صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

[249 b]

Case.

Action for

words, 'filch

ing fellow.'

Mesme ca.

BRADSHAW vs. WALKER.

Words of an uncertain sense, as 'filching fellow,' &c. are not actionable.

BRADSHAW brought an action upon the case against Walker for these words, 'thou art a filching fellow, and Hut. 34. 1 Roll. didst filch from William Parson a hundred pounds.' After verdict for the plaintiff, cur. advisare; for the words 424. Palm. 29. are of an uncertain sense and so judgment: was pronounced, una voce, Mich. 17 Jac. nihil capiat. (1)

73. Brownl. 1.

R. 13. 3 Cr.

(1) See ante p. 6, Miles v. Jacob, n. (1.)

Ejectione, &c.

Devisit for de

198, 201.

MARSH US. SPARREY.

In ejectment, if the word devisit be used in the writ, by mistake, instead of demisit, it may be amended.

MARSH brought an ejectment against Sparrey, of the misit, 1 Roll. demise of Sir George Wrottesly, and the plaintiff had verdict and judgment. Now it was moved by Hitcham, that the writ was devisit, where it ought to have been demisit; and it was amended per curiam.

Q. imped.

Hut. 31.

L. 125. b.

Verdict.

CUPPLEDICK vs. TERWHIT.

Visne. (See ante p. 5. n. (1.))

Where one defendant pleads in abatement, on which issue is joined, and the other pleads in abatement on which it is demurred, and the issue, is found for the defendant; the whole writ shall abate upon the verdict, without determining the demurrer.

CUPPLEDICK brought a quare imped. against Sir Philip Mesme ca. Co. Terwhit et alios, qu. permittat ipsum presentare ad ecclesiam de Ulcibi, &c. The defendant pleaded quod nulla talis habetur ecclesia vocat. Ulcibi in com. pred. Whereupon issue; and after verdict pro. def. it was moved by Harris for the plaint. that the ven. fac. was mistaken; for it was de vicineto de Ulcibi, where it should have been de corpore Nulla talis ha- com., as where the issue is upon no such town. But the court gave judgment qd. cassatur breve; for though it be

6 Co. 14.

betur ecclesia.

CUPPLEDICK vs. TERWHIT.

BRIERS VS. GODDARD.

405

[250]

denied that there is any such church, yet the town is not
denied ; and the count of ecclesia de Ulcibi is an allegation
that there is a town called Ulcibi, whereof whether there
be a church the visne ariseth properly from the town. And
though I observed the issue did not meet in words, for the
writ is ecclesia de Ulcibi, and the plea ecclesia vocat. Ur-
cibi, yet the effect is the same. And note, that though
another of the defendants, scil. Clerke, had pleaded like- Co. 48. a.
wise to the writ, no such bishop of Lincoln as was named,
&c. whereupon there was another demurrer; yet the whole
writ was abated against them all, upon the verdict, and
no opinion given upon the other demurrer.

L. 125.

Co.

PIE US. DEANE.

Whether stat. 35 Eliz. has expired.

BRIERS VS. GODDARD.

If an administratrix during the minority of the executor, gives bonds to the crediditors of the testator, and then marries, the husband may retain the goods of the testator to the value of the debts so assumed by the wife.

Adm. during

the minority of an executor

gives bond and

marrieth.

INTER Briers and Goddard, administratrix durante minore ætate of the daughter, executrix, made divers obligations unto the creditors of the testator, and after took husband. And the court was of opinion, that so much of Brownl. 1. R. the goods of the testator as amounted unto the value of Post. 251. the debts paid, and undertaken by the wife, the husband 1 Roll. 923. might retain as his own.

Also

Quare, how the case shall be if the wife die? for then the husband is no longer chargeable by her bond. the court was of opinion, that this kind of administration, during the minority of an executrix, was not within the stat. of 21 H. 8, to be granted of necessity to the widow of the testator, because there is an executor all the while; otherwise, perhaps, it were, if the executor were made from a time to come.

31. Swinb. 287.

2 Keb. 30.

Carter, R. f. 136. Plo. 186. a. 5 Co. 29. b.

co. 67. . F. N. B. 121. c.

Co. L. 46. b.

[blocks in formation]

[250 a]

HIDE VS. ELLIS.

Custom of tything.

[251]

Battery.

1 Le. 41.

11 Co. 5. a.

Yel. 68. Ant. 164, 199. 5 Co.

37. b.

PHILIPS VS. WOOD.

The writ, in trespass for assault and battery, was against three, and the count against one only, and held good after verdict.

PHILIPS brought a trespass of assault and battery against Wood, and Wood pleaded not guilty, and it was found for the plaintiff. And after verdict it was moved in arrest of judgment, that the writ was against these two defendants H. 16. Jac. Rot. and another, and therefore the count ought to have been in the simul cum, which was not. Et curia advisare. But Tr. 17. judgment was given; but it was taken as no original, and so aided by the statute.

1100. Exitus

1 Cr. 327.

Debt.

No amendment of the impar

lance roll, by the original

writ.

1 Roll. 199.

1 Brnl. 66.

1 Ro. 198.

Hutt. 83. 1 Cr.

HAUGH US. TOPSALL.

After judgment and a writ of error, a motion to amend the imparlance roll to make it agreeable to the original, refused.

FETHERSTONE HAUGH against Topsall, action of debt against the executor. The writ was purchased in the county of the city of York, and the declaration upon the imparlance roll was entered, M. 13 Jac. Rot. 3409. And in the margent, civit. Eborum. But the declaration was, 46, 91. Ant. 76, that the testator, apud villam Novi Castri super Tinam conc. se teneri, &c. Whereupon the defendant imparled usque Hillar., and the plaintiff counted again right, conc. teneri apud civitatem Eborum: and upon issue plene administravit, verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment; and after, the record removed by error, and this assigned for Cr. Jac. 89, 105, error in the king's bench. It was moved in the common

246. Mo. $92.

311, 498, 525,

535.

pleas, that the imparlance roll might be amended and made agreeable to the original, but was denied by the

court.

CARVER US. HASELRIG.

WADDINGTON's Case.

407

[251 a]

CARVER US. HASELRIG.

In an action against an administrator during the minority of an executor, the plaintiff need not aver that the executor is still within age. (1) Secus, if the plaintiff be such administrator. (2)

tinuing, by

Benl. 139.

CARVER against Haselrig, adm. durante minore ætate of Nonage conan executor, and did not aver that the executor was still whom averred. within the age of seventeen years. Opinion, that he need 2 not; otherwise it were, if the plaintiff were such an administrator. 2 Cr. 10. 1 Ro. R. 400. Swinb. 287. Yel. 128. 6 Co. 67. b. Yel. 128.

(1) See ante p. 71, Sherley v. Wood, n. (2)

(2) See Cro. El. 602, Pigot v. Gascoyn. 1 Salk. 42, Slaughter v. May. 5 Mod. 395, Atkinson v. Cornish, acc.

Ro. R. 209. 1 Syd. 57. Accord. 2 Cro. 240, 590. Yelv. 128. Accord. 5 Co. 29. a.

Ant. 246, 250.

GRIMESTONE vs. MOLINEUX.

Of recusancy.

ARMESTED'S CASE.

Violation of the king's proclamation punished in star chamber.

LAKE US. HATTON.

Only a party grieved by a libel can complain of it in star chamber.

BREADMAN vs. COALES.

An assignment to the king, by the husband, of a debt due to the wife dum sola, is good, notwithstanding the stat. 7 Jac. c. 15.

WADDINGTON'S CASE.

Of the form of the writ of diem clausit extremum to the escheator, &c.

1

[252]

[253]

[253 a]

LAKE US. HATTON.

See ante p. 252. S. C. and S. P.

[254]

Winch. Ent. 408, 409.

DUNCOMBE vs. Wingfield.

If husband and wife be tenants in special tail, with remainder over, and the husband discontinue by fine or feoffment, and take back an estate to himself and wife, in special tail, both are remitted, but the husband is estopped to claim by the remitter.

If husband and wife be tenants in tail, and the husband alien, and take back an estate to himself and wife, by way of use, the wife is remitted.

If husband and wife be tenants in special tail, and the husband alone levy a fine to the use of himself and wife, for life, the entail is barred as to the husband and issue; but the wife is remitted to the estate tail, as she would have been by entry, after the husband's death; and the remainders depending on that estate tail are also remitted.

If, after such remitter, the wife die, living the husband, those remainders which are remitted by her remitter, are turned into rights again, as they would have been, if the wife had not been remitted.

A remitter is as an entry in law.

There may be a remitter, nolens volens, for the benefit of third persons.

If a jury find a bargain and sale, or a fine, and do not mention an enrollment or proclamation, none shall be intended.

Where a special verdict concludes specially on one point, the court will inquire only upon the point thus referred to them. Secus, where it concludes generally, by referring the whole matter to the court.

GEORGE MELTON and Alice his wife were seised of the land Waller Hartf. in question in fee, in the right of Alice, and levied a fine with proclamations, 43 of Eliz. of it, to the use of them two, and the heirs of their two bodies begotten, the rem. to Susan Andrews, the lessor for life, the rem. to Francis Duncombe in tail, the rem. in fee to the same Alice. And the jury found the seisin accordingly, by the stat. of uses, and that the tenements were in the actual possession of This argument George and Alice, and that Melton alone, mense Michael.

was Mic.

16 Jac.

44 Eliz., levied another fine with proclamations of the same lands, to the use of the same Melton and his wife, in special tail, as before, the rem. to Melton himself in tail, the rem. to the same George Melton, and one Evan Melton in fee; and then the jury found that they were seised by force of this fine, and the act of uses, prout lex, &c. And then they further find, that the same George Melton and Alice his wife being so seised and in actual pos

« السابقةمتابعة »