The King against The Bishop of Winton and Champion
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1791 |
| Date | 01 January 1791 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 79 E.R. 45
IN THE KING'S BENCH.
case 26. the king against the bishop of winton and champion. The King cannot be put out of the possession of an advowson by any number of usurpations, but shall maintain a quare impedit upon the next avoidance, and not be put to a writ of right. Post. 123. 216. ò2 Roll. Ab. 371. Cro. Eliz. 44. 240. 790. 6 Co. 30. 7 Co. 28. 1 Leon. 226. Godb. 7. can, Owen, 2. Anders. 148. Hetley, 125. 9 Co. 30. a. Post. 123. Quare impedit of the Vicarage of Newton Valence. And counts, that King Edward the Sixth was seised in fee of the advowson of the vicarage in jure coronce, and that the church became void by the death of the incumbent; and that John Pescod, tuturpando, presented one SanderH ; and that afterwards the advowson descended to Queen Mary, and so to Queen Elizabeth; and that Sanders resigned : and afterwards Pescod, usurpatiido upon the Queen presented Selwith, who was admitted, instituted, and inducted, who resigned : and afterwards Pescod, usurpaiulo, presented one Taylor, who was admitted, instituted, and inducted, and afterward deprived : and before any new presentation Queen Elizabeth died ; and the King presented, and upon disturbance brought a quare impedit. And upon all this matter, found by special verdict, the sole question was, whether a double usurpation shall bind the King, that he might not have a quare impedit, i&c. ? Hearn, for the defendant, argued that it should; for a patron hath but /its prcesentandi, and not any interest. And it was resolved in French'.* case, that where a parson made a lease for years, before the statute of 13 Eliz. c. 10. and after the 13 Eliz. the patron confirms, and the bishop, &c. it is good, and not within the statute. And in this point the King is not privileged more than a common person ; for as it is necessary that the church should be served, so it is as necessary that the King should not have a greater privilege than another, if he claim it in his own right. 43 Edw. 3. pi. 14.-Stanford's Prerogative, cap. 8. 18 Edw. 3. pi. 16. & 21. And in 39 Eliz. it was adjudged, where the Queen usurped upon a purchaser, and after upon the next avoidance the purchaser presented, that he was remitted. And 47 Edw. 3. pi. 4. it is said expressly, that two presentations shall put the King out of possession, and 38 Edw. 3. pi. 3. And it was cited, that in 2 Edw. 2. and 10 Edw. 2. Latimer's case, in a private book...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connolly v Connolly
...493. Ford v. GreyENR 6 Mod. 45. York v. StoneENR 1 Salk, 158. Eliz.ENR Co. Lit. 192 a. Syme's case Cro. Eliz. 33. Bellingham v. AlsopENR Cro. Jac. 53. Morris v. Barry 1 Wils. 2. Philpott v. DobbinsonUNK 3 M. & P. 320. Williams v. HensmanENR 1 J. & H. 546, 558. 208 CHANCERY REPORTS. Mr. Exha......