. A. fo. 654.

A Lease devised to one for life, with se­verall Remainders over to others, the first Devisee was compelled to enter Bond, to let it go according to the Devise, but if it were for a perpetuall Chattle, the Court would not have done it. Price contra Jones, 26. Eliz. fo. 599.

Alston contra Easter, Trin. 7. Car.

Iones contra Frederick, 12. Jac. li. B. fo. 303. the Court will not charge the Admi­nistrator of an Executor.

Smith & Gawdy contra Compton, 14. Nov. 41. & 42. Eliz. Tudnam, the contrary Tud­nam contra Glanvile, 36. Eliz. li. A. fo. 396.

Long lea­ses dis­missed. No reliefe in Equitie touching Leases of one thousand years, because they tend to defraud the Crown, in 39. & 40. Eliz. Ris­den. & Tuffin.

A stranger having a Lease before a De­cree, which was not bound thereby, and the same Lease being over-wrought by a Statute which was bound by the Decree, bought the extent of the statute, and there­fore his Lease was thereby bound by the Decree, so long as the Extent should have continued, if it had not been bought. Ar­den contra Hanbury, or e contra.

Leases made by Deans, Canons, or Col­ledges, &c. for one and twenty years, or three lives are here relieved. Simeon contra Deca­nus de Windfor, Trin. 15. Iac. li. A. fo. 1177.

Long [...]o tra Decanum Bristoll, 3. Car.

Episcopus 'Dun [...]lm [...]' contra Martin, Trin. 5. Car.

Comes Oxon' contra Gooth, Pasch. 14. Iac. Derham cont' Christ-church, Mach. 10. Jac. li. B. fo. 64. the contrary.

Monsen contra A [...]scough, the Defen­dant upon an Award did Covenant, that the Defendant and his Wife should make a Lease voyd of all Incumbrances, yet after denied, and pretended, that a former Estate was made to his Children, so that it was not in his power, and brake off the Sale of the said Agreement or Lease whereby it was voyd in Law; The Court ordered the award to be performed to all intents and purposes, 11. & 12. Eliz. li. A. fo. 510. And after­wards [Page 124]for not performing the same, was committed, 12. & 13. Eliz. li. A. fo. 204. And afterwards he was to become bound by a Recognizance to yeeld himselfe to the Prison, which he did not doe, therefore the Plaintiffe might, and was Licenced, to take Execution upon that Recognizance, eodem folio 328.

Golding contra Tuffin, a Lease for many yeares, although it be intailed to many in Remainder, decreed to be sold for payment of debts, Mich. 10. Iac.

The like 17. Jac. Hubbard contra Hare, li. A. 944.

Harvy contra Withers, in Pasch. 24. Iac. Intailed lands sold for payment of debts.

Powell contra Moultor [...], a Lease intailed not subject to debts▪ though the Lease or As­signement supposed to be voyd because in­tended, and the Defendant to pay debts out of the personall estate, 5. June, 3. Car. li. B fo. 1441.

Chambers contra Gregorie, a Lease made for yeares, and a Statute for quiet enjoying, the Statute was delivered with the Lease, but not assigned; Whereupon the Assignee of the Lease, procured Letters of Administration of the goods and chattells unadministred, of the cognizor of the Statute and exten­ded the same, which Administration being [Page 125]repealed and granted to another, the Court and Judges ordered th' estate by that Statute to be determined, 22. No. 9. Car.

Birkenhead contra Birkett, a Lease made for forty years, by the Master and Brethren of the Hospitall of Saint Katherines, allow­ed for good, Hill, 1632.

Bampton contra Freake, a Decree to re­strain the Defendant from selling of a Lease contrary to the intent of the Ancestors in Octob. 9. Jac.

Huddleston and Lamplugh, concerning a Lease attending upon an Inheritance and concerning the disposing of the same, and likewise of a Trust, in Pasch. 6. Car. li. A. fo. 769.

Stradling contra Smith, where a Lease is made to Feoffees, to the use of the Wife of the Feoffor, the Feoffor and Wife Cove­nants, that they will leavy a Fine to extin­guish the rent, which was done accordingly, not mentioning a Leas of one hundred years, which was made over to the said Feoffees to her use, the Court decreed that the Lease should be cancelled, 1. Car. li. A. fo. 182.

Kitson contra Williams, a Lease made good, though a former conveyance to Feof­fees in trust and concerning a springing use supplyed in this Court, and raising of daugh­ters Portions by the Feoffees, in 6. Iac. fo. 618.

Comes Oxon' contra Neeth, 13. Jac. li. A. a Lease made by a Colledge contrary to the statute 13. Eliz. (though a Demurrer) and the Defendant would not Answer, yet the Court proceedeth after the Demurrer certified not good, the Defendant' stood [...] in Contempt, the Plaintiffe was admitted [...]o proceed to his proofe without Answer, And it was in Jonnings Case contra Tayler, in 38. & 39. Eliz. and the Bill was taken pro Confesso, and this after a Verdict and Judge­ment at law, upon a statute law. The law of God speaks for him, Equitie and good conscience speaks for him, and the Law of the Land speaks not against him, Deut. 28. 30. this was too for building upon a voy­dable Lease and improvement in London.

Rumney contra Garnous, 16. Junii, 36. Eliz. a Lease made to two during their lives, and after to the use of such of the Children begotten by Peter Rumney, this being with­out any expresse conclusion what child or children, the construction touching the uses, is to be made as neere as may be, to the meaning of the said parties, who conveyed the same to uses.

Lease pa­roll. Williams contra Moone, concerning a Lease Paroll. 23. or 24. Eliz. li. A. fo. 624.

Bullon contra Scivell, a Decree against a Lessee of a Prebend, to build a house upon [Page 127]the Prebend, where none was when Lease was made, because in the Lease, a house was demised, Mich. 14. Jac.

Gage contra Scory, Hill. 5. Jac. li. B. fo. 878. the Plaintiffe being possessed of a Lease from the King being defective, the De­fendant would have avoyded it, by Compo­sition with Commissioners for defective ti­tles, yet relieved here, or any Estate what­soever in like cases.

Harry contra Halfe, in Hill. 5. Jac. fo. 466. li. B. either for years or for Dower.

Windham contra Bartram, Febr. 11. Jac.

Blackell contra Brooke, Iulis 4. Car.

Stiles contra [...] in Mich. 3. Car. how far a Lease for life, shall be Assetts in Equitie.

Barton contra Mewd, 25. Eliz. li. B. fo. 35. a Lease was made to one, before the expiration of a former Lease, though great question among the Judges, yet determined to be a good Lease.

Brooke contra Decanum & Capit' Eccle­siae Cathedral' in Oxon', & Daniel the De­fendant (by mistaking of a Clarke) in this word, that the Demise, by consent of the whole Chapter of the same house have Demised, where it should have been the Deane and Chapter, in 37. Eliz. li. A. fo. 552.

Dominus Awdley contra Sidenham, in 32. Eliz. li. A. fo. 251.

Taylor contra Slecombe, in 2. Iac. li. A. fo. 749.

Ellis contra Beswick, 36. Eliz. li. A. fo. 537. a house or Tenement edified upon a Marsh leased with th'appurtenance, the Marsh passeth not by law, yet holpen in e­quitie against the Heire.

Prince contra Green, A Lease made to the Defendant by Tenant in tayle for forty years, and to commence at a time to come voyd in law, yet holpen in equitie, and the intent of the partie performed, in Trin. 40. Eliz. li. B. fo. 111.

Little Iohn cont' Fortescue, the Defendant was required by the Court to consent to a Decree, if the refused, then it should be judi­cially against him, that the Plaintiffe should enjoy the Leases made by the Defendants Father, which he supposed were voyd in law, 36. Eliz. li. A.

Preston contra Wood, the Plaintiffe, and Trinitie Colledge being Leassees from the Defendant, hee knowing the lease to be voyd for not right naming of the Corpora­tion, in 36. Eliz. li. A. fo. 330.

95 Leasee.

Leassee.By the Judges opinion, a Lease is good though no Leasee is named in the Demise, [Page 129]but in the Habend. Buller contra Dodding­ton, 22. Eliz. li. A.

The Court compells a Leassee for years, to discover what Estate of a Conusors, to the end it may be lyable to a statute 25. Eliz. it is between Titchborne and Doddington.

Snagg contra Snagge, 34. Eliz. li. B. fo. 394, to shew commencement, terme, things Demised, Rent, what dayes of payment of Rent, and Covenant.

Legacie.

Legacie given up­on Condi­tion not to marry without friends consent, refuse to pay yet ordered. Called in question after 60. years dis­missed. Yelverton contra Newtort, 36. Eliz. li. B. fo. 101. The Plaintiffs Wife had given her by her Father Will; Three hundred pounds, Conditionally, that shee should not marry without the consent of friends, refused to pay, yet ordered.

Simons contra Lee, a Legacie called in question Threescore yeares since by Bill in this Court dismissed in Aprill 11. Jac.

Wilcox contra Cole, about 19. Iac.

White contra Simpson, Legacies to parti­cular Legatees, and the surplusage to the rest of the kindred they shall be limited to the fourth degree, and a time appointed to come in, or else excluded, in Hill. 5. Car­Gipp contra [...] in Mich. or

Hill. 6. or 7. Car.

April 8. Car. and if suit hath prioritie here, to reverse a sentence in the spirituall [Page 130]Court, and in Mich. 3. Car. my Lord al­lowes twenty Markes for money deteyned in the fame cause.

Comes Pembroke contra Zouch, a Lega­cie decreed in Mich. 7. Car.

Holme contra Fletcher, concerning a Legacie, in Mich. 2. Car.

Vitner contra Pix, a Legacie given to a Daughter, upon condition, that she should behave her selfe dutifull towards her Mo­ther, she married without the consent of her Mother, whether this be a Breach of Con­dition to avoyd the Portion, in 14. Car.

97 Legatee.

Legatee. Wasby contra Johnson, how farte a Re­lease shall bind Legatees, when they know not the Estate. in 14. Car.

98 Lunatique.

Lunati­que. Bonner contra Thwaits, the Court will nor retaine a Bill to examine point of Lu­nacie, 10. Iac. li. B. fo. 358.

Thomas contra Howorth, a Lunatique to Answer by his friend, in Mich. 15. Car.

99 Marriage.

Marriage. WIndham being a Widow, had a Judi­ciall Order, and a Commission to make proofes and after she married, no Bill of Revivor needed Pasch. 37. Eliz.

Leech contra Radford, concerning casu­all [Page 131]Matches, in Trin. 7. Car. Regis.

100 Mistaking.

MistakingThe mistaking of a name of a Corpora­tion holpen in Equitie. Lord Audley contra Sidenham, in 32. & 33. Eliz. fo. 251.

But Willis, and Sprint contra 19. Junii 33. Eliz. & Brooke & Daniel 38. & 39. E­liz. hospen. Pawlet contra Frie 26. Maii 42. Eliz.

Goodfellow contra Morris, the mistaking of a name in a Conveyance (being heire-Male) holpen, and lands to passe according to the intent of the party; in the latter end of Mich. Terme 16. Iac. li. A. fo. 350.

Mistaking by the Clerke amended ac­cording to the Record, Inter Culpepper & Decanum & Coll'Winton, in 4. & 5. Ed­ward 6. fo. 440.

Bleverhasset contra Fuller, the Plaintiffe makes a Lease of lands to the Defendant with a meaning, that all Woods growing thereupon, should be excepted, saving for necessary bootes, but by the mistaking of the Clerke, in putting in (hereafter excepted) where there was no exception afterwards excepted; Whereupon the Defendant cutts down the Woods, yet ordered to be stayed, in 37. Eliz. fo. 746. & 828. li. A.

Griffin contra Sayer, the Plaintiffe be­came surety for the Defendant to one Buck, [Page 132]in a Bond of one hundred pounds, and the Defendant giving a Counterbond, to save the Plaintiffe harmlesse of a Bond of two hundred pounds, whereby, by the mistaking, the Counterbond was voyd by law, yet re­leeved here, li. A. 10. & 11. Jac. fo. 890.

Orrell contra Leeke, concerning a mi­staking of a power, yet made good to the Lessee, in 20 Junii 6 Jac.

Comitissa Oxon' contra Stanhop, where a power is mistaken or mis-recited, relieved here, Trin. 8. Car.

The word (Heire) left out in the clause of a Reservation, supplyed in equitie.

July 1606. Baildon contra Church.

Thorpe contra Jackson, misprision in a Counter-bond, 13. Eliz. fo. 193.

Mortgager Mortgagee.

Mortga­ger, Mortga­gee.The money paid upon Mortgage, the Mortgager sueth to have the Deed again, and not admitted, because then hee may charge the Mortgagee for profit past. Lang­ford contra Comit' Salop'. 38. & 39. Eliz. & 4. Eliz.

Hammer contra Lochard, a Mortgager relieved after the day of Redemption, not­withstanding it was in Infants hands, and a Purchase, Trin. 10. Jac. li. B. fo. 1000.

Ball contra Spane, 10. Iac. fo. 1151.

Chanticleere contra Micheton, in 27. & [Page 133]28. Eliz. li. A. notwithstanding the Mort­gage, lands were alleadged to be, &c.

Beale contra Bradford, 15. or 16. Iac. li. fo. 229.

Holman contra Vaux, about 13. Iac. the Mortgagee to accompt for the profits recei­ved, and for the use of those profits.

Morgage money whether shall goe to the Ex­ecutor or Heire. Popham contra Hinton, about 3. or. 2. Car. and in 21. Iac.

Maynard contra Middleton, in Hill. 7. Car. & Pasch. 8. Car.

Pell contra Blewet, concerning a Mort­gage, and how the Mortgagee shall ac­compt for profits received, and what casu­alties shall be allowed, and whether any, in 6. Car. lib. B.

Mortgager & Mortgagee, (during the Mortgage) contracts with another, the Mortgagee had notice, if the Moity be paid by a stranger. Hatton contra Prince, 24. E­liz. Wallet contra Lewknor.

Bacon contra Bacon, the Court will re­lieve a Mortgage to the tenth generation, though the Purchasor had no notice, be­cause it is supposed that he cannot purchase, but it must be derived from the Mortgage, and in some cases, where the Mortgagee will suddenly bestow unnecessary Costs upon the mortgaged lands, of purpose to clogg the lands, to prevent the Mortgagers redemp­tion, [Page 134]my Lords Declaration in Churchills note in 15. Car.

102 Mortgage.

Barnaby contra Greene, Mortgage the Plaintiff mort­gaged lands to the Defendant, which was forfeited, and a statute for performance of the Bargaine, ordered to be reassured, and statute to be redelivered, 9. Iac. li. A. fo. 218 & 160.

The Court decreed money to the Plain­tiffe against the Defendant, albeit hee had Judgement and Execution, being upon the point of usurious Contract, and a Lease be­ing become forfeited, and the Mortgagee devifed the same to Infants. The Court was of opinion, that the Plaintiffe should have it again paying the money. Langford & Barnard 37. Eliz. & 28.

Ash contra Wood, & Maynard contra Middleton, a Citizen having a Mortgage forfeited to him, shall be put to the Divi­dent, and not to the Heire 7. Car.

St. Iohn contra Grobham, decreed to the heire Trin. 11. Car.

Chapman contra Porter, with advise of Judges about Mich. 17. Iac.

Landen contra Cotten in Pasch. 13. Car.

Bromley contra Dorell, a Mortgage for­feited Twenty foure yeares since, Demurred, yet over-ruled.

Thetford contra Parr, 8. Car.

Thetford contra Rowe, & Rowe contra Thetford, in 10. Car. li. B. fo. 210. after thirty years.

Flee contra Drake, about 10. Car. where in case of an Infant, &c.

Harbert contra Benion, 14. Car.

Keeble contra Powell, notwithstanding lands forfeited, and a Release Mortgage re­lieved in Mich. 2. Car.

Keeble contra [...] Mortgages forfeited and released, yet to pay full value, or to re-assure the land, in 13. Car.

Newborough contra Freake, in 40. Eliz. dismissed in 7. Car.

Fitzherbert contra Leech, Mich. 14. Car.

White contra P [...]gion, a Demurrer, be­cause the Bill is to be relieved for a Mort­gage after 41. years, but in respect there was a promise to be redeemed after 27. years, in Trin. 15. Car. relieved.

103 Money.

Money. Prat contra Awborne, Money delivered out of Court in nature of a Sequestration, 3. Car.

With contra Page, the Money after Exe­cution, to remain in the Sheriffs hands till the hearing, Hill. 8. Car.

Ladk in contra Saokvile, Money decreed to be delivered to the Plaintiffe out of other [Page 136]mens hands, in the nature of a Sequestrati­on, 11. Car.

Carew contra Peniston & Hales, if Mo­ney be let out without expression of interest, shall pay none, but if the Trustee let it out to supposed able men (though they faile) will not charge the Trustee for no more, then he received in 13. Car.

Poole contra Harrington, Money by con­sent of the Husband, put forth for the use of the Wife, and gives power shee shall dispose thereof accordingly, but not allowed, in Mich. 14. Car.

Ne Exeat Regnum.

Ne Exeat Regnum awarded. Ne Exeat Regnum awarded by this Court, at the suit of men in suit between party and party.

Welby contra Welby in Trin. 19. Jac. fo. 1159.

Hasell contra Badwick, in 32. Eliz. li. A. fo. 442.

Lee contra Bower, Trin. 19. Jac. li. A. fo. 1155.

105 Oathes.

Oath. WEldon contra James, in Mich. 14. Car. A man may depose for small disbursments which hee can not make proofe of.

Orders.106

Order. One hol­pen in E­quitie to that wher­of he was in law barred by his own act. Tamworth contra Tamworth, the rent suspended by an Entrie, and in Equitie, or­dered to be paid about 30. or 31. Eliz.

Price contra Lloyd, about 16. Iac.

About 2. Car. Carew & Gill, a Fine in­grossed before (Quid Juris clamat) and yet was stayd about the same time.

Hallitey contra [...] in 2. Car.

The Defendant hath pleaded Non est fa­ctum at law to a Bond of 400 pounds for payment of fourscore pounds▪ which passed for the Defendant, the Plaintiffe surmises, that after tryall the Defendant promised payment of the eighty pounds, and the mat­ter was reteyned, but the order for it was not entred, but it is in my note of 35. Eliz. 18. Maii, Sutton contra Sutton.

Welbie contra Ap-Rice, the Court doth order, that the Plaintiffe and Defendant shall be examined for discoverie after or be­fore hearing, in Mait 37. & 38. Eliz. fo. 176.

Mascall contra Shelley, it was ordered, that the Defendant should pay unto one Mathew, money, who died before payment, yet the Defendant should pay it to his Exe­cutors according to the former Order. 11. & 12. Eliz. fo. 176.

Major & Iürats de Feversham contra [Page 138]Dominam Amcoats, the Defendant orde­red (being tenant for life) to be examined for making known, to whom the Reversion of the Lands in question were to passe, which if she refuse, then the parties to proceed in suit, notwithstanding her present estate, in 11. & 12. Eliz. fo. 292.

Wilkinson contra Deane, Mich. 2. Car. li. B. fo. 88. the Court ordered and decreed, that the Defendant should perfect the Assu­rance intended in a paper draught, being that she refused, in 12. & 13. Eliz. li. A. fo. 55.

Inter Sherwood & Corbin, & Tomlin­son contra Golding. 11. Jac. li, A. fo. 672. or 762. & Shapcot contra Dowrish, Trin. 17. Jac.

Errington contra Fenwick, the Defen­dant Ordered to pay a rent-charge to the Plaintiffe, 8. Nov. in 7. Jac. but because the lands out of which the Annuity issued, was in Infants hands, could nor ought to pay it, in Mich. 9. Iac. li. A. fo. 214.

Austen contra Cheney, (a third person interessed, but no partie to the Bill) prose­cuteth suit at law for the matter in questi­on, ordered to be made a partie to that Bill, and suits to stay in the mean time, Trin. 16. Iac. li. B. fo.

Fisher contra Grivell, the Defendant [Page 139]ordered to passe lands, after time of demand past, 4. Jac. li. B. fo. 90.

Mullins contra Southked, an Order a­gainst an Infant, and when he came to Age, ordered to performe it, Trin. 27. Ja [...].

Wadham contra M [...]gg, the heire orde­red to performe a Decree made against him in his minoritie, in 37. Eliz. li. A. fo. 489. there is another in 2. Car.

Lupton contra Harman, an Order to stay the money in the Sheriffs hands, and to be redelivered out of the Defendants hands, Pasch. 16. Jac. li. B. fo. 869.

Edmunds contra Edmunds, the Defen­dant would have the Cause dismist, because it concernes the probate of a Will, but in respect the Will was made to the dis-inheri­son of the Plaintiffe of lands, aswell as of goods, it is ordered to be examined here in 12. Iac. li. B. fo. 404.

Perriman contra Speccott, Hill. or Mich. 6, Car.

Manning contra Freake, because the matter is of a penall and criminall nature, allowed for good, Mich. 15. Car.

Holme contra A [...]loff, a forma pauperis for scandall to pay Costs, 6. Car. li. B.

Higham contra Ladd, died before livery and seisin, and before assurance perfected, ordered to be perfected, Pasch. 7. Car.

Allen contra Elborough, ordered to stay execution upon an Action of the case, 13. Car.

Haddon a man ordered to procure his Wife to levy a Fine, and to enter into a new Bond of 500 pounds, because the old Bond was worth nothing, upon the mistaking of the writer, 10. Iac. li. B. fo. 101.

Bayliff contra Longworth, in the Dut­chie Court a note under the Plaintiffs hand, Ordered against an occupant, in 15. Iac.

A dumb man to answer. Harcourt contra Roberts, a dumb man, Ordered to Answer upon Interrogatories by Mr. Colchester, in 14. Car.

Taylor contra H [...]oe, the Defendant would not admit the Plaintiffe to his Cop­pihold, for that the Plaintiff committed a Forfeiture in cutting down woods upon the Coppyhold, the Defendant Ordered to ad­mit the Plaintiffe, Tenant for that the De­fendant could not prove, that the same was done by the Plaintiffs directions, but by a Tenant in 25. Eliz. li. B. fo. 78.

Finches first Pre­sident he made. Pears contra Trelawney, A tryall upon a Quare Impedit, upon point of Simony, which is pro hac vice, the Defendant grants away the next avoydance, the Plaintiffe comming upon the Kings title, desires to stay multiplicity of suits,Quare im­pedit. and to have a set­tlement according to the first tryall, Orde­red [Page 141]that there shall be no new tryall, in Mich. 15. Car.

Cobb contra Cobb, the meaning of a Will, Ordered to be performed contrary to the generall words in a Feoffement, in 36. Eliz.

107 Opinion.

Opinion Equitie doth yeild to law.The Lord Bromley was of Opinion in Caudge and Lawyers case, 24. Eliz. that the land should goe as the law had settled it and conscience should bee supplyed with money.

Ellis contra Bastwick, Eliz. li. A. fo. 537. the contrary.

The Opinion of the Court was, the Plaintiffe having but a promise, could have no Decree for the land, yet it might be de­creed, that the Defendant might assure the land, Ferne contra Bullock, decreed upon a promise, and ten shillings in hand to assure, in Nov. 9. Iac.

Whether writings conteyn­ing war­ranties belong to the Exe­cutor or Heire. Dom▪ Buckhurst contra Fenner, question whether writings comprehending Warran­ties, may by law be demanded, being bro­ther and heire to the Lady Dacres against the Defendant, to the custody of, she being her Executor, she in her life-time commit­ting the keys of the Chests where the Evi­dences lay, they the Defendants being in possession of the same, and clayming the [Page 142]Mannor and lands, which they conceive to be devised, and conveyed unto them by the said Lady, the Judges hold and are of opini­on, they belong to the Plaintiffe in 37 Eliz. li. A. fo. 853. & 39. Eliz. li. A. fo. 775.

109 Utlawed.

Vtlawed not admit­ted to sue. Grevill contra Bancks, 4. Jac. li, B. fo. 69. the Plaintiffe being utlawed, not admitted to sue.

Utlawries.

Vtlaw­ries. Whitney contra Strachey, Utlawries must be pleaded all at one time, or other­wise compelled to answer, in Mich. or Hill. 5. Car.

Edwards contra Plowden, if the Plaintiffe hath conveyed to the Defendant for pay­ment, of which the Defendant pleadeth Ut­lawry, then the Defendant ordered to An­swer, Pasch. 5. Car. li. A. fo. 888.

Kingston contra Pinchard, Mich. 10. Car. pleaded at his own suit.

Preden contra Dom' Mohune no advan­tage to be taken upon the Utlawrie of a stranger, 7. Car. fo. 169.

William contra Gold. concerning Utlaw­ries at strangers suit, 7. Car.

Trion contra Brocas, because the Utlaw­rie was before the last generall pardon, not to be pleaded, 7. Car.

Hemmings contra Davers, an Utlawrie [Page 143]being pleaded at the Defendants own suit, over-ruled, in 8. Car.

Kingston contra Pritchard, 10. Car.

Spry contra Coryton, Utlawries over­ruled in 10. Car.

110 Offices.

Office.An Office of Town-Clarke without Pa­tent decreed for life Corp & Major de Lin­colne, Pasch. 30. Eliz.

111 Parson.

Parson or­dered to resigne his Bene­fice. EVerard contra Bourcher, a Parson insti­tuted and inducted by a wrong title by a common person, ordered to resigne at the Kings suit, and the King presented, 8. Car. & Attorney Generall contra Smith, Mich. 1632.

Holmes contra Conway, a Patron lett his Parsonage by Lease, in 15. Jac.

Not to be bound by his Prede­ces [...]ors act or con­sent. Harding contra Weedon, my Lords De­claration, that he will not bind a Parsons successor, where the consent doth not im­prove his Tythes in kind in Pasch. 15. Car.

Stubbey contra Stubbey, in Mich. 2. Car.

112 Pasture.

Pasture antient not to be plowed up. Brooke contra Denton, Mich. or Hill. 9. Car. antient pasture not to be plowed up.

A [...]kins contra Temple, in 2. & 3. Car.

Dom. Howard contra Ridler, a Decree for staying of plowing up antient Pasture [Page 144]ground, in Pasch. 19. Jac. li. A. fo. 878.

Ewens contra May, Mich. 22. Jac.

Sh [...]ldon contra Dormer, April. 14. Jac.

Tresham contra Gerrard, Hill. 2. Car.

A Joyncresse restrained from plowing up of antient pasture grounds.

Packer contra Dom. Newell, Joynture lands being good lands, and not plowed within 40. years, stayed by Injunction, 6. Car. li.B.

Gurnard contra Dom. Eyres, Look into about 8. Car. concerning plowing up of pa­sture of what nature.

Walrond contra Gold, 12. Car.

Rolls contra Miller, and to shew cause why should not lay down that was plowed in Mich. 15. Car.

Sill contra Mole, a restraint from plowing of land worth five shillings an Acre, being antient warren, though dispunishable here, about 6. Car.

Parcell.

Parcell or not parcel determi­ned here. Egerton contra Egerton, by the opinion of the Judges parcell or no parcell deter­minable here where the Bill is not simple parcell.

Tattersall contra Dalton, upon turning of water lying in two Counties about 11. Car.

Hobby contra Bonby, though parcell or [Page 145]not parcell fit for law, yet no newse to set­tle things according to proofe, and a Com­mission awarded accordingly, Pasch. 2. or 3. Car.

Hetley contra Com. Suff. parcell or not parcell over-ruled upon the Demurrer, and decreed in Pasch. 12. Car. Mr. Pages report.

114 Pannage.

Pannage. Pannage was dismissed, the Lessor felled the trees, that felling in Equitie is to be staid so far, as the Pannage may not be taken a­way 1593. Lord Marquesse contra Corham 36. Eliz.

115 Plaintiff.

Plaintiffe may exa­mine and have pub­lication within 14 dayes af­ter return of the Cer­tiorarie.My Lords order and opinion, the Plain­tiffe may examine, and have publication within fourteen dayes after the return of the Certiorari to pray the surmises, and give the Court Jurisdiction, but the Defendant is not to examine or publish any to disprove it. And if upon the Plaintiffs proofes it be reteyned, then the Plaintiff and Defendant may examine orderly touching the body of the Cause, and have publication according to the rules, and though the Defendant ex­amine as soon as the Answer, yet shall not they be published, but in ordinary course, Checkey & Allen.

Lambert contra Lambert, the Plaintiffe is to bee examined upon Interrogatories, [Page 146]12. & 1.3. Eliz. fo. 380. Kent contra Benham, to examine the Plain­tiffe at the hearing of the Cause, Pasch. 6. Car.

Drury contra Drury, the Plaintiffe exa­mined as a Witnesse in a Cause, and after becomes Plaintiff for the Interest in that businesse, allowed and not to be suppressed, about 9. Car.

Smith contra Gabry, the Plaintiff relea­sed out of Prison, though deteyned at other mens suits, because he was arrested when he was going about his businesse, or suit in Chancerie, 8. Car.

Major Bristoll contra Whitson, the Plaintiff examined as a Witnesse, 8. Car.

Allen contra Allen, in Trin. 15. Car. the Plaintiff relieved for a debt against an heire in taile, and possession, to be established with the Plaintiff till the heire in tayle re­cover at law.

116 Perpetuitie.

Perpetui­tie. Poole contra Poole, the Court doth not allow of Perpetuities, nor of statutes to warrant them, Pasch. 5. Jac. li. B. fo. 619.

Bacon contra Smith, 12. Jac.

Hunt contra Bancroft, 14. Jac. Hill. & Mich. 15. Jac. fo. 455. & 883. li. B. & Pasch. 16. Jac.

Hooe contra Arnold & al', about 17. Jac. the contrary.

117 Possibilitie.

Possibili­ty relieved here. Romney contra Garnons & al', a Convey­ance made to the Defendant to uses, and to their heires, for want of issue, then to such child or children of Eliz. (one of them to whom the use was limitted) begotten of her former Husband, being the Plaintiffs Father, they to whom the use is lymitted dye without issue, and before their death, did grant and devise the lands so in use to the Plaintiffe. It was thought good and de­creed for the Plaintiff, it being but a possibi­litie in them, and contrary to the words of the first intaile and grant, being lymitted to the Children, in 37. Eliz. li. A. fo. 286. & 949.

Though possibility cannot by law bee disposed of, yet by equitie. Povey contra Barker, a Demurrer, because a Possibilitie cannot be disposed of, over­ruled notwithstanding a Decree in the Mar­ches, 9. Car.

Decreed here notwithstanding a Decree in the Marches.

118 Possession.

Possession. Delahay & Pottenden, Mich. 39. & 40 Eliz. Possession as at time of Subpaena served.

Rowswell contra English, Trin. 16. Iac.

Le Stationers London contra Simcox, the Court establisheth Possession untill Eviction at law against a Pattent, Mich. 7. Car.

Pleydall cont'▪ Prettiman. Mich. 12. Car. No advantage to be taken by unitie of pos­session at law, being point of common; and after a tryall, a Commission to issue out of Chancerie.

Wild contra Sliford, the Judges Certi­ficate.

Berd contra Dormer, the Lord Keepers difference concerning unitie of possession when it continued in the Abbots hand, in Trin. 15. Car.

119 Plea.

Plea for­raigne. Yelveyton contra Burtow, 1594. to bee sworn to it, and to put in a Plea not for­raigne.

120 Priviledge.

Priviled­ged places over-ru­led.Cases against the Court of Chancerie for Priviledged places, and for the County Palatine of Chester over-ruled.

Hulst contra Daniel, Mich. or Hill. 5. Car. li. A.

Dom. Morley contra Martin, 25. Eliz.

Brereton contra Donne, 24. Eliz.

Egerton contra Comitem Darbie, Deter­mined here, yet decreed there, in▪ 11. Jac.

Inter Swinnerton q [...]er' contra Savage, Defendant; It was ordered, that in respect the suit depended there, that the cause should be determined there in 37. H. 8.

Pope contra Thatcher, in Pasch. 2. Car.

Croker contra Holme, dismissed in 22. & 23. Eliz. li. A. fo. 520.

Nevill contra Nevill, 26. Eliz. li. A. fo. 329. in the Dutchie over-ruled, between Barnard and Langley, 9. Car.

Oxford. Beare contra Stockhall, the matter remit­ted to be tryed at Oxford, in 1. & 2. P [...]. & Ma.

Davis contra Corpus Christi, Mich. 19. Jac.

Huntley contra He [...]ney, 4. Iac. li. B. fo. 303.

Cotterell contra Standish Pasch. or Trin. 12. Jac. or Hill. li. B. fo. 925.

Wingfield contra Fleetwood, in 21. Eliz. li. A. 137. li. B. 138.

Bent contra Oldfield, Pasch. 1. Car. lib. B. fo. 1044.

Against the Cinque Ports.Priviledges of Chancerie against the Cinque-Ports.

Brown contra Biggs about 36. Eliz.

Merwithie contra Johnson, Mich. 44. E­liz. li. A. fo. 35.

Hilton contra Lawson, 2. Eliz. li. A. fo. 199.

Smith contra Delves, Mich. 2. Jac. li. A. fo. 133. Chester.

Starkey contra Starkey, a Report in Mich. or Hill. 16. Jac.

Langham contra B [...]champe, the Defen­dant [Page 150]committed because he would not An­swer, the land lying in the Cinque-Ports, 40. Eliz.

Fitton cont' Fitton, & Wrenham 13. Car.

Fenwick contra Barnard, Julii 10. Car.

Stannary. Stannary Court priviledged.

Daw contra Derry. Trin. 23. Eliz. li. A. fo. 477.

Trewynard contra Killigrew, 4. & 5. E­liz. fo. 287.

Dutchie Court of Lancaster.

Hulst contra Daniel, Mich. 5. or 6. Car. contra pauperes de Wogston, the Court will not hold Plea against the Dutchie Court of Lancaster, in 10. Eliz. li. B. fo. 853.

Proces into Cinque-Ports, and touching priviledged places, as also into Coun­tie Palatines.

No Checquer-man hath Priviledge a­gainst a Subpaena, Tuke cont' Clark, in 3. Car.

Guillielm. contra Welsh, for a Cause be­tween parties where the Queens Interest commeth not in question, Tran. 36. Eliz.

Cutts contra Peters, 23. Ap. 28. Eliz. li. A. fo. 403. Exchequer-man not priviledged but to Answer.

Equivolent is to have priviledge, and not e­very servant. Putton con' Green, Tri. 36. Eliz.

Browne contra Riggs, a Demurrer [Page 151]over-ruled about 34, or 35. Eliz.

Blackley contra Laneston, a Corpus cum causa to remove the Plantiffe out of the Cinque-Ports, Pasch. 4. & 5. Eliz.

Langham contra Beckham, Trin. 40. E­liz. & 41. li. A. & 34. li. A. & 40.

Cinque-Ports priviledged against Chan­cerie.

Hudson contra Taylor, 41. Eliz. li. A. fo. 147. pro Chancerie.

Shutterton contra Nevill, 34 Eliz. li. B. fo. 249.

Francklin cont' White. 41. Eliz. li. B. fo. 726 Cinque-Ports over-ruled.

Harbie contra Saltonstall, in 5. Feb-1. & 3. Jac.

An Injunction out of the Exchequer dis­allowed, and the partie which procured it sent for it by a Pursivant, because her Maje­sties Revenue not in question here, Hartopp contra Hartop, in 1594.

Ellords widow, claymed her priviledge, because her Husband was priviledged, and if it were for her Husbands act, it was hol­den cleere that she should be priviledged, but this was for her own act, and yet hac vice priviledged.

Lloyd contra Lloyd▪ Pasch. 35. Eliz. but this is no order to priviledge others, in li. A.

Barkley contra Hussey, the Defendant [Page 152]not allowed his Priviledge, because his wife joyned with him, 21. Nov. 32. Eliz.

Oxford priviledged against Chancery. Hopper contra Eastmond, 1587. in 33. E­liz. li. A. fo. 21.

Onewry contra Glasier, Trin. 1588.

White contra Howger, in 17. & 18. E­liz. li. A.

Over-ruled between Horwood contra Smith, in Mich. 12. Iac. li. B. fo. 308.

Court of Requests not allowed Privi­ledge here, Garnons contra Maddox, 39. Eliz.

County Palatine of Chester.

Any dwelling there, must appeare upon the Proces, and plead their Priviledge, by the Master of the Rolls opinion, in Heren­dens Case in 36. & 37. Eliz.

Priviledge in Chancerie.

Chancerie Privi­ledge. In what cases the Chancerie doth privi­ledge.

The Defendant comming to execute a Commission was arrested, and had a Corpus cum Causa, and set him at libertie, Jackson contra Vaughan, Trin. 23. Eliz.

Fowler contra Ayhurst, removed from Rochester, in 22. Eliz. li. B. fo. 557.

The Plaintiffe arrested when he came up to examine Witnesses, and discharged by Supersedeas of Priviledge, Barnardiston [Page 153]contra Bawd, Trin. 1591. or 32. Eliz. fo. 738.

A Defendant comming up upon an At­tachment would have had his Priviledge a­gainst a Citation in the Arches, and had not, because a Citation is no stay of his per­son. Cooke contra D [...]x, Pasch. 30. Eliz.

Marshall contra Moore, the Plaintiffe comming up to follow his suit halfe a yeare after his Bill exhibited was arrested in Lon­don, and had his Priviledge 1588.

Hughes contra Middleton, in Hillary Terme, and paid costs for the same 4. & 5. Car.

Diggs being committed by the Court of Requests for not answering a Bill there for the same matter for which hee had a Bill here, had a Corpus cum causa, in 36. Eliz. li. A. fo. 539.

Because Master Bridgeman served a Clark in Master Shugboroughs Office, a Comman­dement from [...] to stay here, he was committed to the Prison of the Fleet, at the suit of Carleton, Pasch. 37. Eliz. li. A. fo. 135.

Inter Carleton & Bridgman, with the opinion of the Court, that no Court can hinder the point of Equitie of this Court.

Binion contra Thimble, in Pasch. 1632. or 1633. concerning the Priviledge of the University of Oxon.

Morgan contra Richardson, & al', the Plaintiffe having a Writ of Priviledge was taken in Execution, ordered to goe abroad by Habeas corpus, and the partie that arre­sted him to be committed, about Hill. 17. or 18. Jac.

Iohnson contra Obbin, the Plaintiffe deli­vered out of Execution, 12. & 13. Eliz. fo. 238. li. A.

Mathew contra Com' Arundell, a De­murrer, because an Exchequer-man, over­ruled, 6. Car. li. B.

Welbore cont' Collins, concerning Kings Colledge in Cambridge over-ruled, 7. Car.

Bancks Attorney Dom' Regis by Infor­mation, where an Inquisition was awarded to inquire of Rookes Estate in the Cinque-Port of Sandwich, a Writ of seizure awar­ded about 11. Car.

Pepwell contra Goldsmiths London, an Attorney at Law joynes with another in Action, thereby to avoyd a priviledged man in this Court, the suit stayd, and the Priviledge allowed, in 28. Eliz. fo. 247.

Mostin contra Thomas, though the De­fendant (a Clerke in the Court of Requests) because the suit had prioritie there, Demur­red in respect of that, and of Priviledge over-ruled, in Hill. 14. Car.

121 Partition.

Partition. Long contra Miller, Mich. 1594. An unequall Partition relieved here.

In Equity where none by law. Speke the Plaintiffe had one part, Wal­rond the Defendant another, and Morgan a Ward another, and Walrond overcharged Speke, and Morgan had his part set out by Commission, and no Partition could be had against Walrond, without making the Ward partie to the Writ, which he could not doe during the Wards Minoritie therefore thought meet the Plaintiffe should bee hol­pen in Equitie during the Minoritie, Hill. 40. Eliz.

Norse contra Ludlow, a Decree that two Partners which have made an unequall di­vision, should be divided into Equalitie, in 32. Eliz. li. A. fo. 404.

Broughton contra Broughton, Hill. 28. & 29. Eliz. li. B. fo. 264. whether a Parti­tion made without writing, be good or not Quere.

Babb contra Dudeney, in Mich. 14. Car. the Court would not grant a Partition, the matter being but nine pounds per Annum. Norbury contra Yarbury, otherwise, this is upon a Joyntenancy, in Mich. or Hill. 14. Car.

Windham contra Weare, 15 Car.

122 Posse Comitatus.

Posse Co­mit' awar­ded. Sidenham contra Courtney, Posse Comit' awarded to be taken, 41. Eliz. li. B. fo. 324.

Harrington contra Horton & Cox, a­bout Mich. 16. Iac. li. A. fo. 9.

123 Proces.

Proces of Record.All Proces that goe in affirmance of the Recognizance must go into the same Coun­trie where the first Scire Facius goeth, it is not so in these which goe in dis-affirmance, Haselwood & White, 30. Eliz.

No Clerkes of this Court shall make out Proces of Subpoena against any to testifie before any Officer, unlesse it be before a Judge, or Commissioners warranted and Authorised by this Court, to take examina­tions of Witnesses, 11. & 12. Eliz. li. A. fo. 28.

124 Perjurie.

Perjury punisht.In the Judgement Roll 37. H. 8. be­tween Baskervile and Guilliams, set on the Pillo [...]y for procuring Perjurie in the Spiri­tuall Court.

And 16. Eliz. fo. 17. between Siderson & E [...]stcourt.

Bullen contra Bullen, 44. & 45. Eliz. li. B. fo. 170.

Freeborne contra Leasure, in Trin. 20. Jac. li. B. fo.

Perjurie to bee examined here, Halse [Page 157]contra Browne, notwithstanding the Cause was dismissed, 16. Eliz. fo. 401.

Punished upon hea­ring. Mound contra Culme, 40 pounds Costs given for Perjurie, in Mich. 14. Car.

125 Proceedings.

The Court proceeds, because the Defen­dant would not Answer or appeare,Proced­ings. Michell contra Harry in Mati 39. Eliz. fo. 775.

126 Purchasors.

Purcha­sors fa­voured. Vavasor, or Waserer contra Row, in 33. & 34. Eliz. the said Plaintiffe bought land of one who had no power to sell and mo­ved, that if the Defendant should be com­pelled to bring in the Leases, which might incumber the Plaintiffs purchase, then the plaintiffe might bring in the antient Evi­dences which might discover, that he which sold to the Plaintiffe, had no power to sell, the Court Answered, that no Ayd should be given to overthrow Purchases made bo­na fide.

Not char­ged by a­ny colla­terall A­greement after the sale. Smith contra Killigrew, & Ognell, in 34 & 35. Eliz. li. A. fo. 88. Ognell would have charged land purchased by the Plain­tiffe of Killigrew, by a former [...] because a Collaterall which grew after the Plaintiffs purchase was not performed; It was thought no reason to load the land with heavy Agreement, after Smith pur­chase. Hall contra Often, 3. Jac.

Favoured. The Court would not stay a Purchasor from felling of woods, though the Vendor had an Estate for life. [...]irringham contra Eyres. 37. Eliz. and the Court would not bar him remedie at law, upon any Evidence he could produce.

Buying land of Feoffees relieved though a Verdict at law a­gainst them. Banister contra Brooke, a man possessed of a Lease for Fifty years, he dying intestate, the Wife Administers, and makes a Feoffe­ment to her own use, a little before her Marriage with a second Husband, the Feof­fees sell the land for valuable consideration, and was enjoyed many years accordingly: After the Wives death, the second Husband would avoyd this purchase by reason of the use▪ the Court decreed that the Purchasors should enjoy it, notwithstanding a Verdict at law, in Mich. 17. Iac. li A. fo. 413.

Relieved against breach of Conditi­on. Swan contra Rogers, Mich. 9. Iac. li. A. fo. 305. the Court relieveth the Purchasor against a breach of Condition.

Burlace contra Burrell▪ in Pasch. 19. Iac. li. B. fo. 1244. being a Purchasor.

Stonehouse contra Dell, the contrary in 10. Iac. li. B fo. 274.

Buller contra Smith, in Trin. 15. Car.

Relieved against an antient statute. Comes Pembroke contra Eyre, in 17. Iac. li. B. fo. 863. A Purchasor relieved against an antient statute.

Stile cont' Michell, in Pasch. 19. Iac. li. A.

Dimmock contra Williams, in Mich. 16. Jac. li. A. fo.

Warcroft contra Dom. Culpepper, in Mich. 15. Jac. li. B. fo. 244. relieved against antient statutes.

Garfield contra Humble, in 16. Jac.

White contra Phillips, in Trin. 21. Jac. li. B. fo. 768.

Relieved against a Deed of Intaile. Standen cont' Bullock, the Plaintiff bought feverall Mannors of Thomas Bullock decea­sed, who (before the Plaintiffs purchase) had conveyed the same by Fine and Reco­very to the Defendant and his heires males, which being done without consideration, was adjudged and decreed to the Plaintiffe, in 38. Eliz. li. A. fo. 713. & 42. Eliz. li. B. fo. 289.

The like between Cheek contra Beamont, in Hill. 18. Jac. fo. 775. & 1165. look for the finall Order upon the Judges Certifi­cate, Lands conveyed when sick in Trin. following.

Hurt contra Hurt, Hill. 12. Jac. li. B. fo. 727.

Helam contra Colt, in 9 Car.

Relieved against statute upon a second A­greement. Boll contra Hancock, in Octob. 11. Jac. A Purchasor relieved against a statute.

Lister contra Harrison, a Purchasor relieved against a statute in 9 Jac. li. B. fo. 619. sought to bee extended by a se­cond [Page 160]Agreement after the Purchase.

Relieved against a voluntary convey­ance. Curson contra Blackall the Father makes a voluntary Coveyance in tayle of lands, reserving an Estate for life, after sells the Woods upon the lands to a stranger. De­creed that the Vendees of the Woods shall have the woods notwithstanding the Con­veyance of the lands 25. I anu. 9. Jac.

Relieved against a stat. for perform­ance of Cove­nants. Chandler contra Dawtree, in 41. Eliz. li. B. fo. 480, The opinion of the Court, that a statute for performance of Covenants, ought not to take away the possession of a Purchasor.

Dom. Burgh contra Wolfe, an antient statute being against a Purchasor, though no direct proofe on either side, Decreed to be cancelled, in 11. Iac. li. B. 426.

Having no notice shall not be char­ged. Maynard contra Pauperes de East-Greensted, a Purchasor that comes in with­out notice of a Rent-charge, shall not bee chargeable therewith, although given to a charitable use in 6. Car. l [...]. B.

Rutter contra Bartley, Purchasors relie­ved of a sleeping Mortgage, in Mich. 2. Car.

Comes B st [...]ll contra Hamond, the De­fendant would avoyd a Lease against a Pur­chasor upon proofe that the Lease was made by one of Non sane memoriae. and that point of parcell is determinable at law, the Lease decreed, 9. Car.

Simeon contra Greene, to help a defe­ctive Deed and take off Incumbrances, as Statutes and Judgements subject to those lands, being against a Purchasor, in Hill. 10. Car.

Simeon cont' Cheriton, in Mich. 10. Car. vel Iac. a Statute set on foot nine years af­ter Decree to obvert it, stayd.

Mutts contra Com. Kancie, a Purchasor of a Lease, out of which a rent is issuing shall not be lyable, but th'Executor of the Will, 31. Ian. 9. Jac. this rent was without a clause of Distresse, and the Executrix and her Tru­stee, sold away the Lease.

The like between Nurton & Nurton, 9. Jac.

To prohi­bit a Pur­chasor to bring Au­dita quere­la. Thoruburgh contra Grobham, about 17. Jac. a Purchasor for a valuable conside­ration restrained from bringing an Audita querela upon pretence that a Purchasor had levied moneys upon other securities.

Walton contra Lewkner, a man buyes land, knowing of a former Agreement, 11. Maii, 12. Car.

Yeaveley contra Yeaveley, in 14. Car. Purchasors comming in pendente lite bound.

127 Procedendo.

Procedendo awarded, because the Certio­rari had a long re­turne.Because a Certiorari was made with a long return (skipping a Terme) a Proce­dendo [Page 162]was awarded, Ashley contra Godser 36. H. 8. fo. 30.

128 Promise.

A remedy for a pro­mise. Where the Law cannot give a Lease, or a thing promised but damage, there is some cause for the Court to compell the partie to performe the thing promised, Browne contra North. Waller contra Salter, in Trin. 8. Jac. li. A.

Ferne contra Bullock, Mich. 9. Jac. li. A. fo. 274. the Defendant promised to sell the Plaintiffe land, whereof ten shillings was gi­ven him, yet the Defendant would not per­forme, yet he should.

Clarke contra Hackwell, in 3. Jac. li. A. fo. 596. Five pounds paid, Decreed.

Long contra Long, in 40. Eliz. li. A. fo. 360. or 369. the Defendant promised and agreed to assure Leases in Marriage with the Plaintiffs Daughters, who would not per­forme it, but Ordered.

To assure lands mar­riage or­dered.A man promiseth to assure lands in con­sideration of Marriage, but after the Mar­riage refuseth, yet ordered, Gerards Case, in 2. Jac. li. A. fo. 202.

Fox contra Fox, in 8. Iac. li. B. fo. 248.

Wroughton contra Stafford, to leave con­sideration 13000. pounds at death, Mich. 21. Iac.

Hale contra Hicks, in Nov. 38. Eliz. a Copie.

Otway contra Hibblethwaite, upon a pro­mise made by the Defendant to passe his lands unto him, was the cause of his Mar­riage, but when the said Desendant came to be old, conveyed away the same lands from the Plaintiffe, contrary to his promise, the Plaintiffe was relieved for part of the said lands, 13. Iul. 11. Iac.

Batters by contra Prowse, to pay Portions decreed in Hill. 5. Car.

To pro­cure a Lease to another, but made to him­self, de­creed a­gainst him. Egerton contra Eldred, the Defendant promised to procure a Lease of certain lands for the Plaintiffe, from the Contractors, but passed the same to himselfe yet ordered and decreed that the same shall be passed to the Plaintiffe, according to the first Agreement in Febr. 8. Iac. Iune 11. Iac.

Plaile contra Plaile, the Defendant pro­mised to his Father, to assure certain Copy­hold lands to the Plaintiffe, but the Father dying before any surrender, denyed to assure the same, yet decreed hee should, 21. Man, 9. Iac.

Perry contra Peckham, in Pasch. 3. Car.

Longman contra Hopgood, concerning a promise in Marriage, Hill. 3. Car. li. A. fo. 633. and a Sequestration of lands for non-payment of Money.

Or bare agreement. Erby contra Evans, concerning a promise or bare Agreement, in Mich. or Hill. 5. Car.

Bancks contra Sheriff, promise left to the law, Mich. or Hill. 5. Car.

Clark contra Briers, in Iune 9. Jac. one relieved for a Lease for lives upon a promise.

Noble contra Washborne, to answer a promise, 5. Car. li. A. fo. 461.

Russell contra Read, a promise of 500 l to make himselfe a Baronet, would not pay it, yet decreed about 5. or 6. Car.

Church contra Dom. Mordant, a promise to make a Lease in Marriage, decreed against a Purchasor, in Trin. 2. Car.

By one Witnesse dismissed to law, but equitie relieved. Stadd contra Cason, a single Witnesse could not Decree a promise, but referred to law, and then Equitie reserved, 10. Car.

129 Proofe.

Proofe supple­mentall. Manser contra Fotherby, supplementall proofe allowed of about 7. Car.

Wagstaffe contra Foliambe, the like in Mati 5. Car.

130 Quare Impedit.

Quare Impedit. COmes Pembroke contra Bostock, a Bill to discovet a Patron, whereby to enable one to bring a Quare Impedit, ordered in 2. Car.

Peirs contra Trelawncy, the Question being title of Advowson, and the Incum­bent who had one Verdict (Simony or not Simony being the point) decreed the posses­sion [Page 165]upon one Verdict, and stayd Quare Im­pedit, in Hill. 15. Car.

Quid Juris Clamat.

A Fine ingrossed before Quid Juris, the Tenants ordered to Attorne, Hinsh contra Bland, Blackwell & Eyre, 36. Eliz. li. B. fo. 10. Et Roll contra Shute, in 12. Jac. li. B. fo. 1375. & 13. li. A. fo. 612.

Mancase cont' Clayton li 8. Iac. fo. 715. Arrerages of Rent to be paid.

132 Recompence.

Recom­pence for building and a pro­mise. For spoile commit­ted. TOoker contra Major Exon's, in Mich. 16. Iac. It is for a Recompence for a building and a promise.

Fellow contra Gibbons, the Defendant got a Lease away by craft, and cut down certain Woods to a great value, the land could not be recovered, but Recompence for the spoyle committed thereupon, in A­pril 11. Iac.

Recompence for building upon a voyda­ble Lease, antea inter Comes Oxon' & Neeth.

For wast done. Browne contra Bridges & Ley, a Decree for Recompence of Wast done, in 32. Eliz. li. A. fo. 836.

133 Re-extent.

Reextent.A Re-extent awarded antea, inter C [...]i­vers & Bampton.

134 Recognizance.

Recogni­zance not intolled in 20. years, yet orde­red to be introlled.A Recognizance without Condition, not in twenty years inrolled, yet upon Affida vir, 0 (that he who acknowledged it was living) the Court ordered, that it should be inrolled about 40. Eliz. fo. 195. inter Roll & Roll. Et Long & Owen, eodem termino, fo. 205. li. A. 11. & 12. Eliz.

Horshall contra Folden, 6.5. vel 8. Jac. A Recompence being antient, and no mo­ney proved to be paid, was cancelled.

Bradshaw contra Kinnersley, being with­out defeasance, Febr. 10. Iac.

Linch contra Digbie, concerning a Re­cognizance in Iuliz 7. Car.

Mica contra Drake, a Recognizance to be Inrolled which neglected, by the negli­gence of the Plaintiffe, in 11. Car.

135 Recusant.

Recusant. Leman contra Roc, the power of the sta­tute of 3. Iac. concerning a gift of Presen­tation when a Recusant presents in 7. Car. And likewise a Sequestration untill deter­mined.

136 Release.

Release. Denton [...] a Bolt. 11 & 12. Eliz. li. A. fo. 360. the Plaintiffe became bound in an Obligation to the Defendant, to deliver to a third person a generall Release from A­lice Denton his Mother, the Bond was [Page 167]not performed, yet relieved here.

By a feme covert. Palmer contra Reynell, one thousand pounds Bond entred into to Feoffees, after (during coverture) releaseth this Bond, yet the gift stands good, Trin. 14. Car.

Of one Admini­strator shall not prejudice the other. Horner contra Barrell, notwithstanding the Defendant pleaded the Statute of limi­tation, over-ruled, 6. Car. li. B. and a Re­lease of one Administrator not to prejudice the other.

Of an E­state not known relieved. Wilson contra Grove, a Release of an E­state being not known, relieved against an Executor, 7. Car.

For Por­tions how farre shall bind. Priestley contra Iohnson, the opinion of the Court, how farre a Release touching Childrens portions shall bind, in 14. Car.

137 Releife.

Relief in equitie where none in law.Sir Henry Lea granted a Rent to Crocker and his Assignes during Penistons life, Croc­ker dyed, making no Assignement and no Occupant without a Rent, Crockers sonne (to stay the penaltie of his Fathers Bond made for payment of the Rent) was enfor­ced to pay it, and sought reliefe in equitie a­gainst Sir Henry Lea. Crocker & Pen­niston, Hill. 1590.

After Iudgemēt and exe­cution at law no re­liefe here.Judgement and Execution had at law, the Plaintiffe preferred his Bill to be relei­ved, but dismissed, and had no Reliefe.

Farrington contra Wolwich, 12. Eliz. fo. 118.

Bolt con' Reignolds, the like. 12. Eli. fo. 129.

Brewer contra Temblet, the Plaintiffe was relieved of a promise, both for a Lease, and a personall Estate, 13. & 14, Eliz. li. B. fo. 76.

Grove contra Preston, the Plaintiffe re­leived of a promise and Agreement, 4. Jac. li. B. fo. 54.

Standen contra Hickman, in 39. Eliz. li. B. fo. 86.

Points cont' Heusley, 38. Eliz. li. A. fo. 279.

Tregonwell contra Reeves, Reliefe of ge­nerall words in a Pattent, against expresse in another, 41. Eliz. li. B. fo. 244.

Huet contra Hurston, no Reliefe after Judgement in Trin. 17. Jac. fo. 909.

Dom. Crompton contra Bishop, the Plain­tiffe is relieved against his own Act, in Mich. 8. Jac. vel Car.

Waller contra Waller, 16. Jac.

Woodward contra Alport, in Hill. 12 Jac. fo. 765. li. A. the Plaintiffe seeketh to be releived, for Brocage and Wares that were sold by cousenage.

Freeman contra Hugget, Hill. 16. Jac.

An heire dis-inheri­ted by Fine pas­sed yet re­lieved. Lyde alias Ioyner contra Lyde, the Fa­ther by Fine passed, dis-inherited his heire, the Court ordered that the land should bee re-assured, yet that the Plaintiffe should not sell the land to any, in case he dyed without [Page 169]issue, Mich. 14. Iac. fo. 335. & Trin. fol­lowing, li. B. fo. 1388.

The like betwixt Hoskets contra Hil­lier, Pasch. 17. Jac. li. A. fo. 1025.

Salisbury contra Griffith & Owen, 10 Jac. li. A. fo. 491. & 658.

Long contra Long, 18. Iac. li. B. fo. 1730.

Humphrey contra Humphrey, Pasch. 21. Iac. the contrary.

Harbert contra Lownes, Hill. 3. Car.

No Relief if a man have sus­pended his rent. Warren contra Towler, the Court is of opinion, that the Plaintiff having suspended his Rent, no reason but that the Defendant should deteyne it, by reason of the Plaintiffs Act, 31. Eliz. fo. 312.

Haley contra [...] in 2. Car. the con­trarie.

Gayner contra Lucas, the Defendant had execution and Judgement upon two Re­cognizances and a Statute, amounting to three hundred pounds, but in respect it was a sleeping statute, the Court ordered the Ob­ligor to be discharged out of Execution, and the Plaintiffs possession of the lands to be delivered in 5 Jac. li. A. fo. 319.

Charnock contra Charnock, the Defen­dant acknowledged a Recognizance, which was taken away privately, the Plaintiffe had reliefe, either that the said Plaintiffe shall have his money, or else the Recognizance [Page 170]to bee inrolled, 22. Eliz. li. A.

Of a pro­mise a­gainst a Deed of parchase. Tuck contra Pattison, the Plaintiffe re­lieved upon a promise against a Deed of purchase, there being some practise in the Purchasor, in Ap' [...] [...]. Jac.

Toplace contra Dickenson, Reliefe against an Occupant, 5. Car. li. B. 357.

Against his own Deed. Mane right contra Roberts, a man relie­ved against his own Deed the same being gotten by threats and practise though the same be vested in an Infant and the Purcha­sor to become bound in Recognizance to assure it when, &c. in 10. Jac.

Jaques contra Huntley, if one neglect to inroll his Bargain and sale, being his onely assurance and the Bargainee bring an Ejecti­one firme against him, and hath Judgement, the Bargainee resorts to Chancerie (if not for land) yet for money paid for it, 13. Iu­ly 1599.

Deane contra Deane, relieved against a Release, about anno 3. Car.

For Dow­er or Ioynture. Smith contra Smith, 12. Car. a woman relieved for Dower or Joynture, notwith­standing a Deed of Intaile.

Cuddington contra Hutton, a simple man drawn to make Leases, and to enter into Bonds, Relieved, in 8. Jac. fo. 905.

Against his own release. Summer contra [...]illing, the Plaintiffe re­lieved against his own release, being an [Page 171] [...]gnorant person, 12. Jac. li. A. fo. 49.

138 Rent.

Chiefe rent. Page contra Clarke, a chiefe of Ten shil­lings reteyned.

Barew contra Bancken, Mich. or Hill. 39. Eliz. li. A. fo. 473.

Drury contra 4. Jac. li. B. fo. 632. Twelve pence in Court, being for­mer Presidents shewed.

Cornwallis contra Brugton, in 38. Eliz. about fo. 199. li. A. 44. Eliz. li. B. fo. 355.

Taylor contra harborne 38.6 d. 6. Jac. li. B. fo. 117.

Wincombe contra Presiden' Magdalen' Coll' Trin. 12. Jac. li. B. fo. 1029.

Rent-seck Ferrers contra Newby & al', the Court allowes seizin to a rent-seck, in 43. Eliz. li. B. fo. 736.

Rent-seck decreed. Brovost contra Buckett, in Febr. 11. Iac. li. B. fo. 538. of 20 s. per annum decreed.

Man contra Marker, omits rent, 1. Car.

Ingleby contra Wade, Contribution of a Rent, 3. Car. li. A. fo. 108.

Proporti­oned. Lloyd contra Gwynn, to proportion a Rent, in Hill. 5. Car.

To bee! payd by th'Execu­tor. Sutton contra Wright, concerning an An­nuity or Rent-charge to be paid by th'Exe­cutor, lands being not charged, the Executor ordered to pay it, Pasch. 6. Car. fo. 507.

Adjudged mean profits. Parsons contra Parsons, Rents of lands [Page 172]adjudged mean profits, in 8. Car.

Demised to a cha­ritable use carrieth the land. Lenner contra Lennington, in the Coun­tie of Warwick, a Rent demised to a chari­table use, carryeth the land in 8. Car.

Being continued paid though no proofe of endow­ment yet decreed. Neale contra L [...]ster, though there can be no proofe of an endowment, but because of long possession, and being presentative, de­creed to be enjoyned 9. Car. a Case between Grimes and Smith, in the Exchequer Cham­ber, about 39. Eliz.

Judges opinion, a Rent paid for a long time (although no assurance could be pro­duced) yet decreed to be paid.

Churchill contra Brewer, in Hill. 10. Car. a Rent charge decreed, though no Evidence.

Caesar contra Gater, concerning Rents which have been payd, by reason of a long constant payment, decreed 12. Car.

Extin­guished of rent relie­ved. Halltley cont' Skarret, relieved against an Extinguishment of Rent, in Mich. 2. Car. &

Sheedon contra Gibbs, Mich. 2. Car.

139 Reprise.

Reprise what things are adjudged ultra re­prise. Dom. Strode contra Corbert, 2 Iunii 1632 Lords Rents Reparations, and Tythes du­ties, are payable to the Kings Majestie, Church-warden, and all other common, and Annuall charges and duties, declared to be ultra Reprises.

140 Rescous.

The Attachment must be speciall,Rescon 5. reci­ting [Page 173]the returne of the Rescous the same Terme. Alchurch contra Bold 37. Eliz.

141 Restitution.

Restituti­on after Iudge­ment and execution.After Judgement and Execution, the De­fendant ordered to restore twenty and five pounds, Some contra Portell, 30. Eliz.

Moore contra Taylor, the like the yeare before.

Walter contra Francis, 4. Iac. li. B. fo. 633.

142 Resolution.

Resoluti­ons upon the sta­tute of the poore. Sur Audi­ta querela. Les Resolutions Popham & Anderson su­per statut. 39. pauperū, 41. Eliz. li. A. fo. 102.

Opinio de Iudges sur Audita querela & opinio de le Court sur ceo in 31.32. & 33. Eliz.

243 Revocation.

Concern­ing a point of revocati­on when sick. Eyre contra Wortley, concerning a point of Revocation, when one is sick and holding up his hands, and Certificate thereupon, and a Demurrer over-ruled for matter of Legacie.

144 Review.

Review of a Decree upon put­ting in of securitie. Cock contra Hobb, a Review of a Decree allowed upon putting in securitie, Hill. 132. Et Hall & Hobb, Hill. 1632.

145 Revivors.

Revivors.Master Cecill and the Lady Rosse his Wife joyned in a Bill against the Earle of Rutland, for two hundred pounds Arre­rages by yeare to her due, shee dyed before [Page 174]hearing, he after her death, exhibited a Bi [...] of Revivor, and served Proces to hea [...] Judgement, yet upon an objection, that th [...] Defendant should first have been calle [...] to Answer, the hearing was put off 1591.

No appearance or Oath needs to a Bill of Revivor, 25 Novemb. 35. Eliz. Wolver­ston contra Darleston.

An Assignee cannot revive a suit, Hasel-wood contra Reynolds, in 23 & 24. Eliz.

An Executor (his Testator dying after publication) could not be permitted to ex­hibit a new Bill to make further proofes, but was held to a Bill of Revivor, Ferney contra Lawne, 30. Eliz.

Windham being Widow, had a judicial order for the substance of the matter, and a Commission to make proofes, and after shee married the Defendant, supposed i [...] needed a Revivor, and ruled not, 37. Eliz.

146 Sallarie.

Sallary for ser­ving of a cure. DAie contra Hampden, concerning Salla­rie for serving of a Cure, in Pasc. 3. Car.

147 Scire facias.

Scire fac'. Broughton contra Vicecom' Bindom, I [...] was ordered that the Plaintiffe might take out Scire fac. against the Defendant for not paying of money according to an Order, in 12. & 13. Eliz. li. A. fo, 162.

148 Scriveners case.

Scrive­ners case. Huet contra Dela fountaine, 20. Jac. one Glover having the setting forth of the De­fendants money, to whom the Plaintiff payd the money again at a day, because the mo­ney was not payd to the Defendant, and the Scrivenor breaking, the Defendant puts the Bond in suit, ordered to canceil the Bond, in Hill. 20. Jac. li. B. fo. 464.

White contra Hall the Scrivenors case, in 14. Car.

Oxenbridge contra Whittacre & Daxon, in 14. Car.

Comes Ancoram contra Douglas, in Mich. 15. Car.

Middleton contra Iohnson, in 14. Car.

149 Sequestration.

Sequestra­tion to compell a man to performe an Order. For perso­nall debt and layd in Irons in the Fleet for not per­formance. Knightly contra Graunt, 25 Ja [...]. 31. E­liz. fo. 329. The Tenants compelled to bring in their Rents in the Mannor of A.

Nelson contra Cooper & Hare court. Se­questrator, in Mai [...]. 3. Car. li. B. fo. 1003. & 986.

Barker contra Shepheard, in Hill. 4. Car. li. B. fo. 120. & 660.

Eyre contra Wortley, about 3. Car.

Lakes contra Meares, after the Defen­dant was committed for not performance of a Decree, yet the Court ordered that a Sequestration should bee granted to levy [Page 176]monies of his in other mens hands, 18. Nov. 11. Jac. li. A. fo. 329. and he committed, be­cause his Wife would not bring in Bonds after, but the chiefe order is in May 10. Jac. li. A. fo. 353.

Lupton contra Harmon, concerning a Se­questration, in Pasc. Trin. & Mich. 16. Jac.

Maddox contra Prast, in Pasch. 5. Car. Ancher & Frith, 16. Iac. eodem.

Vpon per­sonall debts. Roane contra Stepney, in Mich. 17. Iac. li. B. fo. 171. or Pasch. or Trin. Anno 18. Sequestration.

Copeland contra Mudd, a Sequestration granted of certain lands, for debts onely, in 13. Jac. li. B. fo. 502. or thereabouts. Et Mich. 14. Iac. li. B. fo. 309.

Goslet contra [...] upon an Extent in 10. Iac. li. A. fo. 54.

Mullins contra Bawden, 13. Iac. li. A. Sequestration for money, both or Coppy­hold and Free-hold, fo. 105.

Prentice contra Roupe, in Trin. 17. Iac. li. A. fo. 1302. Sequestration for money de­creed. And another between Frith and Tri­on, or Anchor and Frith, in Ian. 16. Iac. li. A. fo. 428. & 397.

Whrar [...]by contra St. Iohn, the Court was inclined to grant a Sequestration for money from Hill. 37. Eliz. to Trin. 38. Eliz. l. B.

Cottle contra Brooke, in Pasch. 18, Jac. li. B. fo. 1111.

Middleton contra Fawcet, Money grew due for Tythes, in Mich. 1. Car.

Awarded for a Mar­riage por­tion. Eardly contra Eltonhead a Sequestration for a Marriage portion, in 8. Car. the De­cree was 15. or 17. Iac.

150 Sollicitor.

Sollicitor or Promo­tor not examined as a wit­nesse. Wilson contra Grove. in Trin. 6. Car. li. B. fo. 626. a Solicitor or Promotor, not to be examined as a Witnesse.

Waserer contra Key, 36. Eliz. The Solli­citor of the Defendant ordered to serve a Proces upon his Clyent, because the Plain­tiffe could not find him.

151 Stannaries.

Stanna­ries. Davie contra Michell, the Stannaries, over-ruled here, in 25. Eliz. li. B. fo. 65.

152 Statute.

Stat. ex­tended upon a Bank­rupts lands. Overman contra Wright, Hill. 17. Jac. li. B. fo. 807. a Statute extended upon a Bankrupts lands before the liberate filed, ordered to bring or stay the Statute, and likewise ordered to take the like Compositi­on as other Creditors.

Mathew contra West and others, in 37. Eliz, li. A [...]. fo. 655. one Knight acknow­ledged a statute to the Defendant and ano­ther, not to alyen or wast his land, and after­wards leased it to the Plaintiffe, the statute being acknowledged in consideration of Marriage, and now by reason of the Lease [Page 178]so made, the Defendant being the Survivor Conuzee, extends the statute, yet ordered in respect the Lease is no wast, the Conuzee not to receive any benefit by the said statute.

Boswell contra Weddall, the Defendant ordered to Answer, notwithstanding a De­murrer put in upon the statute of 2 [...]. Jac. the debt being demanded, being without spe­cialtie.

Exten­ded. Clethero contra Beckingham, the Plain­liffs relieved against a statute, and ordered to have the possession thereof, because the Ex­tender had received his debt according to the yearly value, Pasch. 21. Jac. li. B. fo. 951.

Extended at a low rate, orde­red the Plaintiffe to have them at the same rate. Griffin contra Vellers & Leeson, lands were extended upon a statute for payment of money, the Plaintiffe had those lands by order at the same rate the lands were exten­ded, for payment of the Defendant, in 41. Eliz. li. A. fo. 229.

Langham contra Whetcombe, 6. Car. li. B. a Demurrer upon the statute of limitation maintained.

Of limi­tation al­lowed up­on some reasons. Lanymare contra Thorpe, in Mich. 15. Car. statute of limitation pleaded and al­lowed, but upon no trust.

Brinker contra Kington, the Lady Lewes case, 6. Car.

Woolhouse contra Barnes & Bullock, pleads the statute after a Judgement at law, [Page 179]not allowed, and it was for Assetts, 6. Car.

Antient statutes against a Purchasor can­celled. Smith contra Rosewell, Mich. 2. Car.

Mountjoy contra Wakeman, the statute of limitation over-ruled, in 8. Car.

Reston contra Reston, 9. Car. the like.

Harris cont' Bayning, 8. Iac, li. A. fo. 910. a statute extended at a low value, of pur­pose to keep off other Extents the Court Or­ders, that the fyling of the Extent be stayed.

Barnes contra [...]rosse, if he can prove con­tinuall clayme of Reckonings although the pleading of the Statute of limitations, over­ruled, in 14. Car.

Of limi­tations hac fari. Suttons Hospitall cont' Com' Suff. 1000 l in demand, the Defendant pleads two Re­leases, and no point of limitation, and no de­mand in due time and now fallen upon an heire, and concerning a speciall trust, how far some shall be bound? in Trin. 6. Car. referred to Judges.

Harrison contra Bludder, a great case concerning the statute of limitation of Acti­ons, in Mich. 15. Car.

153 Steward.

Steward cannot make a Letter of Attorney to take a surrender. Walron contra Corham, 15. Iunii 11. Jac. a Steward of a Court, cannot make a Letter of Attorney to a man to take a surrender.

154 Suite.

Suit for e­quall pay­ment of money. Clarke contra Hunlock, a suit to compell [Page 180]the Defendant to joyn in equall payment of money given by Decree in Trin. 2. Car.

Homadge contra Farley, 38. Eliz. li. A. fo. 413. suites prosecuted upon false impri­sonment stayd by Injunction.

155 Superinduction.

Superin­duction. Newton contra Price, concerning Super­induction, Pasch. 17. Jac. li. A. fo. 961.

Pistle contra Hardie, the like in Mich. 15. Iac. li. B. fo. 358. & Pasch. 17. Iac. li. B. fo. 817.

Middleton contra Lort, in Mich. 15. Iac.

Wilson contra Thornton, in Mich. 20. Iac. li. B. fo. 381.

Stephens contra Potter, in 2. vel 3. Car.

Maddox contra Prust, Pasch. 5. Car.

Wes [...]on contra Sumner, Demurrer because it concerns a Superinduction over-ruled, in 7. Car.

Maddox contra Prust, 7. Car. concern­ing a Sequestration upon a Superinduction.

156 Surrender.

Surrender by an In­fant not good. Hughs contra Carpenter, Mich. 9. Iac. the Plaintiffs brother being within Age, Sur­rendred a Coppyhold to the use of the De­fendant, held not good.

157 Sureties.

Surety.A Suretie relieved here where a Bond is conteyned in use without his privitie, hee thinking the same to be payd. As Saunders [Page 181]contra Smith & Churchill, about 10. Car. li. A. fo. 664.

Bullock contra Pope, Mich. 11. Car.

Fortherby contra Hutchins, in 2. Car.

Wilson contra Dunstar, in Mich. 15. Jac. li. B. fo. 565. & 647.

Hollis contra Deane, in Hill. 13. Iac. li. A. fo. 606.

Iohnson contra Pudicot & al', one be­came bound with Sureties, and afterwards Bankrupt, the Creditors sued the Sureties, because they were remedilesse as against the Bankrupt, yet ordered not to take any ad­vantage, in Mich. 10. Jac. li. A. f. 65. or 165.

Bourne cont' Ironmonger, in Mich. 17. Iac.

Little alias Brooke, contra Good & al' in Trin. 16. Iac. to the contrary of the foresaid Note, li. B. fo. 1584.

Relieved which continued without their con­sent. Saunders contra Churchill & Smith, 10. & 11. Jac. li. A. fo. 664 & 728. the Plain­tiffe being bound with the said Churchills Father for payment of money at a day which the Plaintiff supposed the money had been paid accordingly, the money was not payd, the said Churchill the Father dies three years after upon whose death, the Obligee puts the Bond in suit against the Plaintiffe, but in respect the Bond was continued with­out the Plaintiffs privitie, and Churchills son having a good Estate from his Father, was [Page 182]ordered, and the Feoffees to whom the sonne had conveyed those lands in trust, was orde­red to sell those lands for payment of the said Churchills debts.

Higham cont' Longcastle, assigning a Bond for a Surety, the Surety relieved in 4. Car.

Moile contra Dom. Roberts, the heire of a Surety where the Bonds are continued with­out the privity of the surety, relieved in Mich. or Hill. 5. Car.

Hare contra Michell, a Surety relieved where the Bond is continued twelve years, without the Plaintiffs privitie in 12. Jac. f. 81.

158 Survivor.

Survivor. Saunders contra Thompson. 7. Car. A per­sonall Estate equally divided betwixt two, whether the Survivor shall have all or not.

159 Suspention.

Suspenti­on. Caesar contra Feild, concerning Feilds re­liefe against the Suspention, Trin. 4. Car.

160 Tenant.

Tenant for years not to At­torne, &c. WIndham contra Saunders, Tenant for years not to attorne to him in Re­mainder, without producing Presidents to that purpose, 11. & 12. El. li. A. fo. 28.

In tayle sold land under va­lue, the Vendee ordered to pay more. Wilson cont' Smith, in 8. Car. li. B. fo. 123. the Plaintiffs Father seized of lands in tayle, sold the said lands for small or no conside­ration, and suffered a common recovery of [Page 183]those lands, whereby the sale was good in law, yet holpen in Equitie, for the Plaintiffe being Daughter and heir, the nacitie of those lands were sold, yet the Vendee ordered to pay a better consideration.

Tenants of the Mannor, not parties to a Decree, ought not to be bound. Seamor con­tra Beare, in 9. Iac. li. B.

Shute contra Mallorie, Tenant for years ordered to attorne, 5. Iac. lib. B. fo. 205.

Bowen cont' Wrilow, 40. Eliz. li. A. fo. 11.

Jackson contra Barrow. Hill. 1. Car. upon a Statute, and Arrerages to be payd ever since th'attornment.

Man contra Morley, Trin. 4. or 5. Car.

Dannet contra in [...] 11. Car. or thereabouts.

The Court compells Tenants for years, to set down in certain, the time of the making Commencement, determination, and what rents are reserved, and the times the same are payable, to th'end the same may be lyable to an Extent upon a statute.

Buck con' Lupton, in 30. Eliz. li. A. fo. 511.

Dom. Corbet contra Sellenger, the Defen­dant holds over his terme, the Court com­pells him to confesse a Lease notwithstand­ing, whereby the Plaintiffe may ground an Action, Mich. 6. Car. li. A.

Intayle being an Infant ordered to pay mo­ney, &c. Pearce contra Pearce, Intayled lands sold [Page 184]instead of Freehold lands, the Infant when he comes to Age shall pay the money which hath been paid according to the Fathers will or else the Plaintiffe shall have the Fee simple lands, 8. Iac, li. A. fo. 1007.

For life [...] Estate forfeited relieved. Stafford contra Stafford, 10. Car. Tenant for life the Remainder over Tenant for life, because he admits of a Recovery to be suffe­red, forfeited his Estate, relieved here.

161 Testator.

Testator. Samborne contra Samborne, the Plaintiffs Father being seized of lands in Fee, devised by a nuncupative will 300 l to be payd to raise Portions, some two houres before his death, but in respect his Father had dis-inhe­rited him of some other lands, the Court de­creed that the lands should be freed from the Portions, in 13. Jac. li. A. fo. 195.

162 Tythes.

Tythes Mo [...]e cont' Bond, 34. Eliz. li. A. fo. 621. My Lord declares that matters for Tythes are determinable in this Court.

Windham contra Norris, a Demurrer be­cause the matter concerneth Tythes overru­led and ordered in 17. Eliz. li. A. fo. 282.

Underhill cont' Joyner, concerning Tythes in kind, and the Parson having Common for Beasts in the Fe [...]lds was ordered to take a quantitie of ground in [...]eu thereof, and concerning an Act of Parliament, in Mich. [Page 185]18. Jac. Decreed upon a Report.

Hungate contra Crooke, the Plaintiffe be­ing a common person, having a Lease of Tyth in kind, which hath long time been ob­scured by union, or otherwise, ordered that a Commission should go forth for setting out Meadow and other grounds in lieu thereof, in 12. Jac. li. B. fo. 748. & 410. Looke in Hill. li. B. 11 Jac. fo. 1202.

Decanus & Capit' Ecclesiae Christi in Oxon' contra Grant, point of Tythes deter­minable in this Court, and parcell or not parcell, in Iune 11. Iac.

Browne contra Whetford, à Modus deci­mands dismissed, otherwise performed.

Qarles contra Bent, in 8. Car.

Custos new Coll' contra Sumpner, in Pase. 10. Car. for Tythes in kind, the Bishop of Exeters case.

Custos new Colledge contra Astley, con­cerning rates, Tythes, and Tythes in kind, Hill. 11. Car.

Southby contra Moore, every one must pay their Tythes in kind, unlesse there be a Composition reall, or good prescription, mo­do decimandi, 10. Jac.

Shires contra Burgoine, a Decree for Tyth Conies, and Tyth Wood, in 12 Car.

163 Tryall.

Tryall. Merefield contra Merefield, the Court [Page 186]directs a speciall tryall abour 11. Car.

164 Trust.

Trust.A Conveyance absolute in words, and yet there is a Bruit of a trust, but doubtfull, whether there be a trust or not, and on the hearing the bruit bought the land, yet shall not be concluded by such a bruit, as Sir Tho­mas Egerton said, Cormvallis Case, 37. & 38. Eliz. And it is not like the use at com­mon law, neither is the buyer to believe one which would not have him to buy it, if hee tell him there is a trust.

A suit is depending for a Trust, and after upon hearing the Trust is proved, then that is a sufficient notice of trust to any man which buyeth it (hanging the suit) my Lord said, in Diggs and Boys 16. Maii, Pasch. 40. Eliz.

Parramor cont' Zouch, concerning notice of Trust and Purchasors, 9.10. & 11. Jac. and between Peacock and Reynell, or e con', in June 17. Jac. the Decree was Mich. 19. Jac.

Pitts contra Edelph, if a man comming under one that had notice of trust (though he had none) shall be bound, and to examine Witnesses after a hearing upon point of fact, 7. Car.

Farley contra Warmestrey in 13. Car. Citique Trust for wife makes a Lease [Page 187]not good, but if shee acept rent good.

The way to remove a trust. Vanlore contra Lidall, or e con' look into it, how to remove a trust made for use of Children, a leading case, in 2. Car.

165 Trustees.

Trustees shall not be exami­ned one a­gainst th'­other. Sherborne contra Foster & Towneley, Trustees shall not be examined as Witnesses one against the other, 7. Car.

Windsor contra Sneath, a Trustee may sue in his own name, in 10. Car.

May sue­in his own name. Mansell contra Aubery, a Trustee to put in securitie for money and damages, in Pasch. 7. Car.

To put in securitie. Springet contra Springet, Brownes Case, 7. Car.

166 Title.

Tytle. Hunt contra Youngman & Clarke, the Court relieved the Plaintiffe against a Title of Occupancie, in Mich. & Hill. 17. Iac. li. A. fo. 371. & 874.

Ewer contra Ewer about 2. or 3. Jac.

Reeve cont' Alcock, 3. Iac. li. A. fo. 201.

Dux Buck contra Paul, 5. Car.

Tovy contra Bristow, in the Court of Wards, Pasch. 11. Car.

Hall contra Ingram, in the Court of Wards, upon th'intent of a Will, about 2. Car.

167 Union.

Vnion no advantage to be ta­ken. RAwley contra Yaxley, concerning an U­nion or not, in 7. Car.

Hartley cont' Deynall, Novemb. 37. Eliz.

Custos new Colledge contra Goslet, no ad­vantage to be taken upon Unity of possessi­on, 6. Ca [...]. and enjoyning of Commons, such as for the most part of twenty years.

168 Use.

Vse, one cannot be raised out of ano­ther. Sambach contra Dalston, because one Use cannot be raised out of another, yet ordered, and the Defendant ordered to passe accor­ding to the intent, 9. Car.

169 Wasts.

Waste.WAst done by one which held by Cove­nant, therefore not punishable by law, yet holpen here. Songhurst cont' Dixy 221.

170 Will.

Will or no Will de­termined in Court. Thimblethorp contra Thimblethorp, the question being onely a Will or no Will de­termined in this Court, in Mich. 20. Iac, li. A. fo. 222.

Pawlet contra Carey, in Pasch primo Car. the contrary.

An Aver­ment of a Will good in equitie. Peacock contra Glascock, an Averment of a Will not good by law, yet good in Equitie, and the intent of a Wil allowed, 6. Car. li. B.

Cage contra Pearse, Will or no Will, re­ferred to law, 10. Iac. li. B.

Written not to be revoked be a ver­ball. Moggeridge contra Wither, an Estate in land devised by Will in Writing after made a verball Will to revoke that, which is not revocation, 13, Car.

Sidenham contra Courtney, the lands to passe according to the intent of the Will, 41. Eliz. li. B. fo. 236.

171 Witnesses.

Witnesses examined before an­swer. Comes Suff. contra Harris, Examination of Witnesses before Answer, in 12. Iac. li. B. fo. 951.

Stratford contra Conaway, in 9. Iac. li. B. fo. 1058.

Bagnall contra Green, 2. Eliz.

Hunt contra Goodwin, 9. Car.

Dom. Morrison contra Wethired, Wit­nesses in the Court of Wards and Exche­quer-Chamber to be used in this Court, in 10. Iac. li. B. fo. 334.

Examined after Cō ­mission taken a­way.Witnesses examined on the Defendants part, after the Plaintiffs Commississioners were gone away with the Commission, Trevor & Treveman, in 1594.

Examined in Star­chamberl after pub­lic. here and not allowed.A prescription of Common examined here and publication, and after Witnesses examined in Star-chamber, to prove assents to Inclosures, and not thought fit to be read here. Tenants of Petworth, and Earle of Northumberland, 1594.

Tadlow being examined as a Witnesse [Page 190] Leave to amend his deposition.calling himselfe better to mind afterwards, was suffered to amend his former Exami­nations, and was further examined ad infor­mandum. Trin. 27. Eliz.

The Defendant examined after Plaintiffs left to his proofes, Meretvither contra Ful­mer, 37. & 38. Eliz.

A Witnesse once examined shall not be called up to be examined upon further point, Lord Scroope. Sir Tho. Egerton.

Long contra Long, contrary about Hill. 17. Iac. but Anguish contra Trevor, not admitted in Mich. 19. Iac.

Long contra Long, after Intergatories preferred in the Country by the Defendant, he may examine other Witnesses, either in Court or by Commission about Hill. 7. Iac.

Welby cont' Welby, in 36. Eliz. li. A. fo. 404

Cupid cont' Quaintron, Pasch. 12. Iac. li. B.

Hungate contra Crooke, Witnesses exami­ned in the Countrie, if the other side have seen their Interrogatories not to be exami­ned here in Court, Trin, 11. Iac.

Viva voce at hear­ing.A Witnesse to be examined viva voce, at the hearing, Wright contra Moore, 6. Car.

Comes Pembroke cont' Hacket, Trin. 8. Car.

Examined before Answer. Knivet contra Webb, to examine Wit­nesses before Answer, Mich. 8. Car.

To exa­mine at hearing.To examine Witnesses upon Oath for proofe of Acquittances, payments and o­ther [Page 191]disbursments upon hearing, Comes Kancie contra Gore, in Pasch. 6. Car.

Clotworthie contra Leech, June, 10. Car.

Sheffeild contra Lipton, Maii 43. Eliz.

Rotherom contra [...] in Hill. or Mich. 9. Jac.

Examined after pub­lication. Swan contra Turbervile, in Trin. 5. Car. Witnesses examined after publication, be­cause the Defendants out, if publication or Rules shall stand.

Examined after hea­ring and informand. Dulby contra Mace, Witnesses after hea­ring examined ad Informand Conscientiam Judicis Febr. 3. Jac.

Examined in perpe­tuall me­morie. Thynn contra Rawlinson, to examine Witnesses in perpetuall memorie, 5. Car.

Hancorne contra Emery, after Publica­tion examined Witnesses, Mich. 3. Car.

Examined before Answered. Molesworth contra Oppie. Witnesses ex­amined before Answer, 8. Car.

Examined after pub­lication. Weeks contra Thelwall, Witnesses exami­ned after publication allowed, in 9. Car.

Examined upon ex­ceptions, &c. Henshaw contra Wright, to examine wit­nesses upon exceptions put into the Com­missioners, upon the statute of Charitable uses, Trin. 9. Car.

Examined after a Cōmssion to coun­terprove. Tailor contra Tailor, Witnesses exami­ned upon new Interrogatories after a Com­mission to counterprove a mans Testimonie at law, upon which a Verdict passed, 9. Car.

After hea­ring re-examined. Dux Lenox contra Dom. Clifton, Wit­nesses [Page 192]after a hearing re-examined to cleare the matter by the advise of the Lord chiefe Justice, and Lord chiefe Baron, in 8. Jac. lib. A. fo. 381.

Leech contra Manners, to examine Wit­nesses, who owes the soyle of a Mannor, in Trin. 6. Car.

Examined after hea­ring. Veizey contra Veizey, Examination of Witnesses after a hearing, to prove a Court roll, in Mich. 14. Car.

Whether to be exa­mined in Court, or by Com­mission. Pinder contra Bateman, whether it be in the power of the partie, to examine Wit­nesses in Court, or by Commission, will consider of Presidents in April, about 6. or 7. Car. look the reason.

Examined in the Ad­miralty u­sed here. Watkins contra Fursland, one examined in the Admiraltie Court, used here at the hearing, 16. Eliz. li. A. fo. 530.

172 Writings.

Writings. Ward contra Scrimpshaw, Writings un­der the Plaintiffs Clerkes hand, ordered to be recorded, 8. Car.

The Causes whereby the defendant may satisfie the Court of the said delay in an­swer, are these, for the most part, of which the defendant must make oath, (viz.)

HEe cannot make direct answer, without sight of his Evidences or Writings which are in the Countrey.

Or he cannot answer without confe­rence had first with some Person named in the said Bill.

Or with some Person whom the mat­ter toucheth.

Or if the Bill be against the defen­dant, to expresse what goods he hath of the plaintiffes, he may make oath he can­not make perfect answer to the plain­tiffes bill without sight and perusall of the said goods, which are in the coun­trey: And that place in the countrey, where those goods or writings, or par­ties live, must be above twenty miles from London, or else he must answer within eight dayes after his appearance, unlesse he get further time by order: And, if he doe make such oath, then his answer is spared till the first day of the next Terme following.

This oath be made by the So­licitor, or some o­other for the defen­dant.Or that the defendant is not able to Travell without danger of his life, &c.

And if upon such oath made, the plaintiffe refuse to allow the defendant a Dedimus potestatem for taking his an­swer in the Countrey, the Court upon motion or petition will order it; which order is to be entred in the Register, and the Affidavit filed in the Affidavit Office.

In case the defendant doe not appear, or having appeared doth not answer in his time limited, nor sheweth any of the aforesaid reasons in excuse, then an At­tachment is awarded against him, which must be entred both in the house-book in the six Clerks Office, and in the Re­gister, expressing the cause of the issu­ing of the said Attachment.

But if no day be given to the defen­dant to answer, then the defendant hath liberty to answer at any time during the Terme.

And if he doe it not within that time, hen an attachment may be sued forth gainst him of cou [...]se: and the same, with the cause thereof, must be entered into the Register: (viz.) That the De­fendant appeared, and departed without answ [...]r.