case the king against thornborough and Studle a recovery in quare hinder  against a clerk who the king present by usurpation avoid the usurpation ante  post roll Abr       light cro Elizabeth Leon Jones Vaugh hob the king bring a  quare hinder against the bishop of and thornborough and Studle and declare  that queen Elizabeth be seize in fee of the advowson of redriff in the county  of Surrey and present I S that the queen die and the advowson descend to king  James who die seize c and bring down the advowson by descent to the king that  now S thornborough the patron plead a plea in bar upon which the king modern  demurrer Studle the incumbent plead confess queen Elizabeth seize in fee in  right of her crown but say that she in the second year of her reign grant the  advowson to one Boshill who grant to Ludwell who grant to danson who grant to  hurlestone who grant to thornborough who present the defendant Studle and  traverse without hoc that queen Elizabeth die seize the defendant counsel  produce the letter patent make by queen Elizabeth in the second year of her  reign to Boshill and his heir the king counsel give in evidence a presentation  make by queen Elizabeth by usurpation in the thirtyfourth year of her reign of  one rider by which presentation the advowson be vest again in the crown the  presentation be read in court wherein the queen recite that the church be void  and that it appertain to her to present north chief justice be not the queen  deceive in this presentation for she recite that it belong to her to present  which be not true if the queen have intend to make a usurpation and her clerk  have be institute she have gain the feesimple but here she recite that she  have right Maynard sergeant when the king recite a particular title and have  no such title his presentation be void but not when his recital be general as  it be here and this difference be agree to in the king bench in the case of  one Erasmus Dryden the defendant counsel show a judgement in a quare hinder  against the same rider at the suit of one Wingate in queen Elizabeth time  whereupon the plaintiff modern er p have a writ to the bishop and rider be  oust Wingate claim under the letter patent of the second of the queen  videlicet by a grant of one Adie to himself to which Adie one Ludwell grant it  in the thirtythird year of queen Elizabeth reign Baldwin sergeant it appear by  the record of this judgement that a writ to the bishop be award but no final  judgement be give which ought to be after the three point of the writ inquire  north chief justice what be it that you will call the final judgement there be  two judgement in a quare hinder one that the plaintiff shall have a writ to  the bishop which be the final judgement that go to the right betwixt the party  and the judgement at the commonlaw there be another modern judgement to be  give for the damage since the statute of Westminster c after the point of the  writ be inquire of which judgement be not to be give but at the instance of  the party Pemberton this Wingate who recover be a stranger and have no title  to have a quare hinder now I rake this difference where the king have a good  title no recovery against his clerk shall affect the king title he shall not  be prejudice by a recovery to which he be no party if the king have a  defeasible title as in our case by usurpation there if the rightful patron  recover against the king incumbent the king title shall be bind though he be  not a party for his title have no other foundation than a presentation when  that be once avoid the king title fall together with it but though the king  title be only by usurpation yet a recovery against his clerk by a stranger who  have nothing to do with it shall not prejudice the king covin may be betwixt  they and the king be try now Wingate have no right for he claim by grant from  one Adie to who Ludwell grant in the thirtythird year of queen Elizabeth but  we can prove this grant by Lutwell to have be void for in the twentyninth year  of the queen he make a prior grant to one danson of which grant we here  produce the enrolment this grant to danson be a effectual grant for in the  eleven year of James the first a presentation be make by I r and Thomas danson  which prove that this grant take effect and the defendant himself deduce the  title of his own patron under that grant barrel sergeant Wingate be not to be  account a stranger for be make title by the letter patent grant in the second  year of queen Elizabeth so that be encounter the queen with her own grant and  his title under that grant be allow by the court who give judgement accord  there be no feint pleader in the case as appear by the record that have be  read and covin shall not be presume if it be not allege we deduce our title  under the grant make to danson in the twentyninth year of queen Elizabeth in  our plea but that be only by way of inducement to our traverse per curian by  the judgement in the time of queen Elizabeth the queen title be avoid we must  not presume that Wingate have a title ex long duration time in all respects to  take before solemnly be acta that quare hinder be bring when the modern matter  be fresh without doubt danson will have assert his title against Wingate if he  have have any the defendant do not do prudent in convey a title to his patron  under the grant make to danson but issue be take upon the queen die seize he  shall not be conclude to give in evidence any other title to maintain the  issue upon which evidence the jury find for the defendant that queen Elizabeth  do not die seize north chief justice say he be clear of opinion that the king  title by usurpation shall be avoid by a recovery against his clerk though the  recoveror be a mere stranger by Ann c no usurpation shall displace the estate  or interest of any entitle to a advowson or turn it to a right but such person  so entitle may present or have a quare hinder on the next or any subsequent  avoidance as if no usurpation have be modern er p