Co. Read.18. 14. This rule gave rise to a great number of suits 2 Inst. 322. by the maintenance of the nobility and great barons during the insurrections and civil wars which happened in the reign of Hen. III. Averments that there was no transmutation of possession were frequently made against fines; and were usually allowed in the two following cases. First, where a person seised in fee levied a fine to a stranger, sur cognizance de droit come ceo, &c. and the cognizee granted and rendered back the same lands to the cognizor in tail, or for years: and secondly, where a tenant in tail accepted a fine from a person who had nothing in the lands. In these cases the heirs of the cognizor who were prejudiced by such fine, were allowed to avoid them by an averment, that there was no transmutation of possession. 15. To remedy this inconvenience, a statute was made in 27 Edw. I. called the statute De finibus levatis, enacting that such averments should not thenceforth be admitted. 16. This statute also directed, that the note of every fine should be read in the Court of Common Pleas on two certain days in the week; and that during such reading, all pleas should cease. 17. It has been stated, that by the statute De modo levandi fines, all those who had any right to lands, whereof a fine was levied, were obliged to make their claim within a year and a day after the fine was passed; unless they laboured under some one of the disabilities specified in that act. And it was determined, that in the case of a tenant for life, remainder for life, remainder in fee, if the first tenant for life had aliened his estate, and the alienee had levied a fine, the remainder-man for life might enter, and avoid the fine, both as to himself, and as to the remainder-man in fee: but if the person next in remainder neglected to enter within the year and day, not only he, but also the remainder-man in fee, were for ever barred; and a claim by the remainder-man, within the year and day, would not have saved his right; by which means the estates of remainder-men and reversioners were frequently barred, by the neglect of the particular tenants. 18. This was certainly a very great grievance, and was so severely felt, that to remedy it the statute of nonclaim, 34 Edw. III. c. 16. was passed; enacting, "that the plea of nonclaim of fines, which from thenceforth should be levied, should not be taken nor holden for any bar in time to come." 19. This statute was made in consequence of a petition from the Commons, which is published in the Rolls of Parliament, 17 Edw. III. No. 26.—Item que Vol. 2. 142. noncleyme des fines levees sur le rendre en temps a venir ne barre nul home de sa action. To which the King answered-It plest au Roi q'desore cest chose soit fait, et q'estatut ent soit fait p'avis des grantz et autres de son conseil. 20. The efficacy of fines was entirely destroyed by this statute; and strangers were thereby allowed to claim lands at any indefinite period of time, after a fine had been levied of them; which must have been productive of very great inconveniences. 21. The statute of nonclaim is still in force with respect to fines that are levied without proclamations. And although such fines are no bar to the issue in tail, yet when levied by a tenant in tail in possession, they operate as a discontinuance, and of course put the remainder-men or reversioner to their formeVOL. V. N Tit. 2.c.2.46. Co. Read.18. 14. This rule gave rise to a great number of suits 2 Inst. 322. by the maintenance of the nobility and great barons during the insurrections and civil wars which happened in the reign of Hen. III. Averments that there was no transmutation of possession were frequently made against fines; and were usually allowed in the two following cases. First, where a person seised in fee levied a fine to a stranger, sur cognizance de droit come ceo, &c. and the cognizee granted and rendered back the same lands to the cognizor in tail, or for years and secondly, where a tenant in tail accepted a fine from a person who had nothing in the lands. In these cases the heirs of the cognizor who were prejudiced by such fine, were allowed to avoid them by an averment, that there was no transmutation of possession. 15. To remedy this inconvenience, a statute was made in 27 Edw. I. called the statute De finibus levatis, enacting that such averments should not thenceforth be admitted. 16. This statute also directed, that the note of every fine should be read in the Court of Common Pleas on two certain days in the week; and that during such reading, all pleas should cease. 17. It has been stated, that by the statute De modo levandi fines, all those who had any right to lands, whereof a fine was levied, were obliged to make their claim within a year and a day after the fine was passed; unless they laboured under some one of the disabilities specified in that act. And it was determined, that in the case of a tenant for life, remainder for life, remainder in fee, if the first tenant for life had aliened his estate, and the alienee had levied a fine, the remainder-man for life might enter, and avoid the fine, both as to himself, and as to the remainder-man in fee: but if the person next in remainder neglected to enter within the year and day, not only he, but also the remainder-man in fee, were for ever barred; and a claim by the remainder-man, within the year and day, would not have saved his right; by which means the estates of remainder-men and reversioners were frequently barred, by the neglect of the particular tenants. 18. This was certainly a very great grievance, and was so severely felt, that to remedy it the statute of nonclaim, 34 Edw. III. c. 16. was passed; enacting, "that the plea of nonclaim of fines, which from thenceforth should be levied, should not be taken nor holden for any bar in time to come." 19. This statute was made in consequence of a petition from the Commons, which is published in the Rolls of Parliament, 17 Edw. III. No. 26.-Item que Vol. 2. 142. noncleyme des fines levees sur le rendre en temps a venir ne barre nul home de sa action. To which the King answered-It plest au Roi q'desore cest chose soit fait, et q'estatut ent soit fait p'avis des grantz et autres de son conseil. 20. The efficacy of fines was entirely destroyed by this statute; and strangers were thereby allowed to claim lands at any indefinite period of time, after a fine had been levied of them; which must have been productive of very great inconveniences. 21. The statute of nonclaim is still in force with respect to fines that are levied without proclamations. And although such fines are no bar to the issue in tail, yet when levied by a tenant in tail in possession, they operate as a discontinuance, and of course put the remainder-men or reversioner to their formeVOL. V. N Tit. 2.c.2.§6. |