tested. Milbank v. Joliff, court of pleas at Durham, 23d June, 12 G. 3. 2 Bos. & Pull. 580, n. 36. The court refused to amend a fine passed two years back, by alter- 42. 37. If one of the deeds to lead 358. court, the transcript only being sent 95. A judgment had been entered up, upon a warrant of attorney, and the same was regularly signed and docketed, but by negligence of the attorney, the plea of the defendant was not signed by him, nor was the name of the defendant's attoruey inserted in the record, The plaintiff was allowed to amend the record, nunc pro tunc, by inserting the name of the defendant's attorney, though a subsequent judgment had been entered up against the defendant, on which a preference was claimed. Close v. Gillespey. Johns. Rep. 526. 3 43. After error brought, the court allowed the plaintiff to enter a remittetur of surplus damages, beyond what was laid in the declaration. 2 Dallas, 184. 1. 2. 3. 39. On error coram vobis, an amend- 41. After an assignment of errors, and 6. AMERCEMENT. Amercement may be general, quod sit in misericordia, and assevêred to a certain sum. Brook v. Hulster. 1 Salk. 56. Defendant may be amerced twice in the same action, where there are two final independent judgments. Lord Gerrard v. Lady Gerrard. 1 Salk. 54. 1 L. Raym. 72. Any amercement of a freeholder must be affected by freeholders of the manor, or debt will not lie for it. Baldwin v. Tudge. 2 Wilson, 20. Where a nolle prosequi is entered the plaintiff need not be amerced. Davies v. Hoyle. 1 Str. 574. No judgment entered pro fine in trespass in B. R. since statute 5 and 6 William 3. Lindsay v. Clerk. 1 Salk. 54. Issues never estreated by special rule, unless in extraordinary cases. The King v. The Mayor of Hertford. 1 Salk. 55. 7. Estreats discharged upon motion in the Exchequer. Eyres v. Smith. 1. Salk, 54. 8. Avowry for an amercement in replevin ill, because the amercement was by the jury and not by the Court. Stevens v. Haughton. 2 Str. 817. (See Wood v. Lovatt, 6 Term Rep. 511.) Ancient Demesne and Offices. 1. Tenants in ancient demesne are 43. 3. In ejectment plea of ancient demesne was allowed to be well, without an affidavit to verify the fact, and such plea had been before allowed to be good in Earl Coningesby's case. Goodright v. Shuffill. 2 L. Raym. 1418. Sed Qu. 4. Ancient demesne may be pleaded in ejectment, by leave of the court, and upon a proper affidavit. Where the lands are holden of a manor, the affidavit should state that the manor is holden in ancient demesne. Doe ex dimiss. Rust v. Roe. 2 Burr. 1046. 5. If manor is ancient demesne lands held of the manor, impleadable in the Lords' court only; parcel in the King's court and not the Lords'. Baker v. Wich. 1 Salk. 56. 3 Salk. 34. 6. The plaintiff in her replication pleaded ancient demesne, and needed not set forth that title. Savery v. Smith. 3 Salk. 36. 7. Bishops may grant ancient offices with the ancient fees, as they have 3. III. Forfeiture of. IV. Registry; what annuities must be registered, and when. V. Memorial for registering; Requisites of. VI. Relief; mode of granting by the Courts. General Rules as to. The King cannot grant an annuity. Anonymous. 1 Salk. 58. If one covenants to pay an annuity to J. S. the covenanter shall not deduct for taxes, for the charge is on the person of the covenantor, and not on the land. So, if H. having a term for years, devises an annuity to J. S. and his heirs, there can be no deduction for taxes for the term for years is no otherwise chargeable with it than, as it is part of the personal estate, for it cannot be said to issue out of the term, when in point of duration it may continue much longer; so if H. grants an annuity to J. S. and afterwards secures it out of a real estate, there shall be no deduction for taxes; for the subsequent security cannot lessen the effect of his former grant, which in its creation was tax-free. Robinson v. Stephens. In Chanc. 2 Salk. 616. Annuity granted out of lands lying in Middlesex: A. hath notice of this grant, and then purchases the inheritance of the lands; the grantee shall have his annuity against A. though his grant was not registered. Cheval v. Nichols. Exchequer. 1 Str. 664. 6. A devise to the testator's wife of an annuity" during her widow-hood and life," was held to cease upon her second marriage, by the testator's intention: but it was further held, that such intention being in terrorem and against the policy of the law, as in restraint of marriage, it could not take effect; and that the widow was entitled to her annuity during her life, notwithstanding her second marriage, the same not being expressly devised over, exeept to the residuary legatee, who was the heir at law to the testator. Parsons et ux. v. Winslow. 6 Mass. 169. 3. secure an annuity, the warrant of attorney need not express the consideration, if the bond do. Hodges v. Money. 4 Term Rep. 500. Where 1200l. had been paid for the grant of an annuity, and the securities to prevent their being registered had been renewed, from 20 days to 20 days, and then 600l. had been paid for the grant of a further annuity, and the securities renewed in like manner, and sometimes after a longer period than 20 days, and afterwards had been registered; a memorial of the annuity, stating the consideration to be 1800l. was deemed valid. Symmons v. Mortimer. 5 Term Rep. 139. 4. So where the consideration of an annuity was stated in the memorial to be 640l., 105l. of which was paid in money by the grantee to the grantors at the time, and the remaining 535l. was paid by the grantee at the desire of the grantors to another person, to redeem a former annuity granted by them, for which only 480l. was paid, this was held a sufficient consideration within the act. Ex-parte Fallon and Wife. 5 Term Rep. 283. 5. A solicitor, who advances his own money on the purchase of an annuity, is not entitled to any commission fee and if any part of the consideration money be returned to him by the grantor, as a charge for such commission, the court will set aside the annuity deeds. Broomhead v. Eyre. 5 Term Rep. 597. 6. Money lent and paid at different times, for the education and advancement of the defendant, is a good consideration under s. 3 of the act. Kelfe v. Ambrosse. 7 Term Rep. 551. 7. Such a consideration is sufficiently expressed, in the deeds for securing the annuity, under the description of" money lent and advanced, and also paid, laid out, and expended, to and for the maintenance, ed ucation, and advancement in the Callaghan v. Ingilby. 9 East, world, of the defendant." 8. The annuity act. 17 G. 3, c. 26, 135. void. 1. An annuity deed, and every deed, &c. by which an annuity is secured, is absolutely void, and not merely voidable, if the memorial be not registered according to the directions of the act. Crossley v. Arkwright. 2 Term Rep. 603; and a creditor of the grantor may take advantage of it. 5 Term Rep. 9. 2. 3. 6 If several deeds be given to secure an annuity, and one of them be not properly registered, quære if all of them be not void by the annuity act? Hart v. Lovelace. Term Rep. 471. See Hopkins v. Waller, 4 Term Rep. 463, that a memorial of a warrant of attorney must be registered, and Lord Kenyon's opinion there. But see exparte Chester, 4 Term Rep. 694, post V, VI, and 1 Bos. & Pull. 66, n. as appears from the whole purview II. Deeds granting; in what cases of it, is confined, throughout, to annuities granted upon pecuniary consideration though the first clause, in the terms of it, requires a memorial of every annuity bond, &c. to be inrolled. It is not enough, therefore, for the defendant to plead generally to an action on a bond conditioned for the payment of an annuity, the consideration whereof does not appear upon the face of the bond, or condition set forth upon oyer, that it was sealed and delivered after the passing of the act, and that no memorial of it was inrolled; without shewing that the consideration was pecuniary; but such general plea is bad on demurrer. Horn, executrix of Horn, v. Horn and another. 7 East, 529. 9. Where the memorial of a bond conditioned to secure an annuity, recited in the condition on indenture between the parties, and a part of the same assurance, which stated the annuity to be granted," for the price of 1800l. which said sum of 1800l. was paid by the grantee to the grantors by his draft on R. and Co. his bankers, at or before the sealing and delivery of the said indenture and bond," and the memorial of the said indenture stated that the indenture witnessed that, ❝ in consideration of 1800l. to the grantors in hand paid by the grantee, and which was paid to them by his draft on R. and Co. his bankers, &c. the payment and receipt of which said 1800l. the grantors did thereby acknowledge," the annuity was granted: this does sufficiently import, that the consideration money was actually received by the grantors, through the medium of the draft, before the execution of the deeds granting the annuity; so as to dispense with the necessity of setting out in the memorial the particulars of such draft with the time of payment. 0' 4. If the memorial of a deed to secure an annuity be defective, the whole deed is void to all intents, even though there are other parts of it not connected with the annuity. Denn d. Dolman v. Dolman. 5 Term Rep. 641. Where a person, against whom a writ of fi fa. is taken out, is in possession of goods under a deed which was given in consideration of an antecedent debt, and a small annuity payable therefrom, the sheriff is warranted in returning nulla bona if the memorial of the annuity be not registered. 2 Term Rep. 603. 5. The memorial stated a deed poll, by which (after reciting that A. had formerly granted an annuity of 241. to B., who had assigned to C., and that A. had agreed to grant a forther annuity to of 71. to C. for 42.) certain tithes, &c. were assigned by A. to C.; and also a bond by A. to C. in 4007.; for securing one annuity of 31." without reference to the deed poll: held that the consideration for the annuity secured by the bond should have been stated, and that for want of it the bond was void; the annuity mentioned in it not appearing to be the same annuity as that secured by the deed poll. Saunders v. Hardinge. 5 Term Rep. 9. 6. If it be set forth in the memorial that the consideration was so much in money paid, when the real consideration was part in money and the giving up of a former annuity, the court will set aside the securities. Wasburn v. Birch. 5 Term Rep. 472. 2. be registered. Crespigny v. Wittenoom. 4 Term Rep. 790. Those annuities only, which are granted in consideration of something paid, need be registered. 4 Term Rep. 792. 3. An annuity granted in consideration of the grantee resigning his situation, as master of an academy, in favour of the grantor, need not be registered, even though at the time of the grant the grantee agreed to assign over to the grantor his household furniture, &c. at an appraised value, and to lend a sum of money to the grantor to be repaid with interest. Hutton v. Lewis. 5 Term Rep. 639. 7. So if part of the consideration be paid over by the grantee to a third 4. person, with the consent of the grantor, or is accounted for to the grantor by a note from a third person, and it is stated in the memorial that the whole consideration was paid in money, the court will set aside the annuity deeds. Watts v. Millard. 5 Term Rep. 598. 8. It is no objection to a deed securing an annuity, that it assigns the "salary of the grantor of so much per ann." without saying what salary it is. 5 Term Rep. 598. III. Forefeiture of. 1. A. by will gave an annuity to B., directing that B.'s receipt only should be a discharge for it, that B. should not alienate, and that if he did, it should cease and determine; B. became a bankrupt, and his commissioners assigned the annuity with his other effects to the assignees; it was held that the annuity ceased. Dommett v. Bedford. 6 Term Rep. 684. IV. Registry; what annuities must be registered, and when. 1. If annuity be granted in consideration of the grantee's giving up his business to the grantor, it need not 12 An annuity secured on lands in fee of equal annual value need not be registered, though it were also secured upon leasehold property. Ex parte Michell. 2 East, 137. 5. A. who was tenant for life, with remainder to trustees, &c. remainder to his first and other sons in tail, remainder to himself in fee, suffered a recovery with B. his only son, and declared the uses to such person, and for such estate, &c. as they should jointly appoint; they jointly granted an annuity, and appointed and granted the lands to C. for a term of years in trust for the grantee: held that this case: came within the exception of the act. Halsey v. Hales, Bart. Term Rep. 194. 6. 7. 7 The 8th sect. of the act, which excepts annuities secured by the transfer of stock, only extends to those cases where an actual transfer of the stock is made for the purpose of securing the annuity. 6 Term Rep. 596. Therefore, if A., who is entitled for life to the dividends in certain stock standing in the names of trustees, grant an annuity to B. payable out of the dividends, and empower those trustees to pay B. the annuity must be registered., Hudson v. Skinner. 6 Term Rep. 596. 8. Au aunuity granted by A. to B2 |