Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

So it is a rule, words are to be understood that they work somewhat, and be not idle and frivolous: Verba aliquid operari debent; verba cum effectu sunt accipienda. And therefore if I bargain and sell you four parts of my manor of Dale, and say not in how many parts to be divided; this shall be construed four parts of five, and not of six nor seven, &c. because that is strongest against me. But on the other side, it shall not be intended four parts of four parts, that is the whole, or four quarters; and yet that were strongest of all: but then the words were idle and of none effect.

3 H. 6. f. 20. pl. 34.

So it is a rule, Divinatio, non interpretatio est, quæ omnino recedit a litera. And therefore if I have a fee farm-rent issuing out of white acre of ten shillings, and I reciting the same reservation do grant to I. S. the rent of five shillings percipiend' de reddit' prædict' et de omnibus terris et tenementis meis in Dale, with clause of distress; although there be atturnment, yet nothing passeth out of my former rent. And yet that were strongest against me, to have it a double rent or grant of part of that rent with an enlargement of a distress in the other land: but, for that it is against. the words, because copulatio verborum inclinat acceptionem in eodem sensu, and the word de (anglicè out of) may be taken in two senses, that is, either as a less sum out of a greater, or as a charge out of land or other principal interest; and that the coupling of it with lands and tenements doth define the sense to be one rent issuing out of another, and not as a less rent to be taken by way of computation out of a greater; therefore nothing passeth of that rent. But if it stood of itself, without these words "lands and tenements:" viz. I, reciting that I am seised of such a rent of ten shillings, do grant

[ocr errors]

five shillings percipiend' de eodem reddit' it is good enough with atturnment; because percipiend' de etc. may well be taken for parcella de etc. without violence to the words. But if it had been percipiend' de I. S. without saying de redditibus prædict', although I. S. be the person that payeth me the foresaid rent of ten shillings, yet it is void. And so it is of all other rules of exposition of grants; when they meet in opposition with this rule, they are preferred.

Now to examine this rule in pleadings as we have done in grants; you shall find that in all imperfections of pleadings; whether it be in ambiguity of words and double intendments; or want of certainty and averments; or impropriety of words; or repugnancy and absurdity of words; ever the plea shall be strictly and strongly taken against him that pleads.

For ambiguity of words :

If in a writ of entry upon disseisin the ten- 22 H. 6. f. 43. ant pleads jointenancy with I. S. of the gift pl. 27. and feoffment of I. D. judgment de briefe; and the demandant saith that long time before I. D. any thing had, the demandant himself was seised in fee quousque prædict' I. D. super possessionem ejus intravit, and made a joint feoffment, whereupon he the demandant reentered, and so was seised until by the defendant alone he was disseised; this is no plea: because the word intravit may be understood either of a lawful entry, or of a tortious, and the hardest against him shall be taken, which is, that it was a lawful entry: therefore he should have alleged precisely that I. D. disseisivit.

So upon ambiguity that grows by refer- Dy. f. 66. ence: if an action of debt be brought against I. N. and I. P. sheriffs of London, upon an escape, and the

plaintiff doth declare upon an execution by force of a recovery in the prison of Ludgate sub custodia I. S. et I. D. then sheriffs in 1 K. H. VIII. and that he so continued sub custodia I. B. et I. G. in 2 K. H. VIII. and so continued sub custodia I. N. et I. L. in 3 K. H. VIII. and then was suffered to escape; I. N. and I. P.1 plead, that before the escape supposed, at such a day anno superius in narratione specificato, the said I. B. and I. G. ad tunc vicecomites suffered him to escape; this is no good plea: because there be three years specified in the declaration, and it shall be hardest taken that it was 1 or 3 H. VIII. when they were out of office. And yet it is nearly induced by the ad tunc vicecomites, which should lead the intendment to be of that year in which the declaration supposeth that they were sheriffs; but that sufficeth not, but the year must be alleged in fact; for it may be it was mislaid by the plaintiff, and therefore the defendants meaning to discharge themselves by a former escape, which was not in their time, must allege it precisely.

For incertainty of intendment:

[26 H. 8.] If a warranty collateral be pleaded in bar, and the plaintiff by replication, to avoid the warranty, saith that he entered upon the possession of the defendant; non constat whether this entry was in the life of the ancestor, or after the warranty attached : and therefore it shall be taken in hardest sense, that it was after the warranty descended, if it be not otherwise averred.

For impropriety of words:

39 H. 6. f. 5. pl. 6.

1 L. in MSS.

in the 4th year,

If a man plead that his ancestor died by

It seems intended the defendants should come into office and the case is so stated in Dyer.

protestation seised, and that I. S. abated &c. this is no plea for there can be no abatement except there be a dying seised alleged in fact; and an abatement shall not be improperly taken for disseisin in pleading, car parols font pleas.

For repugnancy:

If a man in his avowry declare, that he Dy. f. 256. was seised in his demesne as of fee of white acre, and being so seised did demise the same white acre to I. S. habendum the one moiety for twenty-one years from the date of the deed, the other moiety from the surrender, expiration, or determination of the estate of I. D. qui tenet prædict' medietatem ad terminum vitæ suæ reddend' 40s. rent: this declaration is insufficient, because the seisin that he hath alleged in himself in his demesne as of fee in the whole, and the estate for life of a moiety, are repugnant; and it shall not be cured by taking the last, which is express, to control the former, which is but general and formal; but the plea is naught: yet the matter in law had been good to have entitled him to have distrained for the whole rent.

But the same restraint follows this rule in pleadings that was before noted in grants: for if the case be such as falleth within another rule of pleading, then this rule may not be urged.

And therefore,

pl. 4.

It is a rule that a bar is good to a com- 9 Ed. 4. f. 12. mon intent, though not to every intent. As Plow. f. 33. b. if debt be brought against five executors, and three of them make default, and two appear and plead in bar a recovery had against them two of three hundred pounds and nothing in their hands over and above that sum; if this bar should be taken strongliest against

them, then it should be intended that they might have abated the first suit, because the other three were not named, and so the recovery not duly had against them: but because of this other rule the bar is good; for that the more common intent will say, that they two did only administer, and so the action well conceived, rather than to imagine that they would have lost the benefit and advantage of abating the writ.

So there is another rule, that in pleading a man shall not disclose that which is against himself: and therefore if it be a matter that is to be set forth on the other side, then the plea shall not be taken in the hardest sense, but in the most beneficial, and to be left unto the contrary party to allege.

Dy. f. 17.

And therefore, if a man be bound in an obligation, that if the feme of the obligee do decease before the Feast of St. John the Baptist which shall be in the year of our Lord God 1598,1 without issue of her body by her husband lawfully begotten then living, that then the bond shall be void; and in debt brought upon this obligation the defendant pleads that the feme died before the said feast without issue of her body then living: if this plea should be taken strongliest against the defendant, then should it be taken that the feme had issue at the time of her death, but this issue died before the feast but that shall not be so understood, because it makes against the defendant, and it is to be brought in on the plaintiff's side, and that without traverse. So if in detinue brought by a feme against

30 E. 3. f. 25.

:

1 The case in Dyer is of 28 Hen. VIII. This date therefore, in which all the MSS. (except the Camb. MS. which does not contain the case) and editions agree, seems to fix the date of composition of this particular paragraph as one at which Midsummer 1598 might suggest itself to Bacon while writing. See supra, p. 167, note 1.

« ForrigeFortsæt »