Reports of that learned and judicious clerk J. Gouldsborough, Esq. sometimes one of the protonotaries of the court of common pleas.: Or his collection of choice cases, and matters, agitated in all the courts at Westminster, in the latter yeares of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. With learned arguments at the barr, and on the bench, and the grave resolutions, and judgements, thereupon, of the Chief Justices, Anderson, and Popham, and the rest of the judges of those times. Never before published, and now printed by his original copy. With short notes in the margent, of the chief matters therein contained, with the yeare, terme, and number roll, of many of the cases. And two exact tables, viz. A briefer, of the names of the severall cases, with the nature of the actions on which they are founded, and a larger, of all the remarkable things contained in the whole book. By W. S. of the Inner Temple, Esq;

De Term. Mic. An. Reg. Eliz. xxix. & xxx. (Book Michaelmas (29-30 Elizabeth I))

1.

AN action of Debt was brought by Bret against Andrews upon an Obligation indorced with condition to stand to the arbitrement of A. B.* 1.1 who did arbitrate that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintif xx••l and appoint∣ed no certain day of payment; and the Defendant in pleading confessed the arbitrement; but he sayd further, that the Plaintif did never require him to pay it, and thereupon the Plaintif demurred in Law, and upon reading of the Record, the Court held clearly, that it was no plea, because the Defendant at his peril ought to make payment within convenient time, and the Plaintif needeth not to make any request. And Anderson commanded to enter judg∣ment accordingly.

2.

FEnner moved this case,* 1.2 a man deviseth lands to his Wife for term of her life, and if she live untill his sonne come to the age of 24 yeares, that then he shall have the lands; and if she dye before he come to that age, that then I. S. shall have it, untill his sonne come to that age, and dyed; then I. S. dyed before the wife, and after she dyed before the sonne came to 24 years, if the Executors of I. S. shall have the land untill the sonne come to that age or no, was the question. And the opinion of all the Court was, that they shall not have it, because their Testator had never any interest vested in him.

Fenner

But here was a possiblity of an interest.

Curia

But that is not sufficient.

Rodes cited the case of Bret and Rigden in the Com∣mentaries. * 1.3

Anderson

If I grant you, that if you pay me xxl. at Easter, then you shall have an Annuity of xl s. to you and your heirs, if you dye before Easter, now your Heir shall never have it, and so in this case.

3.

THatcher recovered in an Assise of Novel disseisin against Elmer for Lands in Hackney in Middlesex,* 1.4 and after Elmer re-disseised him, and Thatcher re-entred, and Elmer disseised him again. And Fleetwood moved the Court if Thatcher may have re-disseisin, be∣cause that after action accrued to him he had re-entred.

Anderson

What is the Judgement in this Action?* 1.5 Surely it is not that he shall recover any land, but double damages, and that the Defendant shall be taken, and shall make a Fine; wherefore forasmuch as he shall recover no land, the entry into the land cannot purge the offence and wrong, which is made punishable by the Statute; and so was the opi∣nion of the whole Court.

And the Court then held opinion like∣wise, that if a man be disseised, and after re-enters, and is disseised again,* 1.6 that he ought to have an Assise of the last entry, and not of the first, 27 Ass. pl. 42.

4.

ONe Powell was sued in the Common-Pleas,* 1.7 and as he was com∣ing to Westminster, he was arrested in London, and thereupon had a common Writ of Privilege surmising that he was coming to re∣tain Counsell; and Walmisley prayed that he might be examined whether he did so or no, but the Court would not.

Walmisley

It is no reason that if he be going about other matters he should have the privilege of this place.

Curia

A hundred Writs have been al∣lowed

without any examination.

Walmisley

In 10 Hen. 6. & 4 Hen. 7. such an examination was made.

Anderson

But that was not de rigore Juris,

and all the Court refused utterly to examine him. But Walmisley sayd privily, that it was against the Law.

5.

DOrothy Millington brought Debt against J. Burges for 9 l. and declared that he bought certain Oad;* 1.8 and the truth of the case was, this Oad was sold to him upon condition, that if she did not prove it to be good and sufficient, then he should pay no∣thing for it, and all this was disclosed by the Defendant upon his Wager of Law.* 1.9

Windham

If the case be so, then you may wage your Law,

and it was sayd, that she must have detinue for the Oad.

6.

IN an Avowry made by the Lady Rogers,* 1.10 it was sayd by the Court (Anderson absente) that it is sufficient for the Avowant to plead his Freehold, but if the Plaintif will traverse the same, he ought to make himself a title. Nelson Pronotary, so are all our Presidents.

Peryam

It is not sufficient to make it of his own seisin, but he must make it Paramount his own seisin.

7.

WAlmisley moved for Judgement in the case of Richard Han∣ington for the Plaintif. For he sayd that it was not clearly discharged, because of the possibility of the charge ensuing, allthough the charge were not then presently executed; in proof whereof, he sayd that it is not all gone by the acceptance of the Feoffment, and then it is a bargain, for a Lease for years is a bargain; for there he hath quid pro quo. Allso it is a Title, as in Nichols case in the Com∣mentaries: And then allthough he had nothing which he could re∣lease, because it was casuall whether it shall happen or no, yet now when it happens it is a charge ab initio, and thereupon he cited 9 H. 6. where one which had nothing but a possibility may maintain. And so where a man makes a Feoffment, and covenants that it shall be discharged, as here; and afterwards his Wife recovers her Dow∣er, the Covenant is broken, and yet it was but a possibility. And 8 Eliz. where a man covenants that it shall be discharged, and he had granted a Rent charge to begin twenty years after, this was not dis∣charged. Fenner argued to the contrary for the reasons moved by

him before.

Peryam

Here allthough it be no charge at the time of the Feoffment, yet it is not discharged; for if it were discharged, then it shall never be charged afterwards.

And so was the opinion of all the Court (Anderson absente) and after at the end of the Term when Anderson was present they were all agreed that it was an in∣cumbrance, and not discharged of the incumbrance, and therefore they gave Judgement for the Plaintif.

8.

IN Avowry by Johns of Surrey Esquire,* 1.11 it was sayd by Anderson for Law, that if a man before the Statute of quia emptores terra∣rum, makes a gift, and reserveth to himself upon every alienation the value of the Land by a year, this shall be adjudged according to the value of the Land at the time of the tenure, and not that where∣unto it is enhau••ced at this day, for a tenure ought to be certain when it is made.

9.

••Aven brought Debt upon an Obligation against Stockdale who pleaded non est factum,* 1.12 and the Jury in Norfolk found this spe∣cially Verdict, that the Defendant was sued by the Plaintif, and made a Bond to the Plaintif endorced with Condition, that if the sayd S. did personally appear in the Queens Majesties Court called the Kings bench, and then and there make answer to such matter as the Plaintif should object against him, the sayd Plaintif giving him war∣ning, that then, &c. And the Plaintif was neither Sherif nor Sherifs Officer, for the pretence of the Defendant was to avoyd it by the Statute of 23 Hen. 6. And now the Plaintif prayed Judgement.

An∣derson

The case is no more than this; A man is bound to another to appear at his suit in the Kings-bench, and doth not so, if this Obligation shall be avoyded, and I see no colour to avoyd it; for it is not within the Statute,

and all the Judges agreed clearly, that it is not within the Statute, and therefore they gave Judgement for the Plaintif.

10.

BLosse brought Trespass vi & armis against Halmon for taking of his Goods,* 1.13 the Defendant pleaded not guilty, and the Jury found a speciall Verdict, that the Plaintif at the time of the Tres∣pass supposed was of the Mystery of the Grocers, and that the Defen∣dant was his servant, and put in trust to sell res & mercandisas de∣tempore

in tempus in shopa sua existen. and he took those goods and carried them away, &c. and they prayed the advise of the Court. The doubt was because the action was vi & armis, whereas the De∣fendant had the custody, or if this shallbe called a custody. Shuttle∣worth for the Plaintif, and he cited the case in Littleton fol. 15. if I deliver my sheep to compost your land,* 1.14 and you kill them, I shall have trespass, whereto the Justices agreed, and held clearly that he shall have this action well enough.* 1.15

Peryam

he hath but an au∣ctority only, and not any custody or possession. v. 2. E. 4. 22. 2 E4. 8. 22 E. 4. 5. 13 E. 4. 9. Tenant at will ought not to cut down trees nor abate. 3. H. 7. 12. 21 H. 7. 14. the case of Butler.

11.

TRespass by Foster against Pretty and his wife,* 1.16 who justified that I was seised and made a lease to them for yeares, &c. the Plain∣tif replied de son tort demeasne, Abs{que} hoc that he leased,&c.

Peryam

Will you take a Traverse and not make your self a title?

Curia

with∣out question you ought to make your self a title, otherwise it is if the Defendant claym a Common, or such like, and no possession of the land.

11.

BRet Plaintif against Shepheard,* 1.17 the Condition of the Obligati∣on was to appear at his Suit in the Kings-bench, and upon Condition performed pleaded,* 1.18 the issue was found for the Plaintif. And now he spake in arrest of judgement, for that the triall ought to have been by the Record, and not by the Country. And so was the opinion of the Court. But Radford Pregnotary said that the triall was good enough, for it may be that he appeared there, and yet there is no Record made thereof; to whom it was answered, that then it is no appearance if it be not recorded; and Radford re∣plied, suppose that there is not any such suit there? how then can it be recorded? but the rule of the Court was ut supra, for then the Obligation seemeth to be single.

13.

THe case of Calgate against Blyth was now again argued by Flete∣wood for the Plaintif. And first he said that the limitation by the Wife is not good, for which he took this ground, that alwaies when a man shall gain a fee simple by matter of conclusion of Record, that he shallbe seised to his own use, And here the Husband had a

fee by conclusion by the fine, and therefore his limitation good on∣ly. * 1.19 And there upon he put a case reported by Carill, who was a grave man,* 1.20 and very learned in the law. That if Husband and Wife levy a fine to B. who rendereth to them again for life, the reversion shall remain in the Conisor to his own use, Also he put another case put by Baldwin in the time of H. 8.* 1.21 that a man seised in right of his Wife grants totum statum suum to another, the grantee shall have it no longer than during the life of the Husband if his Wife overlive him, but if she have issue by him, then he shall have it du∣ring the life of the Husband absolutely.* 1.22 And if two tenants in com∣mon in••eoff B.* 1.23 in see to their use, they are then tenants in common of this use,* 1.24 but if they levy a fine to B. to their use, then they are Joyn∣tenants. And in Queen Maries time a parson of a Church, by licence of his patron and ordinary levied,* 1.25 a fine of a portion of his Rectory, and it was adjudged that it shallbe to his own use in his naturall capacity;* 1.26 the same law is if a Bishop levy a fine, and he cited 1••. H. 4. 1. the first case, and so he prayed judgment for the plaintif. Anderson chief justice rehearsed the case, and first he said that the Wife with∣out her Husband cannot limit the use without doubt, And here the case is no more, but whether the husband may limit the use without the privity of his Wife, and I think it a strong case that he cannot.* 1.27 If Husband and Wife have an use, and they grant it over to one who hath notice of the Use, this shallbe to the use of the Wife again;* 1.28 and he defined an Use to be an intent and trust to convey lands, and cited 6. H. 7. and that when the interest of the inheri∣tance is in the Wife,* 1.29 if Husband and Wife levy a fine, this shall be to to the use of the Wife, for the use ariseth out of them which give the land, and not by the Conises or Feoffees, for they neither grant nor give the use,* 1.30 and then it shalbe to the use of the Wife again. But if the Husband alone make a Feoffment, this shall be to his own use, and the Wife after his death shall be driven to her action. And if the wife had been privy or assenting to the limitation,* 1.31 although she had not been named, yet it should be a good limitation, but the Jury have found that she was not privy; And a case was here ad∣judged, * 1.32 that where a fine was levied, and the limitation made after by Indenture, that this shall be to the use of the Indenture, if there be no other against it; but in this case it is found expresly by the Jury, that shee never agreed, which doth impugn that which o∣therwise should be intended; then now the case is no otherwise but that a fine is levyed, and no use is limited, but if the fine had been levied,* 1.33 & the Husband only limited the use, and nothing els had been done against it, then it should have been to the use limited by the Husband, because it should have been intended that the Wife had consented thereunto, and so I think judgment shalbe gi∣ven

against the Plaintif.

Windham

I am of the same opinion, and it seemeth that their difference and disagreement in the limita∣tion is the cause that both the limitations are void. First let us see who hath auctority to limit the use? surely the principall owner of the land hath the principall auctority to limit the use, and here the Wife is the principall owner,* 1.34 and therefore hath chief power to dispose of the use; And, Sr. the use is the chief profit and commodity of the land, and cannot be severed from the land, no more than the shadow from the body, and this was the reason of the Statute of 27. H. 8. which draweth the possession to the use, and not the use to the possession, for the use is the principall, for by the com∣mon law by bargain & sale enrolled the land shall pass without livery,* 1.35 for this was a contract for the use, and then the law shall make the land to pass,* 1.36 and whithersoever the use is now carried, the land and possession shall follow, but when the Law carrieth the use, it is to the owner and proprietary of the Land.* 1.37 For if a man seised of Lands on the part of his Mother, levy a fine thereof, the use shall pass according as the land shall, because the law carrieth the use. And here the Wife cannot limit the use without her Husband, and therefore that is void, but yet it is good to this intent, to shew her disagreement.* 1.38 And if the Husband limit the use, and she doth not disagree, the law intendeth that she consenteth thereunto, because she hath joined in the fine.* 1.39 And therefore in London, sale of the lands of the Wife by deed enrolled by the Husband only is good if she assent, or if she do not disagree. And although that she shall not be examined concerning the use, yet the Law will not have her defrau∣ded of her land by joyning in the fine, without her consent to the use; for by that meanes every Wife may be defrauded of her land by joyning in a fine, which were a great inconvenience, and con∣trary to this ground in Law, that the Husband cannot dispose of the Wifes lands without her consent. And although that if the Wife had not shewed her agreement or disagreement, then it should have been to the use limitted by the Husband, yet here she hath shewed an express disassent, and so by their variance, both their declarations are void,* 1.40 as in a Quare impedit by two, if both make severall titles, both shallbe barred, and so judgment shallbe given against the Plaintif.* 1.41

Peryam

to the same intent. First it is a plain case that if a Husband and Wife levie a fine and limit no use, then the use is to them as the land was before,* 1.42 for the use is the profit of the land, and the Wife alone cannot limit the use, for du∣ring the coverture she hath submitted her will to the will of her Husband.* 1.43 And if they both levie a fine, and he onely by Indenture limits uses,* 1.44 if she do nothing, then his limitation is good, and the case of Vavisour adjudged here that a limitation after the fine is

good. And here the Husband hath limited the use to himself for life;* 1.45 and afterwards they both agree in the limitation, now if the residue in which they agree shall be good? I will shew my opi∣nion therein likewise, because that also may come in question here∣after. And I think that this shall not bind the inheritance, for it is a ground in Law, that limiters of uses shallbe such as have power interest and auctority of the land, and no further; As if Tenant for life and he in reversion joyn in a fine,* 1.46 Tenant for life shall limit but for his life, but here by the death of the Wife the ability of the Husband is gone, for he had no issue by her, and therefore his use shall bee gone allso, for otherwise it should be a great inconvenience; but if they had joyned in the limitation, then the inheritance of the Wife had been bound,* 1.47 and so it is if the Law can intend that she had agreed; And to say that the Conisees shall take it from the Husband and Wife, and therefore the Wife to be concluded, is but small reason, for she may confesse the Record well enough, as appeareth by the case of Eare and Snow in the Com. and no man can limit uses further than he hath the land, and here the limitation for the inheritance after the death of the wife cannot be good, and for their variance both are void. And so I think judgment shallbe given against the Plaintif. Rodes to the same intent, for the Jury hath found that the Wife did not agree, and this speciall finding shall avoid all other common intend∣ments. * 1.48 And the intendment of the party shall overthrow the in∣tendment of the Law, and he cited Eare and Snowes case, where it was found that the wife had nothing. And he cannot limit uses farther than he hath estate in the land, and therefore judgment shall be given against the Plaintif.

Anderson

then enter judgment accordingly.

14.

AN Action upon the statute of Hue and cry was brought against the hundred of Dunmow in Essex,* 1.49 and the Jury found a spe∣ciall verdict that the Plaintif was robbed about three a clock in morning before day light, and thereupon prayed the advise of the Court, And now all the Judges were agreed, that for because the Robbery was done in the night, and not in the day, therefore the Hundred shall not be charged, and they commanded to enter iudgment accordingly.

15

BEtween Cogan and Cogan the case was,* 1.50 that the Defendant had sold certain land sowen with oad to the Plaintif, and that if any restraint shall be by proclamation or otherwise, that it should not be lawfull to the Plaintif to sow and make oad, then he should have certain mony back again, and after proclamation came that no man should sow oad within four miles of any market Town, or clothing Town, or City, or within eight miles of any Mansion House of the Queen, and the Plaintif shewed the Land was within foure miles of a Market Town, and because he did not averr that it was a Cloathing Town also, the Defendant demurred in law, And all the Judges held, that he had shewed sufficient cause of his Demurrer, for the mea∣ning was to restrain by the proclamation aswell all manner of market Townes, as those market Townes which were clothing Townes. And after Puckering shewed that the restraint was onely from sowing oad, and not from making, and their Contract was that if any restraint should be from sowing and making, in the copu∣lative, whereby he thought the Plaintif should be barred, quod Curia concessit.

16.

BEtween Cock and Baldwin the case was,* 1.51 that a lease was made for 21 yeares to one Tr••w penny and Elizabeth his wife,* 1.52 if he and shee,* 1.53 or any child or children between them lawfully begotten, should live so long; And after they were married the wife died without issue; if the lease be thereby determined or no was the question? because it is in the conjunctive (he and she) and now one of them is dead without issue; and this case is not like Chapmans case in the Commentaries; where one covenants to infeoff B. and his heires, for there it is impossible to Emfeoff his heires as long as B.* 1.54 shall live, and therefore there it shall bee taken in the disjuctive and the same Serjeant said that if A.* 1.55 lets land to two for life, if one dye, the other shall have all by survivour, because they took it by way of interest;* 1.56 but if I let land to two to have and to hold for the lives of two other, if one of them dye, the lease is gone, quod fuit concessum, and here the lease shall be determined by the death of one, because so was the intent.

Rodes

the meaning seemeth to be conrrary, for by the (or) which commeth afterward, it appea∣reth that they should have their lives in it.

Peryam

Anderson and Wyndham said that it appeareth by the disjunctive sentence which commeth afterward, that the intent was that the lease shall not be determined by the death of one of them, and the reason which moved

the Lord Anderson to think so was, because the state was made be∣fore the marriage, and so it is as a joynture to the wife, and therefore not determined by the death of the one.

And after they all gave judgment accordingly.

17.

WAlgrave brought trespass quare vi & armis against Somersetbeing Tenant at will,* 1.57 and the Defendant demurred in law whether such an action will lie against him or no, it was for cutting down of trees, And at this day Anderson rehearsed the case, and said that they were all agreed, that the action will lye well enough vi & armis, for otherwise he shall have no action, for wast is not maintainable, and Littleton saith that Trespass lyeth, & so seemeth the better opinion, in 2 E. 4. 33. for otherwise this being a common case, it shall be a common mischief; And he commanded the Pregnotary to enter judgement for the Plaintif.

18.

Snagg moved to stay Judgdment in the case of Blosse,* 1.58 and he cited 2 Ed. 4. 4. If the servant of a Mercer take his goods, Trespass will not lie, (sed vide librum) and he cited 3 Hen. 7. 12. that it shall not be Felony in a Shepherd or a Butler.

Windam

If he had imbezeled the goods, it is Felony, and for the case of 3 Hen. 7. it is Felony without question,* 1.59

quod fuit concessum.

Anderson

The servant hath neither generall nor speciall property in the goods,* 1.60 and he shall have no Action of Trespass if they be taken away, and therefore if he take them,* 1.61 Trespass lieth against him, and if he imbezell them, it is Felo∣ny,

wherefore he commanded to enter Judgement for the Plaintif.

19.

THomas Taire and Joane his Wife brought an Action of Wast a∣gainst Pepyat,* 1.62 and declared how that the Defendant was seised in Fee,* 1.63 and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life,* 1.64 and after to the use of the Mother of Joane in Fee, who died, and it descended to her, and after the Defendant made Wast, &c. The Defendant plea∣ded that he was, and yet is seised in Fee, Abs{que} hoc that he made the Feoffment in manner and form, pro ut, &c. And the Jury found a speciall Verdict, that the Defendant made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life, but that was without impeachment of Wast, the Remainder in Fee as before. And the Plaintif prayed Judgement, and the doubt was, because they have found their issue, and

more, viz. that it was was without impeachment of Wast.

Ander∣son

Whether it were without impeachment of Wast or no, was no part of their issue, and then the Verdict for that point is void, and the Plaintif shall have Judgement.

VVindham

The doubt is for that they have found that the Defendant, is not punishable, and where a Verdict discloseth any thing, whereby it appeareth that the Plain∣tif ought not to Recover, Judgement thereupon ought to be given against him; As in detinue, the Plaintif counts upon a Bailment by himself,* 1.65 and the Jury findeth, that another Bailed to his use, the Plaintif shall not Recover.

And a Serjeant at the Bar said, that the issue, is not found.

Anderson

That which is found more than their issue is void,* 1.66 and therefore in 33 Hen. 6. where the Tenant in Assise pleades nul Tenant de franktenement nosme en lasise & ••i tro•••• ne so it. &c. and the Jury found that he was Tenant, but that he held jointly with another, and there the Plaintif Recovered, and so he shall here.

And at length by the opinion of all the Court, Judgement was en∣tred for the Plaintif; for he might have helped the matter by pleading.

16.

IN debt by May against Johnson,* 1.67 the Condition was to pay a 100. l. to Cowper and his Wife, and by all the Court, if he plead payment to Cowper alone, it sufficeth, for payment to him alone sufficeth without naming the Wife.

15.

IN a Quare impedit by Sir Thomas Gorge,* 1.68 against the B. of Lincoln and Dalton Incumbent, the case was that a Mannor with an advow∣son appendant was in the hands of the King, then the Church becoms void, and after the King grants the Mannor with the advowson; now the question was, if the Patentee shall have this presentation, or the King? And all the Judges held clearly that the avoydance doth not pass, for it was a Chattell vested in the King, and they cited 9 Edward 3. 26. and Dyer fol. 300. but Fitzh. nat. br. is contrary. fol. 33. 11.

22.

DEbt was brought by Goore Plaintif for 200. l.* 1.69 upon such a Bill; Be it known unto all men by these presents, that I, Ed. Wing∣field, of H. in the County of Midd. Esq do acknowledge my self to

be indebted to William Goore, in 200. l. for the payment whereof I, mine Heirs, and Assigns, do licence the said G. to have and use the Baliwick of Dale; to the use, &c. untill, &c. the Defendant pleaded in bar, that the Plaintif had used the said Bailiwick, and said no more, nor at what place he had received the money; and Suagg moved that the Plea was not good, because he had not shewed the value, which he ought to have done:* 1.70 and the Judges were of the same opinion, and they said moreover that this Plea is not good in bar of this specialty, for payment is no plea upon a single Bill,* 1.71 and he might have brought his Action upon this Bill, without using the Bailiwick; for this Li∣cence is no Condition. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Request.
• * 1.2

  Possibility of Interest.
• * 1.3

  Grant.
• * 1.4

  Redisseisin.
• * 1.5

  Judgement.
• * 1.6

  Assise.
• * 1.7

  Privilege.
• * 1.8

  Wager of Law.
• * 1.9

  Detinue.
• * 1.10

  Title in a∣vowry.
• * 1.11

  Tenure.
• * 1.12

  Statute 23 H. 6
• * 1.13

  Possession.
• * 1.14

  Sheep.
• * 1.15

  Auctority.
• * 1.16

  Title.
• * 1.17

  Appara••ce.
• * 1.18

  Triall by the Record.
• * 1.19

  Carill.
• * 1.20

  Fine levied
• * 1.21

  Grant of all Estate.
• * 1.22

  Fine.
• * 1.23

  Fe••ff••••ent.
• * 1.24

  Diff••••••n•••• per Tenants ••n common.
• * 1.25

  fi Parson levies a F••e.
• * 1.26

  Bishops.
• * 1.27

  Notice of a use.
• * 1.28

  What a use is.
• * 1.29

  Fine.
• * 1.30

  Feoffment by he Husband a∣lone.
• * 1.31

  Assent without naming.
• * 1.32

  Indenture after a fine levied.
• * 1.33

  Silence is an a∣greem••ni.
• * 1.34

  What a use is.
• * 1.35

  Bargain and sale.
• * 1.36

  The Law erects. the use.
• * 1.37

  The mothers heir.
• * 1.38

  Silence Consent
• * 1.39

  Sale in London by Husband and Wife.
• * 1.40

  Quare impedit.
• * 1.41

  No Ʋse limit∣ed.
• * 1.42

  Ʋse what it is.
• * 1.43

  Silence.
• * 1.44

  Limitation af∣ter fine.
• * 1.45

  Who shall limit uses.
• * 1.46

  Fine.
• * 1.47

  Inheritance. shall be bound by agreement.
• * 1.48

  Intendment.
• * 1.49

  Robbery in the night
• * 1.50

  Copulative.
• * 1.51

  Pas. 29. Eliz.
• * 1.52

  Rot. 1410.
• * 1.53

  Copulative.
• * 1.54

  Lease to a for life
• * 1.55

  Lease for life of 2
• * 1.56

  Difference.
• * 1.57

  Trespass vi & armis a∣gainst Te∣nant at Will Wast.
• * 1.58

  Property.
• * 1.59

  Property.
• * 1.60

  Taking Embezeling.
• * 1.61

  Difference.
• * 1.62

  Pas. 25. Eliz.
• * 1.63

  Rot. 602.
• * 1.64

  Wast.
• * 1.65

  Bailment.
• * 1.66

  Assise.
• * 1.67

  Payment.
• * 1.68

  Avoydance.
• * 1.69

  Bailiwick.
• * 1.70

  Value.
• * 1.71

  Licence.