Reports of that grave and learned judge, Sir John Bridgman, knight, serjeant at law, sometime chief justice of Chester to which are added two exact tables, the one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters therein contained.

* 1.1Hillar. 13 Jacob. Mande against French.

IN an Action of Debt for forty pounds upon the Statute of 2 Edw. 6. For that the Plaintiff is and was for two years past Rector of Bifeild, and the Defendant the first of October, 12 Jacob. was Occupier of eighteen acres of Land, and thirty of Pasture in Bifeild aforesaid, and did continue the occupation thereof for a yeare after, and the first of Septemb. the 13 Jacob. did mow and reap the Hay growing upon the Meadow, and the Grain (viz.) Barley, Wheat, Pease, Beans, and Oates growing upon the Land, and the same day did take and carry them away without setting out the Tithes, or agreeing with the Plain∣tiff for them, and did aver the value of the Tithes to be thirteen pounds, six shillings, eight pence.

The Defendant pleaded Non debet.

The Iury found that King Henry the eighth, was seised in Fee of the Advowson of Bifeild, and the five and twentieth of April; 34 H. 8. the King granted the same to Sir Edward Knightly, and Ursula his wife, and to the Heirs Males of the body of Sir Edmund, the remainder to Valentine Knightley his brother, and the heires males of his body, the Remainder to the right heires of Sir Richard Knightley then dead, Fa∣ther of the said Sir Edmund.

Sir Edmund died seised without Issue,

Ursula did surrender to Valentine, and the fifth of September 4, & 5 Phil. & Mar. Valentine did give and grant the Advowson to Sir John Spencer, and others, and their heires, to the use of himself for the life of Ursula, and after the decease of which of them should first die, to the use of Richard Knightley his Son, and Mary his wife, and the heires males of the body of Richard, the Remainder to the right heires of Sir Richard Father of Valentine.

That the twentieth of Febr. 6 Eliz. William Briggs Rector of Bifeild, by Indenture did let the Rectory to the said Richard Knightley, haben∣dum from the next Annunciation for sixty one yeares, rendring 28. pounds Rent. And that the twenty fourth of Febr. 6 Eliz. Valentine Knightley did confirm the Lease: and the last day of February in the same year, the Bishop of Peterborow being ordinary did confirm it.

That the thirtieth of July, in the same year, Richard Knightley did grant the Lease to Edward Knightley his second Son, and afterwards recovered the profits, to the use of Edward being within age.

That the eighth of May, 8 Eliz. Valentine died seised of the Advow∣son, having Issue the said Richard his eldest Son.

William Briggs did recover the Rent during his life and dies, where∣by Richard Knightley does present William Reynolds who was admitted, instituted, and inducted, Reynolds did resigne, whereupon Richard Knightley did present Richard Burdsale, who was admitted, &c. and Burdsale did resigne, wherefore Richard Knightley did present Simon Rogers who was admitted, &c.

And they found that all these persons did accept the Rent.

And that the first of Septemb. 21 Eliz. Richard Knightley did take the profits to the use of Edward, and did devise the Rectory to Rogers the

Parson for forty years, if he should be so long Parson there.

That the thirteenth of Novemb. 27 Eliz. Sir Richard Knightley did grant the Advowson to Valentine his Son in Fee.

That the 34 of Eliz. A Fine was levied between Bartholomew Tate and Henry Yelverton Esquires, Plaintiffs, and Valentine Knightley Esquire, Deforceator of the said Advowson, Sur conusans de droit come ceo, with Warranty to the use of the Conusees and their heirs.

Rogers did resigne, whereupon the said Valentine did present Jonas Challoner, who afterwards died, and the Ordinary did present the Plaintiff by Laps, who did accept the Rent for divers years.

And they found the carrying away of the Tithes, and to the value of ten pounds.

And prayed the opinion of the Court upon the whole matter, whe∣ther the Defendant owed the thirty pound to the Plaintiff, or not.

Vpon which Verdict, the case is this.

Valentine Knightley seised of an Advowson in Taile to him and the Heirs males of his body, the Remainder to the right Heirs of Sir Ri∣chard Knightley his Father then dead, the 4, & 5 of Philip and Mary, did give and grant the Advowson in Fee to the use of himself for the life of Ursula Knightley, the Remainder to Richard his Son and Mary his wife, and the heirs males of the body of Richard, the Remainder to the right heirs of the said Sir Richard the Father. The twentieth of Febru∣ary, 6 Eliz. William Briggs the Incumbent does make a Lease of the Rectory by Indenture, to Richard the Son for sixty one years, from the Annunciation next, &c. rendring twenty eight pounds Rent.

And the twenty fourth of Febr. 6 Eliz. Valentine Knightley does con∣firm the Lease; and the last of February in the same year, the Ordinary confirms it.

The thirtieth of July in the same year, Richard the Lessee grants the Term to Edward Knightley his second Son within age, and takes the profits to his use. And the 8. of Eliz. Valentine dies, Richard being his eldest Son: William Briggs dies, whereby Sir Richard does pre∣sent William Reynolds who was admitted, &c. And he did resigne, whereby Sir Richard did present Burdsale, &c. who did resigne, &c. whereby he presented Rogers, and all these persons did receive the Rent. And the 21 Eliz. Sir Richard did make a Lease of the Rectory to Rogers the Parson for forty yeares, if he shall be there Parson so long. 27 Eliz. Sir Richard grants the Advowson to Valentine his Son in fee: and 34 Eliz. A Fine was levied of the Advowson between Bartholomew Tate, and Henry Yelverton Plaintiffs, and Valentine Knightley De∣forceator, to the use of the Conusees and their heirs; Rogers did re∣signe, whereby the said Valentine did present John Challoner, &c. who died, and the Ordinary collated the Plaintiff by Laps, who for many years accepted the Rent, and the Defendant did take and carry the Tithes to the value of ten pounds.

And whether this Lease be good to bind the Plaintiff, or not, is the question, and I conceive it is not.

And for the arguing of this Case I will consider these three things. [ I]

The Validity of the Lease without any confirmation.

If here be any confirmation of this Lease, and if it continues in force [ II] against the now Plaintiff.

Admitting here be not any sufficient confirmation of it self, if the [ III] Fine levied by Valentine Knightley hath given any force and strength to it.

And as to the first I conceive without any doubt that this Lease without any confirmation is determined by the death of the person who made it, and is so determined as no acceptance of Rent by the Succes∣sor can make it good, and therefore the difference is between a Lease for life, and a Lease for years made by a person rendring Rent, for the Lease for life is only voidable, and not void by the death of the Lessor, so that if the Successor does accept the Rent and Fealty, he shall be bound for his time, as in 11 Ed. 3. and 8 H. 5. 10. and 2 H. 4. 2. The Successor shall maintain an Action of Waste against such Lessee for life, but a Lease for years is meerly determined by the death of the Les∣sor, 38 H. 8. 6. Leases 18. and 24 H. 8. 6. There a diversity is taken and agreed between a Lease for life made by a Parson in which case the ac∣ceptance of the Rent or fealty by the Successor shall make it good, for his time, and a Lease for years which is meerly determined by the death of the Lessor, so that no acceptance of the Rent or fealty can make it good, and therefore the acceptance of the Rent in our case, which is found to be made by the Lessor himself, and all the succeeding persons, and also by the Rule of these Books, is nothing to the purpose, and therefore I shall speak no more of that, Vide 2 Ed. 6. 33. Dyer 239.

[ 2] And as to the second Point, sc. If here be any sufficient confirma∣tion of the Lease against the Plaintiff, or not; The Defendant hath endeavoured to have many things to be found by the Iury to make a confirmation. 1. The expresse confirmation by Valentine Knightley the Father of Sir Richard. 2. The Grant of the Lease by Sir Richard to Edward Knightley his Son. 3. The taking of the Profits by Sir Ri∣chard, to the use of his Son being within age. 4. The Lease made by Sir Richard, the 21. of Eliz. to Rogers the Incumbent: for I cannot conceive for what cause any of these things are found, unlesse it be to opperate as to a confirmation.

And as to the first, third, and fourth, I do conceive, that they nor none of them can make this Lease good, for by the first it is found that Valentine at the making of his confirmation had but an Estate for life of Ursula Knightley, the which is meerly determined by the death of Va∣lentine, and although Ursula be not found dead, yet is not that materi∣all, for this Advowson being a thing that lies only in Grant and not in Law, cannot go to any Occupant. And therefore the death of Valen∣tine hath determined this as fully, as if Ursula had been dead. And therefore the diversity is when a rent or other thing which lies in grant is granted to one and his heirs for the life of another, and the Grantee dies; I agree that the heir by speciall limitation shall have this: as Littleton 169. 19 Ed. 3. Account 56. but no Estranger can have it, and the reason is, because that the sole means that the Law doth give to one to gain an Estate of Occupancy is by Entry, but no Entry can be in an Advowson, Rent. or any other thing that lies in Grant, and therefore here can be no Occupancy, 26. Assise 38. and 12 H. 7. 16. If he in Re∣version doth enter after the Occupant, and brings an Action against him, the Occupant ought to plead the Lease for Cestuy que use, whose Estate he hath, but for a Rent or an Estate that lies in Grant, none can plead a que Estate, but ought to entitle himself by the Grant, and that cannot any one do in this Case. And as to the third matter of con∣firmation, which is the taking of the Profits by Sir Richard Knight∣ley, this cannot be any confirmation of the Lease, for although the as∣sent of the Patron be sufficient, yet it ought to be by Deed, otherwise it cannot be good. And as to the fourth, which is the Lease made by

Sir Richard by Rogers the Incumbent, that is not any confirmation. 1. Because this Lease does not concern the Lease made by Briggs, but is an absolute and originall Lease made by Sir Richard himself as Ow∣ner of the Rectory. 2. Because that at the making of this, Sir Richard had nothing in the Rectory, for he had granted all his term before to Ed∣ward Knightley, and therefore his Lease to Rogers is void, unlesse it be by way of Estoppell.

Then as to the second matter of confirmation, sc. whether the Grant of the Term by Sir Richard to Edward Knightley, I will not agree to it at all, but according to the resolution in Hodges case, that this is a confirmation as good as Sir Richard could make it. But this confir∣mation being in the nature of a charge upon the Advowson, ought to be directed by the Estate which Sir Richard then had, and being derived out of that Estate, it cannot endure longer then the Estate; as in Littleton 122. a. If a Parson doth charge the Glebe, and the Patron and Ordi∣nary confirm it, the Grant shall be in force, but in such case the Pa∣tron ought to have an Estate in fee, for if he hath an Estate but for life or in Taile, the Grant is good but during his life, and the life of the Parson who grants it, 31 Ed. 3. Grants 61. A Parson grants an An∣nuity to a Pryor which is confirmed by the Tenant in Dower of the Advowson. this is not good after the death of the Tenant in Dower, and Dyer 252. A Chantry Priest made a Lease for ninety nine years, which was confirmed by the Patron who was Tenant in Taile, and af∣ter the Chantry is dissolved by the 1. of Ed. 6. it is a question if the King shall avoid the Lease, but it was agreed clearly, that if the Chan∣try had continued, that the Lease should be void against the Incum∣bent, who comes in upon the presentation of the Tenant in Taile.

And this Rule being clear (as I conceive it is) that the confirma∣tion shall not bind according to the Estate of the Patron, the Estate which Sir Richard had in the Advowson at the time of his assignment, which does imply a confirmation is to be considered.

And as to that, the Case is, That Valentine being Tenant in Tail of the Advowson, by Deed did give and grant the Advowson to one in fee to the use of himself, during the life of Ursula, the Remainder to the use of Sir Richard, being his Issue in Taile, and thereupon it fol∣lows that Sir Richard had an Advowson in Remainder in Fee-taile, depending on an Estate for anothers life, but this fee was determina∣ble upon the death of Valentine the Tenant in Taile.

But objection was made in the Argument against one, [Object.] that this Ad∣vowson being found to be granted by Valentine, shall be intended to passe by Livery (for it was said that an Advowson might passe by Li∣very) and then here is a discontinuance.

But I deny first that an Advowson can passe by Livery, [Answer.] but admit∣ting it would, yet secondly, Shall it not be taken by this Verdict to passe so. And as to the first, I must confesse that there are some sud∣dain opinions in your Book, that an Advowson may passe by Livery, as 43 Ed. 3. 5. 11 H. 6. 4. and 20 Ed. 4. & 5. yet are there many Au∣thorities against it, and so is the true reason of the Law. 18 Ed. 3. 16. Shard, It was never heard that one could enter into an Advowson, there∣fore no Livery can be made: and 11 H. 4. 3. 6. An Advowson in grosse cannot passe without Deed, 9 Ed. 4. 47. a. One cannot grant Proxi∣mam advocationem without Deed, Dyer 323. Advowson of the Vica∣ridge of D. doth passe by the Grant of all hereditaments in D. although it lies not in Livery, nor is visible, and Coke 9. Rep. 96. An Advowson

is not manuall, but is Haereditas incorporata; and so Littleton 3. of things which do not lye in manuall occupation or possession, as an Ad∣vowson, he shall not plead as seised in his Demesne as of fee, but as of fee: and so Littleton 139. If Tenant in Taile grants the Advowson it is no discontinuance.

And the reason is apparent, because that nothing can passe by Li∣very, but that whereof possession may be taken by the Feoffor or Donor, and given to him by the Feoffee or Donee. And it is more colourable to say that he in Reversion upon an Estate for life may make Livery, for although a Reversion be not visible or mannuall, yet Terra rever∣tens which the Grantee shall have after the Estate determined is ma∣nuall, and yet I conceive that none will hold that such a Reversion so long as it continues a Reversion may passe by Livery.

[ 2] If it be admitted that an Advowson may passe by Livery, yet it shall be intended by this Verdict that it doth not passe, because it is found that Valentine did grant it by Deed, and there is no doubt but it may passe by Deed without Livery, and therefore no Livery being found, Live∣ry shall not be intended, for it shall not be intended to be a discontinu∣ance whereby the Tenant in Taile shall do wrong, when the Advow∣son may well passe by Deed which is no wrong. And therefore I con∣ceive, that notwithstanding this objection that here is no discontinuance but only a grant of an Advowson, which is determinable by the death of the Tenant in Taile who made it, from whence it follows, that Sir Richard at the time of his grant of the Lease, had only a Remain∣der in fee in the Advowson determinable on the death of Valentine his Father, which Estate is only charged by his confirmation, for as Is∣sue in Taile he cannot make any confirmation, because he had nothing in him at that time, 10 Ed. 3. 2. Confirmation 22. If the Son confirmes the Estate of the Disseisor in the life of his Father, and the Father dies, the Son shall not be barred by his confirmation without War∣ranty.

13 Ed. 1. Confirmation 19. If one doth quit Claime for him and his heirs, all his Right before that his Right doth happen, the quite claim is nothing, and so is Littleton 106. Releases, and the reason of these Cases is upon the Rule of the Common Law, which is, that one can∣not grant or charge that which one hath not.

By which it plainly appears that this implyed Confirmation made by Sir Richard, does make the Lease good only for so long time, as he hath Estate in the Advowson, which is determinable by the death of Valen∣tine. And to prove that it is so determinable, it is a certain Rule, that all Grants and Charges made by Tenant in taile are determined with his life: and so is Littleton, Discontinuance 139. If Tenant in taile of an Advowson or Common does grant this in fee, it is no Disconti∣nuance, for the Grantee hath no Estate but for life of the Tenant in taile who made the Grant, 22 H. 3. Discontinuance 52. If a Rent be granted to husband and wife in fee, and the husband grants this in fee and dies, yet the wife may distrain, and shall not be put to her Action, 36. Assise 8. Tenant in taile of a Reversion grants the same in fee with Warranty, and dies leaving Assets, the Tenant for life dies, and the Issue enters, and his entry congeable, for the Grant is meerly deter∣mined by his death, so that the Warranty cannot work, 38 H. 8. b. Discontinuance 35. If the King Tenant in taile grants the Land for lif•• it is no discontinuance, for a Grant without Livery makes no dis∣continuance, but this shall not bind but during the life of the Grantor,

26 H. 7. 4. Fineaux, Tenant in taile of Services is like Tenant for life, and by his Grant nothing doth passe but for his life, and after his death the Issue may distrain, but if he brings a Formedon he shall be barred by the Warranty, for then he admits it to be a Discontinuance. And Hil. 39 Eliz. Rot. 941. In the Common Pleas between Keen and Cox, Thomas Jennings Tenant in taile, the Remainder to John his Brother, made a Lease for three lives, according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. with Warranty, and dies without Issue, John being his heire who entered, and agreed good, for the Estate of the Lessee was deter∣mined by the death of the Lessor without Issue, wherefore the War∣ranty could be no bar to the Remainder: And although the Issue in case of Grant of a Rent by his Ancestor, may have a Formedon, yet that is no proof that the Grant is not determined, for although it be de∣termined, yet may he admit himself out of possession if he will, and is like to the Case where one takes my Rent, yet he gains no possession by this, but that I may distrain notwithstanding, yet if I will I may ad∣mit the possession to be out of me, and so maintain an Assise against the Pernor.

And as to the opinion in the case of Fines in the 3. Rep. That if there be Tenant in taile of a Rent, or a thing which lies in Grant, who grants the same by Fine, and dies before the Proclamations made, that the Grant is not determined, but that the Proclamations may be made is grounded upon the reasonable construction of the Statute of the 4 H. 7. of Fines, for otherwise the provision of the Statute that the fine shall be a bar cannot be, for that is the reason there given.

But it hath been objected, [Object.] that because it was not found by the Iury that Sir Richard Knightley was dead, it shall be intended that he is a∣live, and then his confirmation remains in force.

To which I answer, 1. That his being alive cannot be presumed, [Answer.] because it is not so found, for although a Fee-simple being once alled∣ged, shall be intended to continue untill the contrary appears, yet is it not so of an Estate-taile, or such other particular Estate, but he who will take advantage of such Estate ought to aver the continuance thereof, and that is a certain Rule in pleading, as in the 15 Ed. 3. Te∣nant in Taile of a Rent grants the Rent over, the Grantee when he makes Title there, ought to aver the life of the Tenant in Taile for by his death the Grant is determined; vide Dyer 73. 19 H. 6. 73. 5 H. 7. 39. 15 Ed. 4. 6.

And although there is a speciall Verdict in our Case, which shall be taken more favourably then a Plea, yet is it all one, for I agree that a Verdict need not be so formall as a Plea, but if it wants substance ei∣ther on the one party or the other, this shall prejudice the party as much as if there had been a pleading, for the Court cannot give Iudgment without some matter found, and therefore for as much as in our Case the life of Sir Richard makes for the Defendant, and all the validity of his Lease depends thereon, he ought to prove by evidence that Sir Richard was alive, so that the Iury might have found it, and because it was not so found, the Court will not intend that he is alive, and there∣fore he shall be taken to be dead, and so his confirmation is finished.

But admitting it shall be intended that he is alive, yet I conceive that immediatly upon the death of Valentine, his Estate which he had by the limitation of the use is determined and vanisht, and he is remitted to his Estate-taile, and then his confirmation (as I have already proved) which doth charge the Estate which he hath by limitation of the use cannot endure.

Yet I will agree, that if Tenant in Taile makes a Feoffment to the use of himself for life, and after to the use of his Issue being within age, and dies, that his Issue shall not be remitted, as it is resolved in the Comment. 111. Townsends Case, and 207. Standbridge and Morgans Case. But the diversity is when the Estate-taile is discontinued wher∣by the Entry of the Issue is taken away, and he is put to his Forme∣don, there he shall not be admitted for the limitation of a use to him, for if he will take the Estate according to the use he ought to take it in the same manner as he had the use, but when no discontinuance is made of the Estate-taile it is otherwise, as in Townsends Case Com∣ment. 111. Where Amy the wife of-Roger Townsend was Tenant in Taile, and the Husband the 29. of H. 8. made a Feoffment to the use of himself and his wife for life, the Remainder to the use of their eldest Son for life, with divers Remainders over, the husband and wife di∣ed, and resolved that neither the wife nor the Son are remitted, and the reason there was, because that the Feoffment being made before the Statute of 32. of H. 8. was a Discontinuance, to the purging of which, the wife was driven to her Cui in vita, and cannot avoid this by Entry, as she might after the Statute of 32 H. 8. and therefore it is there agreed that if a Disseisor make a Feoffment to the use of the Disseisee, and he enters, he is remitted, because his Entry was congeable: And so Dyer 191. 2, & 3 Eliz. Land is given to the husband and wife, and to the Heirs of the body of the husband, the husband after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Feoffment to the use of himself and his wife for life, the Remainder to the first Son for life, the Remainder to the right heirs of the husband, the husband dies, and it was resolved in the Court of Wards, that the wife should be remitted, notwithstanding the Sta∣tute of Vses, because that her Entry was congeable: and so 11 H. 7. 12. a. If the son disseiseth the Disseisor of his Father, and the Father dies, now forasmuch as that a right of Entry was in the Father, which by his death doth descend to the Son, he shall be remitted, notwithstan∣ding that he came to the possession by his own proper and wrongfull Act, which is as strong against a Remitter, as an Agreement is to a Vse. And so if the Son and another doth disseise the Father, and the Father dies, the Son is remitted, and shall put out his companion.

And then Sir Richard being remitted, the Confirmation (as I have shewed before) being but a charge upon the Advowson, is meerly deter∣mined; and so Littleton 148. B. If Tenant in Taile enfeoffs his Issue within age, who at full age doth grant a Rent-charge, or a Common, and the Father dies, the Issue shall hold discharged: and 40 Ed. 3. 448. If Tenant enfeoff a stranger who grants a Rent, and enfeoffs his Son within age, and the Tenant in Taile dies, the Issue shall hold the Land discharged: and the same Law by Catesby, in 12 Ed. 4. 13. b. If Tenant in Taile after Discontinuance does repurchase the Land, and dies, and the reason is, because the Statute that was charged is va∣nisht. And although that the opinion of Bromley, 33 H. 8. Dyer 51. b. be that the Issue in such case shall not avoid a Lease for years made by him before his Remitter, yet the case of a Rent is there also agreed that it is determined by the Remitter, and the same Law is in Ioynt-tenancy, if one doth make a Lease for years, so that he doth dispose of the possession, this shall bind the Survivor, but otherwise if he charges the Land with a Rent or other thing, and so is it where a husband hath a term in right of his wife, as in 7 H. 9. 2. 3.

And as to the last part of the Case so: If the Fine levied by Valen∣tine

the Son and Heir of Sir Richard Knightley doth give any force or strength to the confirmation, or not, and I conceive that it doth not for three causes.

First, the Fine is not with any Proclamations, so that it is no bar to the Intail, and therefore it is no more then a bare Grant of a Tenant in Tail.

Secondly, As this Fine is found, it cannot be intended to be levi∣ed by Valentine Knightley the Son of Sir Richard, but by a stranger of that name: for it is first found, that the 27 Eliz. Sir Richard did grant the Advowson to Valentine Knightley then his Son and Heir ap∣parent, and that the 36 Eliz. a Fine was levied between B. T. and H. Y. Plaintiffs, and Valentine Knightley Esquire Deforceator, wihout saying (the aforesaid) and therefore I conceive, that Valentine Knight∣ley Esquire, who levied the Fine, cannot be intended to be Valentine Knightley Son and Heir of Sir Richard, and yet I agree the Case of 21 H. 7. 30. That when Westminster is put into a Plea, and then a matter is alledged apud Westmonasterium, without (praedict.) it shall be intended the same place, but when another addition is given to the person or place, it is otherwise, and therefore in the second place if it be sayd apud Westmonasterium super Thamesin, it shall not be taken for one place, 5 Ed. 6. Dyer.

New Book of Entries 650. 35, & 36 Eliz, In the Kings Bench, Vpon a Trespasse for breaking his Close, and breaking and spoyling two Gates and three perches of Hedge, the Defendants prescribed to go there in perambulation, upon which there was a demur, &c. and adjudged for the Plaintiff. 1. Because that he ought to alledge this by custome and not by prescription. 2. Because the Bar was, that the Plaintiff had obstructed the way, Cum sepibus & Januis, and did not say praedict. so that it might not be of the same Gates in the Declaration, and that is there said to be a fault incurable. And although we are not in the na∣ture of a Plea in our case but of a speciall Verdict, yet as I have shew∣ed before, that is all one where it wanteth matter of substance. Thirdly, the Confirmation is utterly defeated and avoided by the Re∣mitter to Sir Richard Knightley, and therefore the Fine cannot revive it, 14. Assise 3. Tenant in Taile doth charge the Land and dies, and the Issue does enfeoff a stranger, he shall hold the Land discharged, be∣cause the Land was once discharged by his Entry, and so shall the Issue do that re-purchaseth the Land, 19 Ed. 3. Resceit 112. Tenant in tail acknowledgeth a Statute and dies, and the Issue enfeoffs a stranger, against whom the Conusee sues out execution, and adjudged there good, but yet it was denyed in 11 H. 6. 26. b. by Paston; and Comment. 437. Smith and Stappletons case. And Trin. 15 Jac. This Case was argued by Sir Tho. Coventry the Kings Solicitor, for the Plaintiff, & by Sir Hen. Yelverton the Kings Attorney for the Defendant. And Hil. 15. Jac. by Serjeant Chidborn for the Plaintiff, and by Serjeant Harvy for the De∣fendant. And Pasch. 16. Jac. without any argument by the Iudges agreed for the Plaintiff; and thereupon Iudgment* 1.2 was given that the Plain∣tiff should recover.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rot. 100.
• * 1.2

  Judgment.