future number of presentations, may also be granted away. 33. It has been stated that where a married man ́Ante, § 30. granted the third presentation to a church, his wife being entitled to such third presentation, as part of her dower, the grantee should have the next presentation after the wife's; because the wife's title arose from an act of law, which shall not operate to the prejudice of the grantee. But where a man granted the next presentation to A., and before the church became void, he granted the next presentation of the same church to B., the second grant was held void; for B.'s right of presentation was destroyed by the act of the party, not as in the former case, by an act in law. 34. It has been determined in a modern case that a grant of the next presentation to a church does not become void by the Crown's acquiring a right to pre sent. 1 Inst. 378 b. Cailland, Rep. 324. Vide the King Show. R. v. Ep. London, 441. Winch. 94. 35. Sir K. Clayton, being seised in fee of an ad- Troward v. Vowson, the church being then full, by a deed poll, 2 H. Black. granted to M. Kenrick, his executors, &c., the next 6 Term Rep. presentation, donation, and free disposition of the said 439-778. church, as fully, freely, and entirely as the said Sir K. Clayton or his heirs. The person who was then incumbent was made Bishop of Rochester, whereby the church became vacant; and the King, by reason of his royal prerogative, acquired a right to present a fit person to the said church. It was contended that, Cro. Jac. 691. in the event that had happened, this grant became void; that in the case of Woodley v. Episc. Exeter, it was held the grantee of the next avoidance must have the next, or none at all, and must by the intervention of the prerogative, on the promotion of the incumbent to a bishopric. On the other side it was argued that the authority of the case of Woodley v. Episc. Exeter was expressly contradicted by the note in the margin of Dyer, 228 b., which was apparently the same case, where it was stated to lose his right have been resolved by the Court that the grantee should have the next avoidance after the prerogative presentation, because that was the act of the law; and the prerogative of the King, which excluded him from the first presetation, injured no one. The Court of Common Pleas held that the grantee of the next presentation should present on the next vacancy, occasioned by the death or resignation of the King's presentee. This judgment was affirmed by 8 Bro. Parl. Ca. the Court of King's Bench; and afterwards by the House of Lords, with the assent of the Judges. 71. Bowles v. Walter, 1 Roll. Wyvel's case, Dymoke v. 1 Bro. Parl. Is assets for payment of debts. 1 Inst. 374 b. 3 Atk. 464. 36. Where a person has only a particular estate in a manor, to which an advowson is appendant, he can of course only alien the advowson for so long as his estate shall continue. 37. A tenant in tail of a manor, to which an advowson was appendant, granted the next avoidance of the advowson, and died: the issue entered on the manor, and the grant was held to be void. 38. Tenant in tail and his son joined in a grant of the next avoidance of a church; the tenant in tail died. It was adjudged that the grant was void against the son and heir that joined in the grant, because he had nothing in the advowson at the time of the grant, neither in possession nor right, nor in actual possibility. 39. Lady Hobart being tenant for life of the manor of Clifton, to which the advowson of the church of Clifton was appendant, sold the next presentation to Mr. Dymoke, and died before the church became void. It was resolved that the sale was void. 40. It is said by Lord Coke that an advowson is assets to satisfy a warranty; but that an advowson in 3P. Wms. 301. gross is not extendible upon a writ of elegit, because no annual value can be set upon it. It has, however, been determined that an advowson in gross, whether the proprietor has a legal or an equitable interest therein, is assets for payment of debts; and will be directed to be sold by the Court of Chancery, for that purpose. Robinson, 1 Bro. Parl. 41. John Tong being indebted to several persons, Tong v. by judgment, bond, and simple contract, in great 3 Vin. Ab. 144. sums of money, died intestate; seised in fee, among Ca. 114. other things, of the trust of an advowson in gross. Upon a bill filed by the creditors of John Tong, praying a sale of his real estate for the payment of his debts, a question arose whether this advowson was assets. Lord King decreed that it was, and should be sold for the payment of Tong's debts. On an appeal from this decree to the House of Lords it was insisted by the appellants that this advowson was not assets at law, or liable to the demands of any of the creditors of Tong; because at law no inheritance was liable to any execution that was not capable of raising some profits towards satisfaction of the debt, which an advowson was not. On the other side it was contended that at common law an advowson in fee was an hereditament descendible to the heir, valuable in itself, and saleable; and even capable, if necessary, of having an annual value put upon it; and was therefore legal assets in the hands of the heir. The decree was affirmed, with the concurrence of all the Judges. 3 Atk. 460. Westfaling, 42. In a case before Lord Hardwicke in 1746, one Westfaling v. of the questions was, whether an advowson in gross was assets by descent. His Lordship observed, it had been said the authorities went no farther than where there had been a trust of an advowson, and did not extend to a legal interest: but that this argument was quite cut up by the roots by the determination of the House of Lords in the case of Tong v. Robinson. In the minute book of the day, it was taken down that the question proposed to be asked of the Judges was, whether an advowson in fee was assets. It must have been defectively taken by the clerk; the question intended was, whether an advowson in gross in fee was assets; for there could be no doubt as to an advowson appendant to a manor, because the manor itself being assets, what was appendant must be assets likewise; and decreed that it was assets by descent, to satisfy specialty debts. An advowson consisting in the right of presentation, it will be necessary to examine into the nature of this act, and the consequences that attend it; the time within which it is to be done, and the persons who are capable of performing it. Presentation. 2. Presentation is the offering a clerk, by the patron 1 Inst, 120. or proprietor of an advowson, to the ordinary; which might formerly have been done either by word or by writing but since the statute of Frauds, 29 Cha. 2. c. 3. s. 4. it is necessary that all presentations be in writing; and a presentation in writing is a kind of letter, not a deed, from the patron to the bishop of the diocese |