by which usurpation the fee was gained by common law, and the patron lost the inheritance of his advowson, unless he recovered it in a writ of right, he being thereby put out of possession of his advowson, as much as when by actual entry and ouster he was disseised of his lands or houses, since the only possession of which an advowson is capable, is by actual presentation and admission of a clerk. (1)

Thus Lord Coke says, if a bishop, abbot, or prior purchased an advowson, and suffered an usurpation before presentation, they and their successors were barred for ever (2); although afterwards by statute 1 Eliz. c. 19. usurpations affected only the bishops who suffered them, and not their successors. (3)

ation dis

But the consequences of an usurpation are No usurpvery much diminished by several statutes, and places the more particularly the statute 7 Anne, c. 18., right of the patron by wherein it was enacted, That no usurpation 7 Ann. c. 18. upon any avoidance in any church, or ecclesiastical promotion, shall displace the estate of

(1) Flet. lib. 5. c. 11. Bract. | lib. 4. 243. 244. 1 Inst. 344. a. 3 Bl. Com. 242. Bos

wel's case, 6 Rep. 49.

of Ely, Cro. Jac. 673. Bar-
ker v. The Bishop of Lon-
don, 1 Hen. Bl. R. 418.
Lord Stanhope v. The Bishop

(*) 2 Inst. 358. 1 Inst. 238. of Lincoln, Hob. R. 241.

to be treated of in a more comprehensive ma

ner.

Alienation of The transfer of advowsons, like all other
advowsons
perty, may be considered under three diff
points of view.

may be con

sidered in three points of view.

May result

It may result from some wrongful act. from wrong- ing the advowson from the person to v due course of law it would appertai

ful act.

t of

with

ore he

ny pre>on, since

the prinrecovery of, recovery of,

ot e converso.

pal will restore ry, yet the exersary will not give and consequently if manor to which an

(3) 1 Inst. 122. b. 307. a. 53. b. N. 7.

Consequences of

an usurpati

the patron, but that the true patron may present on the next avoidance, as if there had been no usurpation. So, if there are four coparceners, the eldest and second present, and a stranger usurps on a third, the usurpation will only affect that turn, and the fourth may present when his turn comes. (')

The consequences of an usurpation seem not to have been varied by the circumstance of the on not varied advowson being appendant, or in gross; indeed, by its being appendant or by the usurpation, the advowson (except in the king's case) was rendered in gross until recovery.

in gross.

Only opera

tive for the

It is presumed that after an usurpation, in the present day, the advowson would be still appendant, and not remain in gross till the next presentation.

Hence an usurpation, since the statute of present turn. Anne, may be considered as operative only for the present turn, and as productive of no effect as to alienating the advowson, whilst, however, its consequences were equivalent to a disseisin of land, the care which the law exhibits for avoiding unlawful acts was manifested in the case of usurped advowsons; as, where a person was disseised of a manor, whereunto an advowson was appendant, a stranger usurps the advow

(1) Barker v. The Bishop | 418. Willes. 663. of London, 1 Hen. Bl. Rep. |

son; if the disseisee entered into the manor, the advowson was recontinued again, which was severed by the usurpation. The patron of a benefice was outlawed, and the church became void; a stranger usurped, and six months passed; the king recovered in a quare impedit, and removed the incumbent; the advowson was recontinued to the rightful patron. (')

An usurpation against a bishop is a bar to him, but not to his successor. (2)

Although disseisin of a manor whereto an ad- 2. Disseisin. vowson is appendant, puts the disseisee out of possession of the advowson, he may notwithstanding present to the advowson before he regains seisin of the manor (3), before any presentation by the disseisor to the advowson, since the statute of Anne: and as seisin of the principal is seisin of the accessary, so the recovery of, or remitter to, the principal is a recovery of, or remitter to, the accessary, but not e converso. But though recovery of the principal will restore him to the seisin of the accessary, yet the exercising any act over the accessary will not give him seisin of the principal; and consequently if a person be disseised of a manor to which an

(*) 1 Inst. 363. b.

(3)

Inst. 122. b. 307. a.

(2) Barker v. The Bishop of 153. b. N. 7. London, 1 Hen. Bl. R. 418.