Reports of cases adjudged in the Court of Exchequer, in the years 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659, and 1660 and from thence continued to the 21st year of the reign of His late Majesty King Charles II / the whole taken and collected by Sir Thomas Hardres ...

De Term. Sancti Hillarii Ann. 12 & 13 Car. II. Regis. In Scaccario.

Sir William Hix against the Attorny General and Sir William Cooper.

[ (1)] UPON English Bill the Case was, That Sir William Hix put 100 l. out at Interest to the Defendant, and took Bond in the Name of one Toomes, who afterwards be∣came a Felo de se; and now the Plaintiff was relieved against the King upon this trust in Equity, upon the Statute of 33 H. 8. c. 39. Sed quaere whether that Statute extends to any Equity against the King otherwise than in case of Pleas by way of discharge. But it was likewise decreed in this Cause that the Plaintiff should be saved harmless from all others.

Hammond's Case.

[ (2)] HAmmond was outlawed at the Suit of another person, and Lands in his Possession were extended; a third person that claimed a Title to those Lands, brought an Action of Trespass and Ejectment for them; and pleaded to the Inqui∣sition, and an Injunction was prayed for the King to stay Proceedings at Law, and it was denied, because although a person outlawed cannot after Extent prevent or avoid the King's Title by any Alienation, as appears 11 H. 7. yet the Outlawry gives no such Priviledge to the Possession of a Dis∣seisor, but that the Disseisie may enter and bring his Ejectment; for by the Outlawry the King has a Title only to the Profits and no Interest in the Land. But it was ordered that the Plea to the Inquisition should be tryed first, and that the E∣jectment should be brought in this Court, because the King's Revenue was concerned.

White and Snoak and his Wife Plaintiffs, against Potter Defendant.

UPON English Bill the Case appeared to be that there [ (3)] was a Custom within a Mannor held of the King in Fee-Farm, that all the Copy-hold Tenants of the said Mannor should grind all their Corn and Grain bak'd and brew'd within their ancient Copy-hold Messuages at a Copy-hold Mill within the Mannor, and not else where, of which Copy-hold Mill the Plaintiff Snoak in the Right of his Wife was Tenant for Life, and the Plaintiff White had purchased the Fréehold and Inheri∣tance: And another person had erected another Mill within the said Mannor, at which divers of the Copy-hold Tenants ground their Corn.

And it was held by the Court that the purchase of the Free∣hold and Inheritance of the Copy-hold Mill had not destroyed the Copyhold during the Life for which it was held; and that the Reversioner of the Frée-hold of the Copy-hold is subject to the King's Fee-Farm Rent, but not the Copy-hold during the Wifes Life. And that therefore the Copyholder for Life should have no benefit as Fee-farmer.

But Tr. 11 Car. Rot. 41. in this Court, Sir John Trevor contra Powel. It was held by the Court that a Covenant on the King's part is equivalent to a Fee-Farm to entitle the Pa∣tentee to the Privilege of this Court.

And Mich. 3 Car. in this Court Seintley contra Bendel, held by the Court that a new erected House is within the Custom, and that none may grind elsewhere, but in Case of Excessive Toll, or that the Grift cannot be ground in convenient time.

And it was also held in this Case, that to compel all the Te∣nants within the Kings's Mannor to grind at the King's Mill, is a personal Prerogative of the Kings, which no other Lord can have without Tenure, Custom or Prescription. But it will ex∣tend to a Fee-Farmer, because it is for the King's advantage. And that the Custom in this Case does not go to the Estate, but to the Thing it self, and runs along with the Mill, into whose hands soever it comes. And that the Suit here must be as Debtor and Accountant only, because the Copy-hold for Life is not liable to the Fee-farm. And if two joyn, as they do here, where one of them is, and the other is not lyable to the Fee-farm, that is irregular, unless that other be a privi∣ledged person. It was decreed against Potter, who had erected

the new Mill, that he should not withdraw or take away any Grist from the other Mill; but his Mill was not decreed to be demolished; for that can be done in the Kings own Case only, or in the Case of his Patentee.

Norrice's Case.

[ (4)] AN Action of Covenant was brought upon these words, viz. I oblige my self to pay so much Mony at such a day, and so much at another day. And per Curiam, clearly an Action of Covenant lies, especially if both days are not passed. But the Chief Baron doubted how the Law would have beén, if the Words were teneri & firmiter obligari; for that those Words sound in Debt and not in Covenant.

Another Exception was taken, because the Plaintiff menti∣ons in his Declaration one Richard Norrice, and afterwards naming again the same Name does not say, praedict. Yet, the Court held it good for all that; and the Chief Baron said that it had been often so adjudged, and that it shall be intended to be the same person. But it would have altered the Case, if it had beén quidam Richardus Norrice.

And per Cur. the Words quod teneat Conventionem and de Conventione fracta are all one.