King ; And the King indorfed the Petition, and fent it to the Chancellor to
do Right and Law; And he wrote to the Exchequer to fearch in the
Treafury among the Charters of J.S. if they found any thing of this
Matter ; who certified, That they found Nothing. Br. Search pur le
Roy, pi. 2. cites 24 E. 3.
5. Warranty was pleaded againfi the King from his Ancejlor, whofeHeir
he is, and Ajfets dejeended in Fee Simple to bar him of a R ever/ion after the
Death of his Tenant in Tail. In this Cafe Search was granted, which
found Land defcended in Fee as above ; and thereupon the King was
barr'd. Br. Serche pur Sec pi. 5. cites 45 Aff. 6.
6. Search fhall not be made for the King, unlefs where a Man ought to Staunf De
fue to the King by Petition. Fitz.h. Tit. Petuion, pi. 6. cites 7 H. 5. Per P r *»"°g- Re-
Skrene in Chancery. ?' s 'f'
2 2. cites
S. C. S. P. Eutitftiall lie as well where Petition is fufd in Parliament, as elfewhere, and tl.o the
King Las granted the Lands over. Fin. Law. 7 7 . b.
4 F 7. Suit
294 Search for the King.
fcote* That 7 . Suit was made to the King by Petition, fuppofing that the King had.
>i every Pe- m fa t j e i l(t ty t he Forfeiture of W. N. whereupon 6c ire facias was awarded
xuion where , lf! a t f, e King's Patentee, and the Matter was long delayed by Aid
l h \tT,ie' U Prayer, and the Plaintiff prav'd a Procedendo, and the Patentee pray'd
E3l?» Search tor the King. And "by 5, He ihall not have Search; for the
another, a Sedrrb is only for ajfuring the King of his Title and Right, whereas in this
&*« fatiat Q r the r &me IS conta ined in the Petition, and therefore he needs not any
'Z J " Search • for if he has other Title, the Search will. not avail the Plain-
dgninfi the tiff: But 4 others held contra, and that where the King is by Way tfjt-
Patentie, Uo}1 or J) m and, as in Formedon &C. Search dos enot he > tor the Kingihall
^Vt " not mike other Title than what is comprised in the Writ and Declara-
KrcaTra- tion ; but otherivifc here, becaufe the Petition is the Mien of the Party
vcric or arainji the King, and the King is by Way of Defence ; and therefore it may
Monih-ans fi t jf at t fo %,„<, fc as ot b er fftk, as by Rchafe after ike. and therefore he
de Droit is fl^ijhave Search. Quaere ; for it is not adjudged. Br. Serche pur &c.
tendered, . _ ^~
whichPa- pi. 6. cites 16 E. 4. 6.
ha^iot the whole Fce-fimple, but that there is a Reverfon in the King, or that the King it bound to War,
rann when he appears upon the Scire facias, he may pray a Writ of Search to he awarded into the
Treafury, to fcarch what they can find for the King's Title, as appears in H. 9. E. 4. fo. 5> whcM
Sottle rays Th it every Petition tnufl make Mentionof all the Kings 'Title; for if ft he found by the Writ
of Search that am he omitted, the Petition frail abate, and the Reafon of it is, hecauje if on this Suit of
Petition the King takes Ijfue with the Party which is found againfc him, his Highnefs then frail he om-
cludedtor ever to claim by any of the Points contained in the f aid Petition} and herewith agrees the Book T.
16. E. 4. f. 6. Staunf. Dc Prarrog. Regis jj.b. cap. 22.
8. If the King be not intitled by any Matter of Record, but without any
Titie enters into my Land, whereby I fue unto his Highnefs by Petition}
in this Cafe no Search ihall be granted, becaufe no Title can be in-
tended for the King in fuch Cafe. Staunf. de Prserog. Regis 74. a. cap.
22 cites T. 16E. 4. 6.
' 9. It was found by Office, That the Duke of E. was feifed of the Ma-
nor ofE. and that the King is his Heir, and came the Pari of L. and made
Petition to the King, becaufe the Duke dijfeiid him, and Proccfs continued
till he had Reflitution, and after he gave it to E. in Tail. And afterwards
by another Office it was found, That the Duke of E. died feifed of 40
Acres of Land, 20 Acres of Meadow, and 10 s. Rent in E. P. and T. where-
upon the King feifed, and granted it to M. And came the fud E. Donee
in Tail zndjhew'd all the former Matter, and faid that the Land, Mea-
dow, and Rent is Parcel of the Manor whereof Reflitution was made, and
-pray'd R.eJlitution j and thereupon Scire facias ijfucd againfi the Patentee,
who came and prayed Writ of Search &c. Sotell faid, that Search ought
to be granted to inform the King of his Title, and that the Statute
which gives Travers where none was at Common Law but Petition,
does not take away the Search, which was upon Petition at the Common
t, Law, but in Action Perfonal, As in * Trefpafs, the Defendant faid the
F&h ' T King leafed to him for rears, and pray'd Aid of the King, there he pall not
clearly, have Search ; for if it be found againlt the King after Procedendo, the
quodnonne- K j n g fl u u lofe nothing, becaufe after the Term ended he may enter ;
gatur. Br. Buf w here an Incumbent, who is in of the Prestation of the King, has Aid of
&c p1 P t Ur the King, he Ihall have Search. Brian faid, That Search ihall not be grant-
cites i- H. ed but where the Kings Title is by Matter of Record, whereof it may be m-
8. 28. — tended that Record may be found in the Treafury to maintain it ; but
S. P. Fin: that hcre the Mattcr j s u p 0tt Matter in Fad, viz. Whether the Land loft,
•/• a - an(i ReBti he p anel j the Manor ^ or not ? whereof nothing can be in the
Treafury to fpecity it &c. And that if the 2d Office had been as the ifl
was of the Manor, fo that it might be intended one and the fame Thing,
there upon the Monllrans de Droit the Tenant Party fliall have Relbtu-
tion without Search; for the Right was found before, and therefore
+ S P Fin fl>all not be tried again ; and if it be found that t }. S. held of the King,
Lw ;;. ' and died without Heir, and that the King is Lord, there it I fay that he
had
__ . I ...
Search for the King*. 295
■— ■. ■■— — ' ■- — ■■" ~ »
had Heir VV r : who enter'd and inieorPd me, abfque hoc that he died
without Heir, there no Search iliall be, Catifa qua lupra ; but if I make
little, as above, and traverfe the Tenure, there Search ihall be granted ;
for as to the tenure, Record may be in the Treafury &c. Catesby faid,
That Search may be granted upon Matter in Fad ; for where the King is
intitled by Attainder ; and it is allegd that the Party attaint had nothing in
the Land at the Tune oi' the Attainder, yet Search ihall be granted, not-
withltanding this is but Matter in FacL And in Fonncdon, a Man fays
that the King granted him a Manor, whereof the Land is Parcel, (or his
Life, and pray'd Aid, he ihall have Search. Billing agreed the Cafe of
the Attainder, becauie the Title oi the King is founded upon Matter of
Record and Matter in Fail. And it" the King feifcd of Land in Jure Co-
rona grants it for Life, in this Cafe if the Tenant has Aid by Reafon of
the Reveriion, Search ihall be grafted ; for the King may have Evi-
dence thereof in his Treafury : But where the King has Reverftonby Pur-
•chafe, and the Tenant has Aid, there Search ihall not be granted ; and
he laid he faw 2 Judgments according to this Diveriity; and in Petition
â– and Aid of the King tine King himfelf is Party, but in this Suit againfi
Patentee, the Patentee only is Party. Pigot faid, That where it can be
intended that no Matter can be in the Treafury, and this upon Title by Mat-
ter in FaU, no Search Jhall be granted ; but contra upon Title by Matter in
FatJ, where it may be intended that there is Evidence in the Treafury of it ;
and agreed the Cafe of the F.fcheat, that no Search iliall be ; and the
fame Law, that no Matter can be there to prove that J. S. * aliened in % s. P. Fin,
Mortmain : But upon Tenure Search ihall be granted ; and in the Prin- La# 77>
icipal Cafe it might be that the Land was fever'd irom the Manor bv
Deed, and thereiore Search is rcquilite ; and it might be that it was
tried by Recovery, that it was not Parcel, which Record remains in
the Treafury ; and thereiore becaufe the Patentee cannot have Aid of
the King, it is Reafon that he have Search : And per Pigot, He pall
not be coinpelfd to plead firfi, and pray Search after, but pall have Search
Jtrjf. Spilman faid, That upon Petition Search is due and uiual ; but
contrary upon Monitrans de Droit, as here ; 8c Jic adjornatur : Ideo
• quaere. But the belt Opinion feems to be, that he fhall not have Search.
Br. Serche pur Sic. pi. 3. cites 9 E. 4. 51.
10. In Affife of an Office, where the Defendant pray'd Aid of the King
by Patent of the KiDg of the Office, by the Words Concefjimus , he ihall
have Aid of the King, by the Words of the Statute De Bigamis [4 E.
it. cap. r. &c] but ihall not have Search. Br. Serche pur &c. pi. 4.
cites z H. 7. 7. a Nota by the Reporter ; quod non negatur.
11. In * Ejeclment, the Defendant Leilee lor Years pray'd Aid of*s. P. Fin
the Queen, becauie the Reveriion came to her by the Attainder of the Law 77. a -
Leffor, and the Aid was granted. And in Chancery he pray'd Search
for him and the Queen; and after hearing the Counfel, the Juftices
were of Opinion that no Search was to be granted, becaufe no Damage
would accrue to the Ghteen, tho' the Plaintiff fhould recover i belides, it is
Hot grant able in any AcJton but in Petition of Right &c. viz. where one as
Adverfary to the Title of the 6ftiecn,impleads her, and her Title is not known.
And cites the Statute 14 E. 3. cap. 13. And no Precedent was ever
known that Search was ever granted upon fuch Aid Prayer. D. 320. a.
pi. 18. Mich. 14 & ij Eliz. Grey v. Baude Leiiee of the late Earl of
Northumberland.
For more of Search for the King in general, fee 3i0 Of tf)C fitftlff*
Prerogative, and other Proper Titles.
Scats
2
Scats in a Church.
(A) Actions and Pleadings.
1 rjnRefpafs Quare Vi & Armis Sedulamfuam [regit & afartavit ; the
Defendant faid that the Seat was in the Church or D, of which
7 Kwas Parfon, and he by his Command &c. Elliot faid this is no Plea;
for Seat is a Chattle, and not Parcel of the Franktenement ; But Butler
contra 3 for it is fix'd to the Franktenement, therefore Parcel, as Fur-
nace fix'd &c. Per Fairfax, Neither Furnace nor Facts are Parcel, nor
Booths in a Fair, nor Tables dormant. Per Huliey , It forms that Seats
in a Church is a Spiritual Matter, and mall be ordered by the Ordmary,
and every one may remove the Seat lor their Eafe, it he &c had had it
there by Preicription. Br. Chatties, pi. 11. cites 8 H. 7. â„¢-
Brid* 4 2 In Cafe, the Plaintiff declared that he was feifed 0] a Capital Me f-
Da.tiecv. r m ' Qut did »tf fay an Ancient Me£uage) and ol Lands in P. occu-
De
i a v CCO and r fu and yet is within the Parifh-Church oi P. a Utile Chapel on the North-hde
I'judjS of the Chancel, called the Par/on' s Chancel, Parcel ol the faid Church,
agreid fhat ani that tht plaintiff and all thofe whole Eft ate &C have tifed to repair
the Pica in h m Chanal mA the Se: , ts therein, and to have Seats there, arid to bury
B *\ waS r U ffi the Per Cons dyint in the faid Mejfuage, and that no other haveufedtoftt or
53 ;tf tlriedthte without tlar Leat ; and that the Defendant PnemHiorum
one cannot non ignarus, maliciouflv hindered him to fit there &c trorn 5 July
havc tl J? t &c The Defendant pleaded that the Earl of N. the atorefaid 5th of
F r, c !f°L Tul'v & temper poftea, was feifed in Fee of the Honour of P. andthatthe
l^' P Chapel Zshrcefofthefaid Honour; and that he the fa.d 5 July
thereof. AndV as Servant to the Earl, and reiident within the faid Honour, did
judgment f ^ b his Command. It was demurr'd to this Plea, ift, Becaufe it is
Hff a Roll" alleg'd to be Parcel of the Church, and if fo, then it cannot be Parcel
Rep tfo of the Honour, and fo the Subftance of the Declaration is not anfwered.
S. C. Hill. 2d lv Eecaufe the Declaration fuppoles a total Difturbance from , enter-
V J f BR - ing 'into and fitting in the laid Chancel, which is not anfwered by this
b u ut La*' Plea â– And the Court was of this Opinion. Then Exception was taken
bdng S\o S the Declaration, becaufe Plaintiff prefcribes to have that Liberty ap-
be^x&Ar- pertaining to his Houie, and did not lhew it to be an Ancient Houfe.
mis ' ^Tw" Sed non Allocatur. And the Court faid, That when it is fuppofed he is
tague CM. f c • { Ale Huage, and that Time out of Mind he had
a D nd d Ha d ugl [u ha Privilege appertaining therVo, it is therein included that it is an
tonl(C?oke Ancient Mefluage, and lo might have fuch a Privilege Another
I fetta Objection was, '1 hat the Allegation of the Difturbance ought to have
dead) held J , . . , fl â– h particularly; fed non Allocatur. And Sir
Sa^&&5vSS% the Jew Book ol Entries fol. 8. was cited as
Vi & Ar- J n eX prefe Precedent. Cro. J 604. pi. 33- Mich. 18 Jac. B. R. Daw-
ipisdoesnot Dee&al.
he ; and }
Mouotagoe er ^ for % Difturbance in the firft Cafe, as in hin-
Trtt P H
1 n tl rt-.s Fan- or Mill [whereby he lofes the Profits thereof . Vi & Arrnis
£ P but not n heVrinctpal Cafe ot a Liberty of fitting in fuch a Place, that : m the : firft Cafe Da-
™ B e and In uv re done &e Plaimifti but thaUre Damuge only « done the Plaintiff, but no In
. ....
Seats in a Church. 297
jury. But Haughton J. held, that even in this Cafe if an Injury was done to the Perfon, he may hav-
Action on the Cafe Vi & Armis ; and Mountague and Haughton held, that if one claim to have a Seat,
he may maintain T re I pals for breaking it ; but where he claims Liberty only to fit there (as the Principal
Cafe is) there he fhall have Action on the Cafe, but here Action of Trefpafs for the Breaking it : And
JDoderidge ('. held, that the Plaintiff having join'd 2 Actions, viz. Trefpafs for breaking the Seat, and
Cafe for locking up the Door ; the Count is therefore naught, and fo by the Opinion of the Court, the
Plaintiff paid Colls to the Defendant, and declared de novo. Palm 46. S. C Mich. 17 Jac. B R.
according to 2 Roll. Rep.
Nota, That IlTue was taken upon the Reparation of the Ifie ; fo that it feems the Action would not
otherwife lie. [This feems to be a Note of the Reporter.] 2 Roll. Rep. 140. at the End of the Cafe
Of Dawtrie v. Dee & al.
3. Cafe for disturbing him of a Scat in an Ijle of the Church, and pre- Raym. 52.
fenbed that he and all Tenants of fuch a Houfe, had all the Seats in the S ^ ^ n ^ r
faid Ille. Alter Verdict, it was mov'd in Arreit of Judgment, that he den ^ i( j
had tiot fhewn that he ought to repair it &c. Some would make a Dirfe-That he'had
rence between a Seat in a Church and in an Ille, becaufe an Ifle might conferr'd
be upon his own Soil ; and alter feveral Debates it was adjudged for the T th T n ^ oft of
Plaintiff upon this Difference^ viz,. That it is good in an Attion on the Cafe i n C tn js £afe •
againft a Dilturber; but not in a Prohibition^ or where he claims a Righted they are
againft the Ordinary ; but againlt a Trefpallbr or Tortfeafor, it is not ne- of Opinion
cellar}? to ihew a Title, by Repairing &c. Whereupon Judgment was â„¢ at l . he P e "
given for the Plaintiff Mich. 14 Car. 2. B. R. and affirm'd in Error in "^ enough
the Exchequer Chamber, Pafch. 16 Car. 2. Lev. 71. Bunton v. Bateman. without
fuch Alle-
gation of Repairing, this being in an Action of the Cafe ; but if it had been in a Prohibition, there
perhaps it had not been good : But when it is as to fuch Houfe belonging, it is Parcel of his Franktene-
ment , and then he does not fie there by the Licence of the Ordinary ; Windham and Mallet of the
fame Opinion, but Poller for the Defendant. But upon Perufal of the Record, it was net Tarty it am
Jlcffuagio pr
ufed to fit in the faid Seat &c. And upon this Windham and the other Judges laid. That they would
advife ; and upon that it was adjourned. .Sid. SS pi. 6. S. C. by Name of Buxton v. Bateman, and
there the Seat is mention'd to be in the Cloir of the Church ; and the Court faid, That it does not appear
whether it be in the Body of the Church, or not ; For if it be not, it does not belong to the Ordinary ;
and that an Ifle in a Church may be Parcel of my Houfe, or in Cafe I am Founder, may be allotted to
me in Lieu of Donation, and for Sepulture &c. And it might be that the Choir belong* to the Plain-
tiff, and might have been the Place where his Jvceflors fang Requiems for their Anceflors, in which Cafes ens
may -well intitle himfeif, without alleging any Reparation, and with which the Ordinary has nothing to do.
â– Sid. 201. pi. 25. S.C. Pafch. 16 Car. in the Exchequer Chamber, and refolved there that the Pre-
fcription being found by Verdict, all Things neceffary fhall be intended to make it good ; and therefore
they will intend that Evidence was then given of the Plaintiffs &c. repairing the faid Ifle; for other*
v/ife he cannot prefcribe ; And therefore if the Defendant had demurr'd to the Declaration, it had been,
ill for Want of alleging Reparation, and fo they did not wholly allow the Difference taken by the Juf-
t ices of B. R. between Cafe 'and Prohibition ; but Hale Ch. B. upon the firft Argument inclined that
there was Difference between Allion upon the Cafe, as above, between 2 Strangers, and luch Action
againft the Patron, to whom of Right the Soil belongs, or Prohibition to the Spiritual Court, to which
the Decifion of fuch Cafes (without Spiritual Title made) of Right belongs.
In Cafe the Plaintiff declared that he was feifed oj a Meffuage, and prefcribed to have all the Seats and
fole Burial in an Ifle of the Church, and that the Defendant diflurb'd him ; after a Verdict for the Plain-
tiff, it w'as mov'd in Arreft of Judgment, that Plaintiff not having prefcrihed in repairing the Ifle, there is
ho Confideration for his Propriety ; but upon Confideration of the Cafe of S3urt0n fci» BJatCmflll, it was
adjudged for the Plaintiff by the whole Court. 3 Lev. 75. Mich. 34 Car. 2. B. R. Afhly v.
Freckleton.
If vou would prefcribe to a Right again [I the Ordinary, you mndjljew a Ufage to repair the Seat ; but in
an Action on the Cafe for Diftnrbance, you need only lay PoffeJJion again)} any other Difturber; and of
Common Right the Difpofal of Seats in a Parochial Church belongs to the Ordinary. 12 Mod. 233.
Mich. 10 W. 3. in Cafe of Jacob v, Dallow.
4. In Trefpafs for Breaking his Seat in the Church, the Cafe was, That
the Plaintiff had an Antient Melfuage in the Pariih of A. and fo pre-
fcribes to have a Seat in an ljle of the Parifh Church of B. &cc. After a
Verdict for the Plaintiff, it was mov'd in Arreit of Judgment, and faid
by the Court, That though it may be a Doubt whether a Man may pre-
fcribe to have aSeat in Nave Ecclefus of another Parifh, yet fuch a Pre-
fcription to have a Seat in an Ille there is good, becaufe it might be
that he erected it, and ought to repair it. Sid. 361. pi. 4. Palch. 20
Car. 2. B. R. Barrow v. Keen.
4G 5. In
2 9 3
Securities.
5. In Cafe lor a Seat in a Parifh Church by Prefcription, as appen-
dant to a Houfe, without alleging any Reparations, the Defendant plead-
ed Prefcription in him and his Anceftors, with Traverfe of the Prefcrip-
tion alhg'd by the Plaintiffs but the Court held the Traverfe impertinent,
and theCafe rcils wholly upon the Disturbance ; and after Verdict f udg-
ment was given for the Plaintiff, Per tot. Cur. And the Difference taken
between Prohibition and Attion, in the Cafe of 'BUttOrt ft. ISctfcet, was
cited, and agreed to have been adjudg'd upon this Difference. 2 Jo. 3,
4. Intratur. Trin. 23 Car. 2. C. B. Bradbury v. Birch.
6. In Cafe Plaintiff declared that be was feifed in Fee of a Meffuage, and
that he and all tbofe whofe EJlate he had therein, have a Seat in the
Church, and as often as Occafion was; had repaired it ; and that the De-
fendant difturb'd him. Alter Verdict for the Plaintiff, it was mov'd
that the Declaration was ill, becaufe the Plaintiffdid not frefcribe Time out
of Mind. Per Cur. It is alleg'd that he was feifed in Fee &c. and that
he and all thofe whole Estate he had, have had the Seat Time out of
Mind &c. and then by Coniequence he and all thole whofe Eftate he
has, have Time out of Mind &c. had the Seat, efpecially as this AtJioii
is founded upon his Poffeffion, and the Dijturbance made to him. 2 Lev.
193. Pafch. 29 Car. 2. B. R. Merchant v. Whitepane.
For more of Seats in a Church in general, fee 13fCl}itH'ti0U, and
other Proper Titles.
Securities.
'â– A
(A) Security, h what Cafes to be given.
Lcafe was devifed to one for Life, with feveral Remainders over to
others ; the firfl Devifee was compell'd to enter into Bond to la it
go according to the Devife ; but if it were lor a perpetual Chattel, the
Court would not have done it. Toth. 187. cites 26 Eliz. Price v. Jones.
Where the 2. Executors not compell'd in Equity to put in Bond to perform Will,
Defendant's or anfwer Legacies, unlefs it appear that they have either broken the
tta PiVmiF ^ ra fl m chcm re P°^ ed b y tlie Teftator, or be decaf d //nee his Death ; for
1000/. to be at his Death it teemed he trusted them without Bond. Toth. 150. cites
paid at the 32 Eliz.. Brown v. Purton.
Age of 21
Tears, the Plaintirl by Bill fuggclted the Defendant wafted the EJlate, and pray'd he might give Secu-
rity to pay this Legacy when due ; and the Matter of the Rolls did accordingly decree the Defendant
to give Security Chan Cafes 121. Hill. 20 & 21 Car. 2. in Cane. Duncumban v. Stint.
Where an Annuity of 20 I. was deviled out of the Perfonal Eltate, and the Executor had faid rafhly
that he would goto Gaol, and leave the Legatees unpaid, and the Annuity being 3 Years in Arrear, a
Bill was brought againll him, and pray'd that he might give Security ; and he having by his Anfwer
fubmitted it to the Court, it was ordered that a Sufficient Part of the Perioral Fila>- he fet apart, and
afTign'dto a Truftce for fecuring the Annuity. At the Rolls, Trir. 1 723. 2 Wm.'» Rep. 163. Batten v.
Earnlcy,
3. Exe-
11
Securities. 299
3. Executors were ordered to put in good Security to allow $ 1. per Cent. Contra i Car;
for Education, and to make good their Portions. Toth. 114. cites 44 Eliz. T ot , !l V/'
Barwick v. Barwick. otv ' ay "
4. A
cites ManleJl v. Auberv. Pafch. 7 Car. Springer v. Springet. Browne's wa s. dcc jeed
Cafe n Car â– togiveSecu-
^aie, 7 v>ar. rity tQ per _
form the
Truft fairly, there being Reafons of fufpecting him. Fin. R. 560. Trin. ;o Car. 2 Keeling v. Child.
• So of an Executor •Trujlee that is infolvent. Carth. 45S. the King v. Ray nes.
5. Goods and a Library to the Defendant, and after to the Defendant's
Daughter and her Hens Jor ever ; The Plaintiff married the Daughter,
who is lincedead ; fo as the Plaintiff, as Adminiitrator, feeks to compel
the Defendant to give Security to deliver the Goods to the Plaintiff afcer
the Defendant's Death, or the Value thereof This Court decreed the
lame accordingly, and a Commiliion is awarded to the Mailer to exa-
mine upon Oath fuch Witneiies as lhall be produced before him. 1 Chan.
Rep. no, in. 12 Car. 1. fo. 388. Bracken v. Bendy.
6. A. was to pay 300/. after his Deceafe to B. A. fold his Eftate,
B. preferr'd a Bill to ha\ e the Money fecured after A.'s Death. Decreed,
That it be reteined in the Purchafor's Hands, and to be paid as afore-
faid, and fhould be protected againit A. for the fame. N. Ch. R. 43.
17 Car. Martin v. Brocket.
7. A Guardian chofen by an Infant of 15 liars old was decreed to give
fuch Security as the Mailer lhall allow to be relponlible for fo much of
the Rents of the Real Eftate, and the whole of the Perfonal Eftate
which doch belong to her, or which he, or any other by his Direction,
lhall receive during her Minority, and until ihe is in a Capacity to re-
ceive the fame herfelf. Fin. Rep. 362. Trin. 30 Car. 2. How v. God-
frey.
8. A. covenanted on Marriage of his Daughter to pay 10,000/. within 6 s - C- c ' tet *
Months after his Death. The Court will not enforce A. to give Security, K r •
tho' urged. That he grew old and infirm, and would probably confound Wms's Rep*
his Subltance j Eor this would not be to execute an Agreement, but to 10;. Hill.
make a New One ; And it differs from the Cafe of Executors, becauie I 7°8 in the
they are in Nature of Truflees lor the Legatee j And there is no Agree- Care °p, Co1 "
ment between them one Way or other. Ch. Prec. 89. Hill. 1698. the mer ,
E. of Warrington v. Langham.
(B) Relief againjl them. In refpecl: of the Con-*
fideratlon.
OND in common Form for Payment of Money, but proved to