Becks Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1657 |
| Date | 01 January 1657 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 124 E.R. 233
COMMON BANCK AND EXCHEQUER
becks case. Ore Becka Case vient arreare, quel vide devanr. Fuit argue per Hedley pur le Plaintiff. Et il fist 4 questions in le case. [264] Primerment, Si Fee-simple poetee limit sur Fee-simple 1 & il teigne que per voy de use il poet. Est un rule pur conatrucon del usea que quecunque poet ee limit al common ley per voy de possession poet 5e limit per use : mes nest voier e contra, que quecunque ne poet al common ley ee, ne poet ee per voy del use : Car coinent le meaning del Statute de uses fuit a restorer le common ley, cest Interpretacon aprea le Statute immediateruent avoit ee fait: mes puis per mults arms le receaved opinion, come Popham dit, fuit al contra, sur un expoaicon, que voet overthrow malts des Conveyances del Kingdom. Et il compare ceo al estate tail ove remainder ouster, qae poet ee docke per Common Recovery, issint uses contingent devant sont executed poent £e destroy, come Cbudleys Case. Uses ore sont construe come volunts, poles aver fee executory sans estate a supporter ceo, issiut est de usea, come devise que Executors venderout, ceo est Executory, ou al J. S. quant il paie 1101. icy neat ascun particular estate a supporter le fee: issint poet ee in uses: Si feoffraent ou fine soiet al use J. S. & sea heira quant il paie 20 1. Mes al common ley ceo est void limitacon. Et en deviae tanq^ le contingency happen, poles deviser le fee in meane temps, & issint serroit Fee-simple sur Fee-simple, come devise al J. S. si pay taut, tanq^ il paie le fee descend al heire, & ceo poet ee devise. Issint de feoffment al uses, Et tout poiar a fairer Leases surder hors de contingent usea. Car ne poies doner poiar al Lessee al common ley a fairer Leases pur 3 vies. Et in Pell & Brownea Caae, deviae fait al Thomas & aes heirs, proviso sil devy sans issue male que William aver le terra a luy & aes heirs, & adjudge bone Fee-simple al William, & que Thomas ne poet preventer ceo per Common Recovery : mea est difference inter limitacon del uses & devises. Si soet devise al un in fee, & aprea al auter in fee, est nul means a destroyer le second fee; mea si le feoffment aoiet al use de un fita & sea heirs & si C. P. il.-8* 234 PASCH. 5 CAR. IN COMMUNI BANCO LITTLETON, 288. dervy sans issue, donq,, al auter in fee, &o. Feoffnaent per le primer destroyer le second fee. Feoffment al use de J. S. quant il marry mon file, si jeo vende le terre devant J. S, marry, & aprea il marry, il ne unc^ avera le terre. Mes est auterment in case da devise. Mas si aoit per voy de Remainder, don^ est nul difference inter use & vohint, ou estate al common Ley, come ai estate soiet al un pur vie per ascun de eux vqies, Remainder al droit heirs de J. S. le Remainder est destroy. Et Archers Case prove ceo in case de voluot; uncore si avoit ea executory devise, rie poet ea de-[256]-steoy. Si Lease pur anus soiet, remainder al droit heiros de J. S. est void remainder, comeut soit per volunt. Issint devise al droit heires de J. S. est void, & meime ley del use, oar devise oa limitacon de present use al person nient en esse, est void. Et pur ceo devise al Infant in venire sa raeir, est void ; raes ceux per voy de Eemainder sontkone, mes ceo devise que si mon fits devy sans issue, donc^ le droit heires de J. S. avera mon terre, ceo est bone; pur ceo qua est contingent. Mesme ley de estate per use. : Secundo, Si ceux Remainders in fee sont in abeyance ou nemy ? Jeo conceive que ne sont in abeyance. Est le opinion de 8 Judges in Chudleis Case, que ceux estates per uses ne uii^ serront in abeyance. Si feoffment soiet al use de un pur vie, Remainder al droit heires de J. S. la le remainder neat in abeyance, tnes est in le Feoffor. En le principal case in Chudleis Case le Remainder est al freres do Christopher auxi; Car sont limit apres mort do Christopher sans issue de son corps; & Christopher poet aver pluis que 10 fits, que touts poient devy sans issue in vie del pier, Et pur ceo cleerement contingent; donq^ riens fuit executed la, mes estate pur vie in lea Feoffees : Et si nul remainder fuit in abeyance, ou execute, oest feoffment al Christopher fuit forsqj surrender: Et uncore est la prise dee bone feoffment al Christopher ; & le case est rieng foracjj tenant pur vie enfeoffe son Feoffor; mes al common ley tiels remainders sont touts in abeyance. Issint admit in cest case si al common ley Lease soiet pur vie, Remainder al droit heires J. S. le Remainder est in abeyance. Mes ou le Remainder esb al person in ease, ne unq, serroit en abeyance come si Lease pur vie soiet sur con-dioon (layer fee, la le fee nest in abeyance, mes in le Feoffee tanq^ le condicon performes, Voier est^ que Littleton doubt de ceo in case de Lease pur auns. En Colthirst & Bejushing Case appeirt que Remainder poet ee limit sur condican precedent, niss le fea ne serroit la in abeyance ou est person a prender mes continuer in le primer Feoffor tan k condicon performe; car le ley ne voet preserver, ou est person a prender. Icy est al person en ease : Car nest al issue del primer fits, raes al fits who first shall have issue; donc^ si al common ley le Remainder ne serroit in abeyance ne serroit in cest case de contingency multo magis, eeant par voy del use, come in nostre case, mes le fee remain in le first Feoffor, tanq, le contingency eschew, & donc^ est petit doubt, mes que 1'entry pur le forfeiture est loyal si le Reversion soil in luy. Si feoffment de 20acres [2fi6] soiet al use de J. S. pur vie, Remainder del 10 acres al J. D. in fee, le fee del 10 acres est in le Feoffor tanque election. Issint si le Remainder soiet al R. ou B. quel averoit firat issue, in le meane temps le fee est in la Feoffor: Issint in nogtre case le Remainder al first Son who shall have issue; in le interim le fee est in le Feoffor; donque le entry pur forfeiture est cleerement loyal. Mea admit le case al common ley: Lease pur vie Remainder al droit beires de J. S. si Lessee fait feoffment durant vie de J. S. le primer Lessor poet enter pifir forfeiture, mes si le Lessee comit wast nest cy cleere que wast gist pur ceo que est nul;Inheritance in le Feoffor; come in Pagets Case, 5 Rep. Si Lease pur vie soit, remainder; pur vie, & le primer Lessee commit wast, est dispunisnable tanq, le vie de luy en remainder, Et donq^ le impediment est remove. Issint ou le remainder est in abeyance, roes le Lessee fait feoffment, ou si wast soit comit ou J. S. est attaint de Treason le impediment est remove. Et in la primer case il poet enter & aver wast versus le tenuLt; & in le second, wast in le tenet. Et quant le Lessee fait feoffment, le remainder est cy fort destroy come si J. S. devy sans heire, & est ore nul possibility quft ses helre averont le terre. Si Lease pur vie soiet, remainder al J. S. & ses heires apres payment de tent argent, le Lassee commit wast devant payment, action cleerement gist pur Lessor. Mes si le Reversion soiet grant sur condicon, wast esb eomit, & condicon infreint wast ne gist, pur ceo que le claime ou entry affirme le Reversion hors de luy 50 E. 3. Si J. S. devy sans heires apres wast comit in vie del Lessee, le Lessor poet declarer sur Lease pur vie sans meitcon de Remainder, & donq^ le action de wast gist cleerement. Les livers queux font le doubt sont 7 H. 4. 23. per Gasooigne 30 Aas. 47. Thorpe. Mes lour opinion sont ground sur un Error, que beget un auter i a. PASCH. 5 CAR. IN COMMUNI BANCO 285 error. Ou aacuo de eeux remainders sont executed al primer fits, & sans doubt ne paent. Mas le grand question est de remainder al droit heirs de J. B. rues ceo nest ex*cute, Gar le primer fuit remainder in fee, & second Fee-simple ne unq^ poient ea executed per le Statute de Uses, & coment le primer soiet execute, uncore le second ne serroit. Si feoffment soiet al use de J. S. pur vie, le remainder al son puisne fits in taile, le remainder al heires del Feoffor in fee, la touts sont executed ; mes auter-maut serroit si le prime remainder fuit al primer fits in fee, & si, &c. donq, al droit heires. Lavifea Case prove ceo cleerement, 1,0 Co. 35. meere possibility de Fee-simple oe serroit [257] execute. Ore jeo voile prover que le remainder al primer fits est Fee-simple, issint est feoffment al uae de un & aes heires, & pur default de tiel issue, &c. an ceo serra expound come volunt ou per rule de fails est le question. Et est Fee-simple si serroit expound come fait. Si devise soiet al A. & ses heirs males est taila, mea in fait ou per use nest forsq, estate pur vie 19 H. 6. 74. done al un, & si devy sana issue que donq^ remainder al auter, nest forsc^ estate pur vie ; mes si ceo fuit volunt, serroit autermont : Issint devise al un in fee est bone, mes si use soiet limit al un in fee est male, 1 Eliz. Dyer 169. la expresse use controule implied use : Feoffment la fuit sur limitacon A. & B. & a lour use imperpetuum, & tenus que avoit fonq^ pur vie^ pur season de expresse limitacon, auterment si avoit ee omit. In nostre case eat use al J. B. pur vie, remainder to the firsb Son that shall have heirs males of his body (ceo est forst^ description del person) and hia heirs for ever, ceo est auxi Fee-simple, sans pluis, and for default of such issue (id est) si n'avoit unq, issue, ceo remainder a le file que aver ceo cy long, mes si uuq^ avoit issue donq^ avoit Fee-simple presentment, & ne un ^ fuit le meaning, que le file aver ceo cy long qua aacuns tits vive ; Issint que icy nest 3 remainders in fee limit, mes un remainder in fee al 3 persons, come si soit limit al A. B. & C. quel de eux ad issue first, est forsc^ un fee-simple sur condicou precedent. Mes raise ceo que fuit al un pur vie remainder al primer fits, & sil n'avoit fits ou file durant 10 anus, donq^ al auter, ceo nest fee simple al fits pur ceo que est temps limit de devester de fits : Si Lease soiet pur vie, remainder al first fits de J. S. que aver issue, & pur default de tiel issue, remainder al auter, si cbiuc contingenciea ne happen durant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v Cole
...the declaration must shew the particular defects. (4) The declaration must state it to be " to the disinheriting" of the plaintiff; Co. Litt. 285 a. ; but if husband and wife, seised in fee in right of the wife, bring waste, it must be laid to be " to the disinheriting of the wife ;" for it......
-
Anonymous (1793) 3 Mod 248
...contracts will not. The judgment was reversed (/). (a) See Gallaway v. Herbert, 4 Term Rep. 680; Syburn v. Slade, 4 Terra Rep. 682. (b) Co. Lit. 285. Cro. Eliz. 144. Savil, 28. Run. on Eject. 130. (c) 5 Co. 75. (d) 2 Bulst. 262. Co. Lit. 198. 1 Com. Dig. 57. Cowp. 372. () Ruddock's case, 6 ......
-
Doe against Wright
...447). So, in the analogous case of a writ of waste, the plaintiff may be entitled to damages, where he cannot have the place wasted ; Co. Lit. 285 a. Wightman, contr£. The replication is no estoppel. It is no answer to the first plea denying the plaintiff's possession, because the recovery ......
-
Middleton and Croft
...no case is cited where action brought by or against husband or wife, and the husband dias, that the writ does not abate ; whereas in Co. Lit. 285 a. in action of waste by baron and feme in remainder in special tail, and the wife die without issue, the writ shall abate. And in Style, 138, Wh......
-
Law and Finance in Emerging Economies: Germany and Britain 1800–1913
...finance’ (1997) 52 J Fin 1131; R. La Porta,F. Lopez-de-Silanes, and A. Shleifer, ‘The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins’ (2008) 46J Econ Lit 285.7 G. G. Acheson et al, ‘Corporate ownership and control in Victorian Britain’ (2015) 68 EconomicHistory Review 911; B. R. Cheffins, ‘Does Law M......
-
Cell phone snooping: why electronic eavesdropping goes unpunished.
...e.g., Connie L. Michaels, Employment Law Considerations Stress Management and Elimination of Bias: The Risk Management Perspective, 555 PLI/Lit 285 (1996) (cautioning employers about the ambiguity of the law regarding surveillance of employee electronic (38.) See, e.g., Patricia M. Worthy, ......