Percy, Henry Sjt Persay (for D)
Perle, Walter Sjt (for P)
Percy, Henry Sjt Persay
Perle, Walter Sjt
Percy, Henry Sjt Persay
Perle, Walter
Wychyngham, William de JCP Wichingham
Percy, Henry Sjt Persay
Fyncheden, William de CJCP FInchden
Percy, Henry Sjt Persay
Percy, Henry Sjt Persay |
|
|
|
|
Fitzherbert Wast 92
Brooke Waste 47
Statham Waste 19 |
|
|
| Wast fuit port des tenements ex assignatione. @ Persay, Que aves vous del assignement. @ Perle, Avant |
19 |
| Waste was brought of tenements (Latin begins) by assignment (Latin ends). The defendant asked the plaintiff what he had of the assignment. The plaintiff showed before how one was seised, and leased to another for a certain term of years, and during the term, with the assent of the termor, he came to the tenements, and the lessor enfeoffed the plaintiff, saving the term. The defendant said, now judgment of the count, because he had counted of a grant of reversion, and he himself showed that he did not have any grant, but livery of seisin. And then he passed over willingly, and demanded judgment of the writ, for this that he supposed by his count that the defendant had committed waste, and that his term was ended, and his writ was 'tenet' (he holds), where it should be 'tenuit' (he held). The plaintiff said that this was a judicial writ, and his original writ was good enough, (Latin begins) and so it was looked at (Latin ends), and then the writ was 'tenuerunt' (they held). The defendant said, judgment of the writ, because the husband never had anything in the tenements, so the writ supposed a falsehood, that they 'tenuerunt' (they held). The plaintiff said that this was a writ of trespass in its nature (category), so the writ was maintainable against the husband and the wife. Wychyngham JCP told the plaintiff to look to (Regardes) his writ, because it was 'tenet' in this writ that was before them. The defendant said that still it was bad. Fyncheden CJCP said that if land were given to a woman for the term of her life, and she leased her estate over, and took a husband, the writ would say 'tenent' (they hold). The defendant said that it could well be there, because she could not have freehold if the husband did not, but in case land were leased to a woman for the term of the life of another, and he died, and the woman took a husband, a writ of Waste would be of tenements that (Latin begins) she held, so here (Latin ends). And it was said by the defendant that if a woman had a term, and before the term ended, she took a husband, and waste were committed in the husband's time, that a writ was maintainable against her after the death of the woman's husband, and this was for the occupation of the time, (Latin begins) but not so here etc. (Latin ends). |
|
