discontinuance, doth inclusively undo this new reversion in fee, and the rent thereunto annexed.

But whether this rule may take place where the matter of the plea is not to be avoided in the same suit, but in another suit, is doubtful and I rather take the law to be, that this rule doth extend to such cases, where otherwise the party were at a mischief, in respect the exceptions and bars might be pleaded cross, either of them in the contrary suit, and so the party altogether prevented and intercepted to come by his right.1

So if a man be attainted by two several attainders, and there is error in them both, there is no reason but there should be a remedy open for the heir to reverse those attainders, being erroneous, as well if they be twenty as one. And therefore if, in the writ of error brought by the heir of one of them, the other attainder should be a plea peremptorily; and so again, in error brought of that other, the former should be a plea; this were to exclude him utterly of his right : and therefore it shall be a good replication, to say that he hath a writ of error depending of that also; and so the court shall proceed: but no judgment shall be given till both pleas be discussed; and if either plea be found without error, there shall be no reversal either of the one or of the other; and if he discontinue either writ, then shall it be no longer a

1 The Camb. MS. has: "This rule may be extended upon the general reason thereof; which is this: that when the law seeth that a man hath right, it will not prevent him of the means to recover it. And therefore though the exception be not comprehended in the same suit, but be out of it, yet, if there be remedy also to defeat that impediment by another suit, the law will not permit the party to be at a mischief, and [that] the exceptions should be pleaded cross either of them in the other suit."

plea. And so of several outlawries in a personal action.

And this seemeth to be more reasonable, than that generally an outlawry or an attainder should be no plea in a writ of error brought upon a diverse out7 H. 4. f. 39. lawry or attainder, as 7 H. IV. and 7 H. VI. seem to hold. For that is a remedy

pl. 4.

7. H. 6. f. 44. pl. 22.

too large for the mischief; for there is no reason, if any of the outlawries or attainders be indeed without error, but it should be a peremptory plea to the person in a writ of error, as well as in any other action.

But if a man levy a fine sur conusaunce de droit come ceo que il ad de son done, and suffer a recovery of the same lands, and there be error in them both; he cannot bring error first of the fine, because by the recovery his title of error is discharged and released in law inclusive: but he must begin with the [37 Eliz.] error upon the recovery, (which he may do, because a fine executed barreth no titles that accrue de puisne temps after the fine levied,) and so restore himself to his title of error upon the fine. But so

it is not in the former case of the attainder; for a writ of error to a former attainder is not given away by a second, except it be by express words of an act of parliament, but only it remaineth a plea to his person while he liveth, and to the conveyance of the heir after his death.

But if a man levy a fine where he hath nothing in the land, which inureth by way of conclusion only, and is executory against all purchases and new titles which

1 This last sentence and the whole of the following paragraph are omitted in the Camb. MS.

shall grow to the conusor afterwards, and he purchase the land, and suffer a recovery to the conusee, and in both fine and recovery there is error; this fine is Janus bifrons, and will look forwards to bar him of his writ of error brought of the recovery; and therefore it will come to the reason of the first case of the attainder, that he must reply that he hath a writ also depending of the same fine, and so demand judgment.1

Fitz. Tit. Age,

pl. 45.

To return to our first purpose: like law is it if tenant in tail of two acres make two several discontinuances to several persons for life rendering rent, and the issue after his death bringeth formedon of both, and in the formedon brought of white acre the reversion and rent reserved upon black acre is pleaded, and so contrary. I take it to be a good replication, that he hath formedon also upon that depending, whereunto the tenant hath pleaded the descent of the reversion of white acre; and so neither shall be a bar. 2 And yet there is no doubt but, if in a formedon the warranty of tenant in tail with assets be pleaded, it is no replication for the issue to say that a præcipe dependeth brought by I. S. to evict the assets. But the former case standeth upon the particular reason before mentioned.

1 In lieu of the two preceding paragraphs the Camb. MS. has: "But if a man levy many fines of the same lands and there be an error in them all, yet he cannot bring error of any save the last: because by his own later fines he gave away his title of error to the former fines inclusive. But when a man is attainted, his writ of error to a former attainder is not given away, but only it remaineth a plea to his person while he liveth, and to the conveyance of the heir after his death."

2 This is omitted, to the end, in Camb. MS.

REGULA III.

Verba fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem.

THIS rule, that a man's deeds and his words shall be taken strongliest against himself, though it be one of the most common grounds of the law, it is notwithstanding a rule drawn out of the depth of reason. For, first, it is a schoolmaster of wisdom and diligence in making men watchful in their own business; next, it is author of much quiet and certainty, and that in two sorts; first, because it favoureth acts and conveyances executed, taking them still beneficially for the grantees and possessors; and secondly, because it makes an end of many questions and doubts about construction of words; for if the labour were only to pick out the intention of the parties, every judge would have a several sense; whereas this rule doth give them a sway to take the law more certainly one way.

1 But this rule, as all others which are very general, is but a sound in the air, and cometh in sometimes to help and make up other reasons without any great instruction or direction, except it be duly conceived in point of difference, where it taketh place, and where not. And first we will examine it in grants; and then in pleadings.

The force of this rule is in three things: in ambiguity of words; in implication of matter; and in reducing and qualifying the exposition of such grants as were against the law, if they were taken according to their words.

2 R. 3. f. 18.

pl. 46

And, therefore, if I. S. submit himself to 27.29. arbitrement of all actions and suits between pl. &

1 Omitted in Camb. MS.

him and I. D. and I. N., it rests ambiguous whether this submission shall be intended collectivè of joint actions only, or distributive of several actions also: but because the words shall be strongliest taken against I. S. that speaks them, it shall be understood of both. For if I. S. had submitted himself to arbitrement of all actions and suits which he hath now depending, except it be such as are between him and I. D. and I. N., now it shall be understood collective only of joint actions: because in the other case large construction was hardest against him that speaks, and in this case strict construction is hardest.

1So if I grant ten pounds rent to baron 8 Ass. pl. 10. and feme, and if the baron die that the feme shall have three pounds rent; because these words rest ambiguous, whether I intend three pounds by way of increase or three pounds by way of restraint and abatement of the former rent of ten pounds, it shall be taken strongliest against me that am the grantor; that is, three pounds addition to the ten pounds. But if I had let lands to baron and feme for three lives reserving ten pounds per annum, and, if the baron die, reddendo three pounds; this shall be taken contrary to the former case, to abridge my rent only to three pounds.

pl. 1.

So if I demise omnes boscos meos in villa de 14 H. 8. f. 1. Dale for years; this passeth the soil: but if Dy. t. 9. I demise all my lands in Dale exceptis boscis; this extendeth to the trees only, and not to the soil.

1 The Camb. MS. omits this, and proceeds to give one example of cases of implication: "So in implications; if I. S. grant all his woods in such a close, it implies a liberty unto the grantee to come upon the ground and cut them down: but if I. S. lease the close excepting the woods, then himself shall have no such liberty, because he did not specially reserve it." And it omits the cases in the five following paragraphs.