case uvoodward against aston if the office of clerk of the paper be grant to  two person for their life and the life of the long liver of they it be a  entire office and neither of they can make a deputy or appoint a successor S C  vent S C Freem Indebitalus assumpsit for ten pound in money receive to the  plaintiff use and upon a trial at bar a the trial all bar be say to have be  permit because the party be officer of the court S C stomach a this term the  case upon vidence be thus sir Robert Henley prothonotary of the court of king  bench make a grant of the office of clerk of the paper which of right do  belong to he unto Mr vidian and Mr uvoodward for their life and the life of  the long liver of they afterward Mr vidian make a parole surrender of this  grant and then sir Robert Henley make a new grant to Mr uvoodward and Mr Aston  the defendant for their life and for the life of the survivor Mr vidian die  the question be whether the plaintiff uvoodward shall have all the profit of  the office by survivorship it be agree that this be one entire office and as  one of they can make a deputy so he can appoint a successor but the doubt be  whether the plaintiff have not consent that the defendant shall be take into  the office and have agree to the due grant which be make afterward for it be  modern admit that if be consent before Mr Aston come in it must then be find  for the defendant for by this consent he have bar himself of his right and  benefit of survivorship and by his consent to the new grant which in law be a  surrender of the first grant the defendant be jointtenant with the plaintiff  and if so his action be not maintainable and upon these two point only it be  leave to the jury who find for the defendant the evidence to the first point  be that when Mr vidian propose to the court that the defendant may succeed he  after some opposition and unwillingness in the plaintiff to agree to it yet at  length he declare that he do submit to it and accord the defendant be admit  but there be no formal entry of his admittance as a officer but only the court  be declare their consent that he shall take his place on the other side it be  insist on for the plaintiff and prove that his submission to the court be with  a salvo jure and what he do be to struggle against mind think modern er p it  be a hardship upon he as he often since declare so that it be quasi a  compulsory consent make in obedience to the court with who it be not  goodmanner in he to contend several point be stir at the trial as first  whether a surrender of the grant of a office by parole be good second whether  if a grant be make of a office or of any other thing which lie in grant and  the deed be lose or cancel the office or the thing grant fall to the ground  for the deed be the foundation and a case be cite in the Lord dyer if there be  two jointtenants and one cancel the deed it have destroy the right of the  other quaere of these thing a it be say S C Freem that it be agree that  although this be a office that can pass but by deed the loss or cancel of the  deed do not destroy the right of the grantee in the officer if the deed can be  prove a but it be agree that if two man who have one office for their life and  the survivor of they if one surrender to the other and then a new grant be  make to this other and a stranger he have dcharred himself of the survivorship  and be and the stranger be joint seize