that presentation which executors in general are entitled to, when opposed to an heir. (')

tended to

This privilege that the king has of presenting Privilege exby reason of the temporalties of a bishopric such preferbeing in his hands, is extended to such prefer- ments as the ments as the bishop might have presented to by have prebishop might common right, even though by composition he has transferred his power unto others, as the composition does not bind the king. (2)

Thus when the temporalties of the archbishop of York are in the king's hands, the king shall present to the deanery of York, although by composition between the archbishop and the chapter there, the chapter are to elect him; and this because the patronage. thereof, de jure, belongs to the archbishop, and his composition cannot bind the king, who comes in paramount, as supreme patron; for the king is supreme patron of the whole bishopric, although it be dismembered into divers branches, as deans and other dignities; and notwithstanding the king gave leave to the chapter to elect, yet the patronage remains in the king (3), as by his prerogative he cannot lose his presentation (4), which is a contingent casual right arising upon

(1) 1 Inst. 90. b. n. 4. (2) 2 Rol. Abr. 343.

(3) Wats. Cl. L. ch. 9. 77.

Sheffield v. Ratcliffe, Hob. R.
339.

55.

(4) Chandos's case, 6 Rep.
Bul. N. P. 123. b.

sented to.

So with respect to new advow

a particular event, and suspends or postpones, and does not supply the turn or turns of the patron or patrons (1) leaving every thing connected with the title in statu quo.

Where a new advowson, which has however all the incidents and properties of other advowsons created sons, is created by statute, it is subject to the by statute. same rules of law and prerogatives of the crown as an old one, and the king therefore has this right in a church in which several patrons have a right to present in particular turns, even if there is an act of parliament directing that they shall present in such turns, as the act does not interfere with the prerogative (2); and the rule seems to hold in all cases except where the incumbent of a donative or hospital is made a bishop, or where a bishop elect has a commendam retinere for his life. (3) So also if the king has only two parts of an advowson, yet he shall present alone, as no subject can be tenant in common with him. (4)

A manor with the advowson appendant being in the hands of the king, the church becomes

(1) Calland v. Trower, 2 Hen. Bl. R. 333. 6 T. R. 439.

(2) Rex v. The Bishop of London and Dr. Birch, Ld. Raym. R. 23. Salk. R. 540. 3 Lev. R. 382.

(3) Ca. Parl. 184. 2 Rol. 343, 344.

(4) The Chancellor of Cambridge v. Waldgrave, Hob. R. 127.

vacant, and afterwards the king grants the manor with the advowson, this avoidance being a chattel vested in the king; besides the grant would operate to double intent, he therefore and not the patentee, shall present. (1)

The lord chancellor, or lord keeper of the Presentation great seal, for the time being, has right to pre- Chancellor. by the Lord sent to all benefices appertaining to the king, of or below the value of twenty pounds in the king's books of first fruits, according to the valuation in the time of Henry the eighth; and there is no other difference in the form of a presentation by the king or chancellor, except that for the most part the one is mandantes, the other rogantes (2); Mr. Place, however, seems to think that though the use is for the chancellor to present to livings under the yearly value of twenty pounds, yet the king may present to any of his under valued benefices, if he please. (3)

ter induc

If the chancellor presents on a supposition Cannot be that the benefice is under value, and before in- removed afduction the king presents, his presentee will be tion. admitted; but after induction, the presentee of the chancellor cannot be removed. (4)

(1) Anon. Owen's R. 53. Gould's R. 73. Case 15. Bedminster Manor, Dyer's Rep. 300. a.

(2) Lord Chancellor's case, Hob. R. 214.

(3) Wats. Cl. L. ch. 9. 80. (4) Lord Chancellor's case, Hob. R. 214. Com. Dig. tit. Esg. H. 5.

Where one has the no

mination and

Where one has the nomination, and another the presentation, if such right of presentation another the accrues to the king, this shall not prejudice the presentation. inheritance of him that has the nomination, but

King may revoke his presentation, if not exe. cuted.

Revocations in law.

he may still nominate to the chancellor, who, in the name of the king, shall present to the ordinary. And if the king presents without any such nomination, the nominator shall bring his suit against the incumbent only, because the king cannot be termed an usurper. (')

The king may revoke his presentation at any time before induction, notwithstanding letters obtained for admission, institution, and induction. (2)

As there may be a revocation in fact, so there may be a revocation in law, as where the presentee of the king dies before induction, this is á revocation in law, and the king shall present again, though it be the case where he has only one turn, because the king has not the effect of his presentment, or in right of his tenant who dies before the induction of his presentee, although the heir in whose right the king presents, could not present again. (3)

12.69.

(*) 1 Inst. 344. b. 2 Rols. Abr. 353.

(1) Dod. on Adv. Lect. | 132. b. Gyles v. Colshil, Dyer's R. 360. b. Sheffeild v. Ratcliffe, Hob. R. 339. Hutchins v. Glover, Cro. Jac. 463. Wright v. The Bishop of Norwich, 1 Leon. R. 156.

(3) Fitz. N. B. 34. c. 27. d. Thomas Holt's case, 9 Rep.

In like manner if the king presents to a benefice, and dies before his clerk is admitted and instituted, the presentation is revoked in law by his death. (*)

Hence also, if the chancellor presents to a benefice, supposing it to be under value, whereas in truth it was above the value, and thereupon the person presented is admitted and instituted, and before induction the king, being apprised of it, repeals the presentment, and presents one in his own name, this is a good repeal, because the king has a right precedent, and is also deceived in his first grant: the king indeed may present the second clerk, although no notice of the repeal was given to the ordinary; for by the revocation of the first clerk's presentment without notice, the presentment is so absolutely void, that if, after he had got institution and induction thereon, the king were to confirm his title, his confirmation would be also void, and the church still remain open to his presentment (2), for the repeal is effectual before notice, and the giving notice to the ordinary is only to make the ordinary chargeable as a disturber, if he proceeds afterwards. (*)

(1) Godolp. Rep. 266. (2) Bedingfield v. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dyer's Rep. 292. Walrond v. Pol

lard, Dy. R. 293. Green's case, 6 Rep. 29.

(3) 2 Rol. Abr. 351.