bryan chamberlain case against goldsmith debt for obligation in debt upon a  obligation in which the under sheriff be bind to the sheriff for the  performance of diverse covenant contain in a indenture make between they for  the exercise of the say office and the plaintiff assign breach of covenant by  which the under sheriff have covenant that he will not execute any process of  execution without special warrant and assent of the sheriff himself and the  sole question be if this covenant be a good and lawful covenant or not and it  be argue by Hutton sergeant for the defendant that count that the sheriff be a  public officer and may execute the office by himself yet when he have make a  under sheriff he have absolute authority also and it be not like to private  authority but it be as if a man make a executor provide that he shall not aim  if iister his debt above the value of forty pound and as if ail obligation  with condition that if a obligor shall Brownlow goldsborough er p not keep the  obligee without damage for sour beef take in witbernam that the obligation  shall be void or as if a man take a obligation of his apprentice with  condition that be shall not use his trade within Brownlow goldsborough five  year or within ten mile of such a place or as a steward take a obligation of  another man with condition that he shall not sue in other place but where he  be steward or in the common bench this abridge the subject of his right and  that the under sheriff be a public officer and mention in many statute though  he shall not be a attorney the same year in which he be under sheriff and the  statute of h restrain the under sheriff that he shall not let any prisoner to  bail but in the same manner as be contain in the statute and further he say  that all obligation which have impossible condition be good and the condition  void but if the condition be against law the obligation and condition also be  void and so be conclude that the under sheriff be a public officer and that  his office can be apportion and that the condition be for perform a covenant  which be against law and void and so by consequence the obligation void and so  pray judgement or the defendant and for the plaintiff it be argue by Dodridge  sergeant of the king that the obligation be good and not void and he say that  there be two officer to all the court of the king which be to execute all writ  and that these officer be sheriff and bisbop and the law do not take any  notice of under sheriff or warden of spiritualties for the sheriff himself  shall be amerce and not the under sheriff which be but his substitute and it  appear by h b that all writ shall be direct to the coroner and by he ought to  be execute and h the sheriff be amerce for a arrest make by a bailiff of a  franchise and though that the warden of Westminster hall be a officer to the  king court to some purpose yet no writ shall be direct to he as it appear by  Edward also he agree that the power of the sheriff be double that be  ministerial and judicial and some time be exercise both together as in  redisseizin for of that he be judge and also be minister to the court of the  king and yet he be but one man for the law do not take any notice of under  sheriff nor intend that he shall supply any of these office for the under  sheriff be but servant to the sheriff and to execute his ministerial power  only and if it be so he may limit his authority at his pleasure and if the  sheriff make a false return or otherwise retard or make a uncertain return he  himself shall be punish by action for the law require knowledge and  intelligence of the sheriff and the ancient statute make in the old time make  mention of sergeant at mace and yet they make not any mention of under sheriff  which be but servant and he agree that a obligation take with condition  against law be void but he say that this be not against law for the under  sheriff be a person of who the court do not take any notice for he be but  servant of the sheriff and for this case and removable at Brownlow  goldsborough his pleasure and he may exercise his office by himself when he  please and also be argue that the authority which may be total countermand may  be countermand in part and that the under sheriff have draw off potestas and  always ankle be wicker basket To bring together and by h a man may make two  executor one for his good in Middlesex and the other to administer the good in  London and this be good between they but not against a stranger for he ought  to sue they both and he shall not be prejudice by that and so h brook executor  a man make two executor proviso that one shall not administer in the life of  the other and h feoff and letter of attorney to make livery to three or to any  of they livery can be make to two and also he say that there be no difference  between power derive from a private person and power derive from the public  when this power come to execution and admit that the sheriff may limit the  authority of his under sheriff for a time as it seem that he may then of this  it follow that he may always abridge and apportion his authority and he agree  that when a under sheriff be make diverse statute have be make to punish he if  he offend but the sheriff be not compellable to make a under sheriff and as to  the obligation that if a execution be deliver to the under sheriff against one  which be in his presence that he ought to execute it he say that the law be  not so for the party ought to deliver the execution to the sheriff himself for  it do not appear that he have a under sheriff if he have receive a writ of  discharge or not and also the office of the sheriff be of charge to the king  and to the common wealth and the execution of writ may be prejudicial and  penal to the sheriff himself and for that he may well provide that be shall  have notice of every execution which be most penal and also in all the  indenture now Brownlow goldsborough er p make he do not constitute he to be  his under sheriff but only for to execute the office and for these reason he  seem the obligation be good and demand judgement for the plaintiff but it seem  to all the cour that the covenant be void and so by consequence the obligation  as to the performance of that void but good to the performance of all other  covenant and coke chief justice say that the sheriff at the commonlaw be  eligible as the coroner be and then by the death of the king his office be not  determine and also it be a entire office and though the king may countermand  his grant of that entire yet he can that countermand by parcel and also that  the under sheriff have office which be entire and can be grant by parcel and  this covenant will be a mean to nourish bribery and extortion for the sheriff  himself shall have all the benefit and the under sheriff all the pain for he  be visible the under sheriff and all the subject of the Brownlow goldsborough  king will repair to he and the private contract between the sheriff and he be  invisible of which none can have knowledge but themselves and Warburton say  that in debt upon escape c be against the sheriff of Nottingham he plead  nothing debet and give in evidence that the bailiff which make the arrest be  make upon condition that he shall not meddle with such execution without  special warrant of the sheriff himself and his consent but it be resolve this  notwithstanding that the sheriff shall be charge in all and in the principal  case judgement be give accord that be than t the covenant be void I note that  the sheriff of the county of Berkes be commit to the fleet for take twenty  shilling for make of a warrant upon a general capias utlagatum for all the  justice be of opinion that the sheriff shall not take any fee for make of a  warrant or execution of that writ but only twenty shilling and four penny the  which be give by the statute of h for it be at the suit of the king but upon  capias utlagaturn unde intimacy be which be after judgement it seem it be  otherwise a man grant a rend to one for his life and half a year after to be  pay at the feast of the annunciation of our lady and Michael the Archangel by  equal portion and covenant with the grantee for the payment of that accord the  grantee die of purifying and for twenty pound which be a moiety of the rend  and to be pay at the enunciation after the executor of the grantee bring a  action of covenant and it seem it be well maintainable and coke chief justice  say that if a man grant rend for another life the remainder to the executor of  the grantee and covenant to pay the rend during the term aforesaid this be  good collective and shall serve for both the estate and if the grantee of the  rend grant to the tenant of the land the rend and that he shall distrain for  the say rend this shall not be intend the same rend which be extinct but so  much in quantity and agree that when a rend be grant and by the same deed the  grantor covenant to pay that the grantee may have annuity or writ of covenant  at his election Brownlow goldsborough michaelmas James in the common bench