Reports in the Court of Exchequer, beginning in the third, and ending in the ninth year of the raign of the late King James by the Honourable Richard Lane ... ; being the first collections in that court hitherto extant ; containing severall cases of informations upon intrusion, touching the King's prerogative, revenue and government, with divers incident resolutions of publique concernment in points of law ; with two exact alphabeticall tables, the one of the names of the cases, the other of the principall matters contained in this book.

The Earl of Cumberlands Case.

IT was found by diem clausit extremum after the death of G. Eearl of Cum∣berland, that King E. 2. gave to the Lord Clifford (inter alia) the Mannor of Skipton in Craven to him and to the heirs of his body, and found further the discent in a direct line, until the time of H. 6. and that the first Donee, and all others to whom it descended were seised, prout lex postulat without determi∣ning any estate in certain in the Donee, and they found that H. 6. by sufficient conveyance concessit Revertionem, nec non manerium de Skipton in Craven to Thomas Lord Clifford, to whom the estate given by E. 2. was descended and his heirs, by force whereof the said Thomas was seised prout lex postulat, and found the discent to the Earl of C. now dead, and found that by fine, and recovery he conveyed an estate in this land to the use of his brother, that now is Earl of C. in tail, the remainder over to &c. and died having a daughter now Countess of Dorset, who moved by Dodderidge the Kings Serjeant in the Court of wards, that this office was insufficient, for by the pretence of the said Countess, the first e∣state given to the Cliffords by E. 2. was a general tail, and then the fine levied, and the recovery suffered by the last Earl her father is no Bar, but that it may discend to this Countess as his heir in tail, and therefore Serjeant Dodderidge said to the Lord Treasurer then present in Court, that if this should be allowed, that Iurors may finde generally a grant made, and shew no quallitie of the conveyance nor any place, or time, but if this were a grant of reversion or of a possession he said, that many men by such offices should have their lands given away, whereunto they had no means for uncertainties to take a Traverse, and as to insufficiency of this of∣fice,

he said, that the insufficiency therein consisted first in matter. Secondly, in form; for the insufficiency of the matter is two fold.

• First, because that the office findes only, that King H. 6. by sufficient conveyance not limited any man∣ner of conveyances, nor any qualitie thereof: which ought to be shewed, and it is material, because we may give a different answer thereunto; for against letters Patents we may plead one thing, and against an other conveyance we may plead another thing, and so our answer differeth according to the qualitie of the convey∣ance.
• Secondly, it is insuffient in matter, because it is found that H. 6. gran∣ted the possession, and that he granted the reversion nec non manerium which is repugnant, for if the King grant a reversion, then no possession passeth, and if he pass a possession, then no reversion passeth: and therefore it is repuguant to say, that he granted Reversionem nec non manerium which implieth a possession: also he said, that his exceptions to the office as to the Mannor of it, are two-fold.

• First the office doth finde any time of the grant made by H. 6. and this is material, for the grants upon Record take their force from the time of their date, as appears by Ludfords Case in Plowdens Commentaries, and he said, that at this time the case is material to be exprest, in respect that H. 6. was for part of his reign deposed, and after restored, and it might be in the time, that he was deposed by Edward the fourth; but unto that it was answered by the attorney of the wards, that the office found, that H. 6. granted &c. that it was not in the time when he was deposed:
• the second insufficiency in the Mannor is, because it is not found at what place, H. 6. made the said grant, and that this is material to be found by office, he vouched 36. H. 6.32. and he said, that it is very requisite, that in such offices all circumstances ought to be expressed, in as ample certaintie as in a decla∣ration, so that the partie prejudiced by the office may know where to search for the conveyance, but the Attorney general said, that there needs no such express find∣ing of all circumstances by a Iury, as it ought to be in pleading, for it shall be ta∣ken by intendment in divers cases;

but yet he said, that it appears by 1. Eliz. Dyer 174. it is a good plea to say, that A. granted a reversion &c. to the King, without shewing how; much more in office, which is the Act of the Iurors; and therefore Serjeant Harris cited the Book of 14, & 15. H. 7.22. where an office found an estate tail without mention of the Donor, and yet good; and the Attor∣ney general said also, that it appears by the finding of the Iury, in Fulwoods Case Cook lib. 4. that the Iury need not precisely to finde all circumstances, for if there be convenient certaintie, the residue shall be supplied by intendment, as it is there said, and the Attorney said, that whereas it hath been objected, that the issue is evil, because it is found that H. 6. granted the reversion, and also the Mannor and Castle aforesaid, and doth not limit incertaintie, that the King gran∣ted a reversion, or that he granted a Mannor in possession, to that he said, that it is clear, that the King may after recital of a particular estate grant the reversion, nec non terras sive manerium, and then be the land in lease, or be the lease void in Law, yet the land shall pass; and this is his course alwayes in granting the Kings lands to others, and therefore the Iury did well, to finde the truth, without determining what should pass, for admit, that there were no estate precedent in being, yet by this finding it appears plainly, that the Mannor and Castle should pass by the grant, in the time of H. 6. to which the Lord Cook agreed for Law, and so he said, it was his use when he was Attorney general, to which also the Lord Treasurer, Flemming chief Justice, and Tanfield chief Baron agreed, and the Attorney general said, that his use was, if A. had a lease from the King of B. acre, which by effluction is to determine in Anno. 1612. and the said A. doubting that this lease was not good in Law, prayed to have a new lease; that in this case, he recited the first lease in the new letters Patents; and thereby gran∣ted the land for twentie years from &c. which shall be in Anno 1612. or from the sooner determination of the former lease, and the Iudges allowed it to be good, and Dodderidge Serjeant said, that after the difference taken between the plea∣ding,

and the finding of the Iury, it seemed to him, that there is a great diffe∣rence between them, but after the finding of the Iury upon an office, as our case is, and a pleading, there is no difference, for the office is a thing, to which an answer may be made, but a verdict given upon issue joyned between the parties, hath no other proceeding, but to judgement immediately; and therefore such a verdict shall be divers times supplied by the construction of the Iudges, but a verdict upon an office, ought to be as certain as an indictment, because the partie may Traverse, and to prove, that upon such uncertain offices, there is no reme∣dy by Traverse, he vouched the case of 3. H. 4, 5. upon an insufficient office after the outlawry of A. and no time is found of the outlawry, and he observed out of the said book, that the partie outed by the said insufficient office had no remedy by Traverse, but was compelled to make a motion to the Court; and after this case for difficultie was referred to the two chief Iustices, and the chief Baron to con∣sider upon, who the said Term at Serjeants Inne appointed it to be argued, where Walter of the inner Temple moved, that the office was insufficient, and he cited one Baylies case to be resolved here, where an office found, that A. died seised de quodam tenemento, that office was not good, because of the incertain∣tie, for it may be a rent or a house, but otherwise it would be, if it were upon a special verdict after issue joyned, as he said it was there agreed, also he said, that it was there agreed, if an office findes that A. was seised of B. acre in see, and died, it is not good, because it is not found, that he died seised, yet in pleading, it is good, because, when the fee simple is shewed to be in a man, it shall be intended to continue in him until the contrary appears, also in Pasch. 43. Eliz. Morton and Brigs Case an office found A. to be seised of certain lands in D. holden in capite &c. it is not good without shewing the certaintie &c. so if the office had found, that he was seised of 100. acres in D. and that certain of them were hol∣den &c. this is not good, without shewing which &c. as it was there also agreed, in 26. H. 8. the condition of an Obligation was, that the Obligor should make a sufficient estate of B. acre, in debt upon this obligation, it is no good plea to say, that he had made a sufficient conveyance &c. without shewing in certain what it was: Mich. 32. &c 33. Eliz. between Ireland and Gold, a man pleaded for title that A. was seised, and by deed inrolled gave and granted such land &c. this is no good pleading, because no sufficient certainty therein, also it is not good, be∣cause there is no certain time shewed of the grant made, and although that a grant by record is good, as it is in 37. H. 6. yet in pleading, he ought to shew the time of the making of it, 20. H. 7. also it is specially required to have the time of the making of the grant to be found here, because there were divers Acts of Resump∣tion made to nullifie grants by H. 6. in some of the years of his raign, and it may be that this grant was made, within those times contained in the Acts of resump∣tion; and therefore &c. Hutton Serjeant argued, that the office finding quod concessit generally is good, and sufficient without these words, by sufficient con∣veyance, and the Traverse may be generally, non concessit modo et forma, and by 40. Assise pla. 24. it is sufficient to say, that A. was seised in fee, and commit∣ted a forfeiture 5. Ed. 4.10. accordingly, also he said, that it appears by 14. & 15. H. 7. if an office findes that A. was seised in tail, it is a good office, but in pleading not good without shewing how; also in Knights Case Cook lib. 5.56. it appears that an office is good enough to intitle the King if it have substance, al∣though the manner be not formal 3. H. 6. an office finding that A. died seised, and findeth not of what estate, and yet it is good to intitle the King: Bacon So∣licitor general contra, and he said, that they are in veigled by reason of this office, for the partie grieved knoweth not, where or how to Travers, because it is not found by what conveyance H. 6. granted the reversion, for if it be by letters Pa∣tents, a man cannot plead to them nul tiel Record, also a verdict upon an office is principally to inform the partie who may Traverse, and not like a verdict upon issue joyned, whereunto the partie hath no answer, but is only to inform the

Iudges, who ought to Iudge: Hobert Attorney generall contra, yet he agreed, that if a patent be pleaded, a man cannot say against it nul tiel Record; but he said, that Lucies Case 14. H. 7. is a stronger case then ours, where an office is holden good, finding a man to be seised in tail, and upon that book he relied much, to prove the office to be good. Bacon Solicitor said, here is an incertaintie in the conveyance, and also in the estate, which is not in the 14th. of H. 7. for there is an express finding of an estate, and a dying seised thereof; but here the finding is, that he was seised prout lex postulat: Harris Serjeant, that the office is good, and he vouched also Knights Case Cook lib. 5. vouched by Hutton, and also the case of Alton-woods Cook lib. 1. that an office there was holden good, although more uncertain then this office, and here the office is only, that H. 6. granted, and shewed how; and therefore &c. Walter said, that it appears by the argument of Keeble in the case 14. H. 7.26. where he argued, that where the right of the estate is to be inquired, there it ought to be certain in all circumstance; but other∣wise it is, if the inquiry be only upon the possession, for there if a sufficient pos∣session be found it is good enough. And Brian chief Iustice said, the office was void in that case fo. 27. and the Iudges in this case would be advised until the next Term; and the next Term it was recited again, by Nichols Serjeant for the Earl of Cumberland, and by Bacon Solicitor for the the Countess of Dorset, at which day the Iudges said, that the question in the case is only this, viz. if an office findes only, that A. was seised of a particular estate, and that the King granted the reversion &c. without shewing how, or other particular certainties, and to that, if such an office be good or not they said, that it is not easie to deter∣min, for although it be good in the case of a common person, yet it will be great∣ly mischievous to the King, if by such offices his inheritance should be devested, in respect no Traverse can be to such an office, but yet they would not award the office to be void, but advised the Attorney of the wards to grant a special premu∣nire to the heir general, who was the Countess of Dorset, Salvo jure cujuslibet &c. and so in an Action at the Common Law, the Earl might trie his right and title, and not upon the validitie of an office; and so it was done.