« PreviousContinue »
had officers, and those things, which are for the execution of justice, as constables, ale-tasters, &c. and pillory and stocks, and cucking stool, &c. 4th, If he punished bakers more than three times, and did not set them in the pillory. All these were causes of seisure, till he paid a fine for the abuse, and replevied his franchise. Mr. Totterfall himself, being called and asked concerning his court leet, confessed that he had not used it a great while; nor were there proper officers or other things for the execution of justice: but he said, it appeared by ancient rolls, that there had been a leet there. And, being asked to what leet his tenants went, he said they went to the Sheriff's torne, and paid head-silver there. Upon which Mr. Attorney said, that Mr. Tottersall could have no leet: for all leets were drawn out of the Sheriff's torne, which is the leet in the king's hands; and head-silver is certum late, and no man fhall be subject to two leets; and, therefore, there could be no allowance of the leet, unless the king should be put out of that, which (for aught he knew) he had ever had. So judgment was given against him for the leet.
S 83. Upon a motion for an information in the Darell v.
Bridge, nature of a quo warranto, against one Bridge for
i Black. R. holding a court leet; it appeared that in 14 Jac. I. 46. the crown granted to R. Meller and his heirs and assigns, the privilege of holding courts leet. No mefne conveyance appeared till 1702, when, and in 1708, 1719, and 1721, there were conveyances of the manor, with all courts thereunto belonging, to those under whom the defendant claimed. In the deed of
conveyance to him in 1739, courts leet were expressly conveyed. In 1740 the defendant held a court leet, the first within the memory of any one living, though courts baron had been frequently held. It was argued that the defendant could not deduce any
title under the original grant, or if he could, yet that non-user was a disclaimer, and a forfeiture of such a franchise. On the other side it was contended that the possession of the grant together with the land, was an evidence of right, and that it would be of very pernicious consequence to grant these informations, whenever a lord could not deduce a title by mesnę conveyances. The court said that as there appeared no exercise of the grant till 1740, there was strong suspicion of some defeat in the title ; and therefore it must go to be tried by a jury. And the rule for an information was made absolute.
S 84. Where a person has a franchise to hold a market every week, on the Friday, and he holds the Friday and the Monday, in this case nothing shall be forfeited, but that which he hath purprised. But he, who has a fair to hold two days, and holds it three days, forfeits the whole. So, where à man has a market, to hold the Saturday, and he holds it another day, the market shall be forfeited ; and he shall be fined for the misusing.
Idem. pl. 22.
$ 85. If the king grants to a person a fair for one day in the year, and the grantee holds a fair two days, and claims this upon process in the exchequer, he thall forfeit his franchise. But, if he claims one day by the patent, and another by prescription, which is found false in the prescription, yet he shall not forfeit his patent.
S 86. If a man has several franchises, and the one Bro. Ab. Tit. does not depend upon the other; there, if he misuses any, he shall not forfeit all, but only those which are misused. But, if one depends upon the other, there, Finch, 38. if he misuses the one, all shall be seised and forfeited to the king.
Of the Incidents to Rents.
$ 55. At what Time payable. 6. Of Rent Service.
65. When Rent goes to the Exe8. Of a Rent Charge.
cutor, or to the Heir. 12. Of a Rent Seck.
71. Of Distress for Rent.
73. Condition of Re-entry.
78. Right of Entry by Way of 26. Upon wbat Conveyances.
Ul. 36. How a Rent Charge may be
79. Eje&ment. created.
8o. Courts of Equity. 40. To whom Rents
82. delions of Debt and Coveserved.
chised their villains, they still employed them in the cultivation of their estates, which they granted to them either from year to year, or for a certain number
of years, reserving to themselves an annual return from the tenant, of corn or other provisions. And hence the lands, thus granted, were called farms, from the Saxon word feorm, which signifies provisions.
§ 2. This compensation or return for the use of land thus let, acquired the name of redditus, rent; which is defined by Lord Chief Baron Gilbert to be an Gilb. Rents, annual return, made by the tenant either in labour, 9.
money, or provisions, in retribution for the land that passes.
$ 3. It follows, that, although rent must be a profit, yet there is no occafion that it should consist of money : for capons, spurs, horses, and other things i Inst. 112 4. of that nature, may be reserved by way of rent: and it may
also consist of services, or manual labour, as to plough a certain number of acres of land, &c.
§ 4. The profit, reserved as rent, must be certain, Idem. or that which may be reduced to a certainty by either party; for, it is a maxim in law, that id certum est, quod certum reddi potest. It must be payable yearly ; though it need not be reserved in every successive
year, but will be good, if reserved in every second or third year.
§ 5. A rent must issue out of the thing granted, and Idem. not be a part of the thing itself: for Lord Coke says, a man cannot reserve a part of the annual profits them , selves, as to reserve the vesture or herbage of the land.
$ 6. There