[314 a] tenements in que, &c. et sic seisit., 20 Aug. anno 2. E. 6. un indenture fuit feit enter le dit Anthony Long et Alice, sa femme, del un part, et un John Fisher del auter part, per que les dits Anthony Long et Alice, sa femme, demise et lease al farme, per indenture, al dit John Fisher et Anne, sa femme, et Johanne, lour file, les dits tenements in le count mentioned. Habend. les dits tenements al John Fisher et Anne, sa femme, et Johanne, lour file, et eorum diutius viven., successive, a festo S. Michaelis Archangeli, donque prochein ensuant le date del dit indenture, usque le fine et terme de lour vies naturall, rendant proinde annuatim, durant. vitis suis, ut prædict. est, le yearly rent de 13s. 4d. ovesque un harriot de lour best animal, post eorum decessum sive exitum (Anglice going out,) cujuslibet eorum ove covenant de part John Fisher et sa femme, et Johanne, lour file, de payer touts free rents et autres charges and duties issuant hors de ceste terre, durant lour vies, ut profertur, apres le feast de S. Michael avant dit: et dit Anthony Long et Alice, sa femme, delivered seisin in person al dit John et Anne, sa femme, et Johanne, lour file, solonque le forme et effect del dit indenture. Anthony Long morust, et apres Alice, sa dit femme, received le rent del dit John Fisher; et puis ceo les dits John Fisher et Anne, sa femme, morust, et Johanne, lour file, enter; apres que la dit Alice, puis sa acceptance del dit rent, enfeoffa Henry Long, in fee, sous que le defendant claims. Et la dit Johanne, la file, que est unc. in vie, prist a baron un Anthony Tyler, et ils lessant al dit Robert Greenwood, prout in the count del ejectione firma, per que le dit Robert Greenwood fuit possesse, tanque fuit eject per le dit John Tyler; surque fuit adjudge in banc le roy pur le dit Robert Greenwood, le plaintiff in le ejectione firmæ ; et sur ceo le defendant, John Tyler, port bre. de error. En banc le roy, sur grand debate de le cause, fuerunt 1. Attorney, or ceux points resolves, com fuit report a nous. the party, makes livery differing from 563. Cr. Car. 1. Que le livery et seisin fait per Anthony Long et sa the deed. 2 Cr. femme, in person, puis le feast de S. Michael, secundum formam chartæ, fuit bon; auterment ust este si le livery de seisin ust lé fait per attorne, solonque le case de Buckler et Harvey, 2 Reports, fol. 55, ou devant le feast. 95. 2 Ro. 828. Hetl. 20, 21. 1 Cr. 22, 23, 388. 2. 2. Que Anne, femme de John Fisher, et Johanne, lour [314 b] file, ne puissoit prender joynt estate ove John Fisher, per le dit indenture de lease, eoque le dit Anne et Johanne ne 2 Cr. 153, 564. feur. parties al dit indenture; solonque le case de Windsmore et Hobart donque cited. 3 Cr. 38. 1 Ro. 3. Et que John Fisher ne prendra ascun greinder es- 3. tate que pur sa vie demesne, et nient per les vies de luy R. 356. mesme, Anne, sa femme, et Johanne, lour file, eoque ils deux fuer. intend de prender estate al eux mesmes, et pur ceo lour nosmes ou vies ne ferr. limitation ou increase del estate del John Fisher, contra al intention del fait. 4. Et tamen le fait, in les premises et in le habend., ne serra auterment void quoad le dit Anne et Johanne, mes que le fait al eux donera estates en remainder, perforce del parol' successive,' limit al eux in de habend. devant le estate pur lour 3. vies en ceo mention. Issuit que le successive la va a distinguish lour several estates et successive possession, l'un puis l'auter, successive, solonque le case 20 Eliz. fo. 361. Dyer. 4. 3 Cr. 564, Et en ceo de varier del le successive in Windsmore et Mesme ca. Hutt. 87. m. c. Hobart's case, eo que la landenture fuit fait inter William Lord Sturton de l'un part, et Tho. Hobart del auter part, et pur ceo le dit William Lord Sturton lessa al dit Tho. Hobart, habend. al dit Tho. Hobart, et Nicholas et John et Henry Hobart, pro termino vitæ eorum et alterius eorum successive diutius viventis. Dy. 361. a. Leo. 1. Vaugh. 261. 2 Cr. 564. 3 Cr. 58. Ant. [315] 313. Ow. 38. Godb. 51. Pur que la le successive apres les joynt vies limit ne extend a lour persons, mes le limitation (de successive diutius viven.) apres joint estates pur vies limit ore mre. que l'estate continue si longe come ascun de eux vive, et nemy pur divider les estates; mes in le principal case icy le limitation est habend. al eux 3., nosmant eux, et eorum 2 Cr. 565. diutius viven., successive, que extend al lour persons pur terme de lour vies: issint le successive isteant devant le limitation de ascun estate issuit est placed pur divider l'estate. Ideo in le case de Windsmore, ceo ne fait lour estate several, quia nest limit al ceo ; mes autrement serra en cest case en variance potius que ceo serra al eux un void limi [315 a] tation; solonque l'opinion de Justice Sanders in Coltherst's case, Com. fo. 29. sur le livre de 17 E. 3. fo. 29. et 18 E. 3. fo. 59. et 39 Ass. plac. 20. on le heyre priest per voyde rem., quia impossible sur le fait de prender estate in possession. 2 Cr. 565. Ant. 133. But in debate of this case upon the writ of error, we were all of opinion, that there was no material difference between Windsmore's case and this, so that the judgments could not stand both together. And therefore we advised the defendant to compound with the plaintiff, in the writ of error. (1) (1) See the report of this case in king's bench, Cro. Jac. 563. See also the note to the preceding case of Windsmore v. Hobart. REYNOLDS vs. BUCKLE. [326 a] In debt for rent, the defendant pleads an entry by the plaintiff, without averring an expulsion, and held good after verdict. INTER Reynolds and Buckle in an action of debt, the 2 Cr. 312. Yel. plaintiff declares upon a demise for rent. 228. Ante 77. Ante 69. 113, 322. 2 Cr. 86. the did Co. 43. Pop. 167. Plo. 92. b. The defendant pleaded, that before the rent due, plaintiff did enter upon him, but did not say that he expel him or hold him out, and so issue was taken non intravit, and found for the defendant, and judgment was given for him; for, though the plea in bar was insufficient, yet the verdict was full to the issue. (1) (1) Vide ante p. 190, Dorrel v. Andrews, and note. See also 1 Saund. 228. n. (1.) as to what defects are aided by verdict at common law, and what by stat. of jeofails. 1 Leo. 110. POLAND VS. MASON. [This case is omitted here, because it is reported more at large, ante p. 305.] POWELL vs. WINDE. [This case is omitted here, as the same case is reported almost in the same words, ante p. 305.] NEVILL VS. YARWOOD. Information for unlawfully using a trade is local, by Stat. 31. Eliz. SHERLEY VS. Underhill. A judgment rendered by the justices of assize may be amended in the C. B. [327] [327 a] Debt. [328] 2 Cro. 653. 1. 2 SCOT vs. LAWES. In an action of debt qui tam, the defendant must plead that he doth not owe the king and the plaintiff; and if he pleads that he doth not owe the plaintiff, omitting the king, it will be bad, even after verdict. The statute of jeofails does not extend to penal statutes. Scor brought an action of debt against Lawes, clerk, upon the statute of 21 H. 8. The writ was præcipe Willielmo Lawes quod reddat nobis et Johanni Scot, qui tam pro nobis quam pro seipso sequitur, 110 l. quas nobis et præfato Johanni debet, &c.; and declares for taking to farm sixty acres of land, and holding the same six months, per quod actio, &c. for sixty pounds; and further for taking to farm other lands, and holding the same five months, per quod actio, &c. for fifty pounds. The defendant pleads quod ipse non debet præfato Johanni, qui tam, &c., præd. one hundred and ten pounds, nec aliquem inde denarium, in forma qua, &c. Whereupon issue: and the jury found that the defendant did owe thirty pounds, and for the rest, quod non debet. Hendon, in arrest of judgment, took two exceptions. First, that the verdict expresses not for which farm, nor for which of the months, the thirty pounds were due. This exception was not regarded by the court, because the demand and issue was for one hundred and ten pounds, in general, though it had been formal to have distinguished better. The second exception was, that the defendant hath not answered the writ and declaration; for the plea ought to have been as the demand is, quod ipse non debet dicto Domino Regi et præfato Johanni, qui tam, &c.; which the court regarded, the rather, because the statute of jeofails excepts penal statutes. (1) (1) See Tidd's Practice 839. 1 Wilson 125, Wynne v. Middleton. 1 Str. 136, Philips v. Smith. 2 Str. 1227, Wynne v. Middleton. Cowp. 392, Atcheson v. Everitt. 2 T. R. 707, Goff. q. t. v. Popplewell. Doug. 109, Richards q. t. v. Brown. 4 Mass. 437, Livermore v. Boswell. 7 Mass. 62, Davis v. Saunders. 1 Mass. 50, Hamilton v. Boiden. 17 Johns. 346, Low q. t. v. Little. 7 T. R. 51, Maddock v. Hammett, as to what defects are cured by verdict, and what amendments may be made in penal actions. |