case Hardcastle and slater and cross bill by owner and occupier of estate in  the rectory or parish of Coverham yorkshire on behalf of themselves and other  against Hardcastle in chancery July modus that all and every the occupier of  land or tenement within certain villes not be part of the demesne of the  monastery of c have or ought to pay c for tithe hay of c S for a S for e S for  b pound S d for f S hold not to be bad on face of it and send to be try lib  Reg a foe S g atk hill ms original bill be bring to have a account and  satisfaction for tithe of hay and herbage and agistment of cattle in several  villes or township in the parish of Coverham the cross bill be bring to  establish a modus in bar of the tithe in kind the plaintiff be impropriator  and owner of the rectory of Coverham in the county of York there be several  villes in it and the general modus set up be lie to be a ancient usage and  custom that all and every occupier of land and tenement within those villes  not be part of the demesne or grange of the monastery of Coverham have use to  pay or ought to have pay time beyond the memory of man every year upon saint  James day or as soon after as demand for tithe hay for Calburgh S Agelthorpe S  east Crofton S Bellbar S d Frankland S ambler attorneygeneral for plaintiff  first questionWhether the modus be not void in law on the face of it second  questionWhether it be not void from external circumstance deficient in proof  as to first question there be something throw into the cross bill to make part  of the prescription which be not mention in their answer to the original bill  the first difficulty that strike be in the collect the modus it be to be pay  by all occupier within the villes not say by what occupier or of what land or  in what proportion or how to be collect or what remedy be to be have to  obviate this objection the cross bill say that as to two of the villes the  modus be collect by the constable for the use of the rector and pay to he the  other be say to have be collect by a bylaw man but this be not lie to be any  part of the prescription nor whether the rector have a right to have it do or  whether it have be do time out of mind as to the nature of the modus some  objection arise which regard the whole other peculiar to some part it be not  good in point of law by the rule relate to modus or to answer the purpose of  they it be not sufficient that there have be pay a certain sum at a certain  day to have it establish into a modus to stop a demand of tithe in kind but it  must be submit to a further enquiry for it be to take away the right of a  spiritual sole corporation and therefore every modus must be find on some  agreement by those who be able to bind the right that be patron parson and  ordinary and this agreement may be prove by a constant payment of the modus  but every payment be ambler er p not conclusive evidence of it but it must be  of such payment and such agreement as understanding people ambler will enter  into it must be reasonable or may have be so at the time it must not be too  rank that be such a agreement as it can be presume the party will make to pay  more than the land be worth or any other agreement that show it will in its  nature be prejudicial to the party salk a modus ought in itself to be as  certain as the thing in lieu of which it come as in the case of exchange where  the nature of the thing will not admit of a estate of a different quality it  must also be certain in its remedy due at a certain time and recoverable in a  court of law in the present case the sum be certain but how do it stand with  regard to those that be to pay it the manner of collect it and the remedy to  recover it it be to be pay by the occupier of land within the ville be all or  any part of they to pay it if all how to be recover in this or in the  spiritual court or at law if then the spiritual court be all the owner to be  bring there No but all the occupier what every occupier of the whole or the  occupier of any particular part twenty people may be occupier and each of they  liable when be the money to be pay when the hay be cut suppose there be no hay  that year it be not confine to land sow with hay but of any land in the ville  must the rector collect it from every occupier the rector can have no certain  possible remedy because he can bring every person before the court if he can  bring they d have execution against they all it will be as have the other way  it will then be unreasonable on the part of the occupier and will be liable to  the same want of presumpsion that they will enter into such a agreement to pay  a modus for hay they never have every one will be liable though he have no hay  grow every owner of a house I will be liable though he have no land many  moduses have be condemned as illegal on this very consideration hob sand Ventr  which be a modus very like the present where every occupier of land be to pay  a groat keb next as to the modus of Calburgh which be not for the whole of the  ville but with a exception of all the demesne and grange of the monastery that  be total void for uncertainty ambler there be no certainty what land or place  be to be discharge by this description what be the demesne must the rector  have recourse to h S time to know they be not like the demesne of a manor  perhaps that may be certain enough know from the bind of the manor but the  demesne of a monastery can be only know by what they have in their own  possession for their own time and they may have for their demesne one year  what may not be so for the next the law have take notice of this kind of  prescription and it be certain Ventr that if I prescribe in a ville I can  prescribe for part of it note the objection take be that a custom can be lie  in a ville and be apply to a particular place in that ville only for it must  extend to the whole ville otherwise it be not the custom which be lie sert  hill ms that a farm modus may be valid for part of a farm see white v Lisle  Swanst Lord Hardwicke c this be not claim any interest by prescription but it  operate by discharge themselves attorneygeneral the modus for the hay amount  to pound a year and it appear by the account of the monastery that the whole  tithe for hay amount to but S which be proof of its be a rank modus Bootle on  the same side it be a general rule that whenever a right and remedy be take  away another as certain right and remedy must supply its place another rule be  every modus must be reasonable to induce a supposition it have a good and  legal agreement and he apply these rule to the present case and cite the case  of the bishop of Hereford in the exchequer the plaintiff offer to read in  evidence in order to show the value of the land and tithe in h S time the  inquisition in which the minister account be hill ms which be return by the  commissioner appoint by the king to inquire into the value of they they have  the return but not the commission by which the commissioner be appoint it be  object on the part of the defendant to the read the inquisition there have be  no order obtain to prove the exhibit and that as the original authority by  which the inquisition be take do not appear they can not produce as evidence  what be do in pursuance of it note it be ambler er p say to be lose but there  be no proof of it note and the case of baker v Oldham before Lord Ch I Eyre be  cite where he have refuse the minister account to be read for want of the  commission hill ms ambler Lord chancellor I never know the commission require  in these case inquisition post death must be produce because they be of a  private nature but this be a thing so notorious there be no occasion for it  note and he add that he have even know copy of part of the minister account  read hill ms see Austen v Nicholas vin Abr S c eagle young Phillips on Evd  clerk on the same side it depend on the nature of modus which have several  essential mark and ingredient and be not good without they one be it  presuppose a agreement between all the party necessary to the make it and if a  bill be bring for payment of tithe in kind and a modus be set up in bar to it  it be set up a enquiry whether there ever be such a agreement and it be the  same as if a bill be bring to carry article into execution Mr Robinson cite  stop v peacock lev which seem to be against the plaintiff but the roll in the  c b hill W m rot do not warrant the report Murray solicitorgeneral for  defendant the agreement presuppose in order to support a modus must have be  between the patron parson ordinary and tenant of the land yet as the occupier  be liable to pay tithe in kind and the modus in lieu of they when it come into  dispute the payment be lie to be by the occupier what can be the original of  modus of land in different occupier but that at the time of the agreement they  must have be all in one owner there be many instance of this kind in Danvers  roll Abr under title tithe another case that happen be where there be a modus  for land in a park a modus absolute for a park be at a end if it be dispark  but not if the modus be for land contain in a park which may at the  commencement of the modus belong to one owner be a modus thus begin on a right  foundation to be destroy by a subsequent accident of land come into the hand  of different owner and occupier the argument use on the other side extend to  this and if it hold whenever land come into ambler different hand there be a  end of the modus such a modus can be lie for every farm but for the whole this  matter be full discuss in the case of Cooper v Andrews in hob the dispute can  only be among the occupier they be all contributory to the modus if they take  the land after such a modus and division they take it subject to the charge  but the same argument will hold in that case if let land to different person  destroy the modus for it be against the occupier the parson be to have his  remedy it be on this reason the case in lev go it be in this shape the case of  the bishop of Hereford come before the court of exchequer that February it be  the bishop of Hereford v pain and the modus set up be that the inhabitant  owner and occupier have pay a yearly rend for hay grow c in the follow  proportion the court hold the modus to be bad because there be no proportion  settle between the occupier which will occasion infinite dispute in it be the  bishop of Hereford as rector of Whitchurch v the duke of Bridgewater there a  answer be put in and a cross bill bring to establish the modus to which there  be a demurrer the parish be divide into township and the several quota be  ascertain between they and the inhabitant of each township contribute to it  and it have be ascertain and usual collect by a constable it be say the  occupier of land in that parish have pay yearly on the saint of November pound  S d for hay grow in the parish the demurrer be solemnly argue and a issue  direct to try the fact of the modus and so it rest at this day so that in they  lie the proportion of the villes but not among the people of the villes it  then come before the court as this do now admit the fact and the modus be the  same the demurrer be overrule after the judgement in and the fact send to be  try which can not have be do if there have be no difference in the case but as  the modus be lie in the last the court think it good if the fact be true  ambler as to the particular case of except the demesne the modus be good  because I may lie it as to part of a parish or as to the whole except such a  farm the objection to the modus suppose the agreement now make but it be a he  ambler er p memorial agreement and if they can show tithe have be pay for any  particular part it will prove that not to be part of the demesne Lord  Hardwicke c this be a cause of much consequence for it concern every modus in  the kingdom of this kind which I believe be far from be few and have continue  time out of mind it be say such customary payment ought not easy to be break  into and that the court will not be induce to shake they upon objection that  be not of real weight and moment and though tithe in kind be the right of the  parson yet where there have be customary payment immemorially make and that be  admit in the strong manner in the present case and that tithe in kind have  never be pay as long as the memory of any man now live can reach back parson  who accept live under such expectation and purchaser who buy on the faith of  such custom and usage accord to that value will receive great disappointment  if they be disallow and unless there be some unsurmountable reason for it it  will be unreasonable to make purchaser deceive that the owner of the  impropriation shall reap a benefit for which he have not pay but still the  rule of law must be adhere to and therefore it must be consider whether this  modus be agreeable to the rule of law if it be establish it must be so on the  cross bill and therefore it must be consider on that the prescription there  lie be that all and every occupier of land and tenement in those villes not be  part of the demesne or grange of the monastery have use to pay or ought to  have aid every ear on saint James day or as soon after as demand the several  annual sum follow then state the particular sum to be pay in each ville l r  ambler many objection have be make saint it be unreasonable with regard to the  occupier because the modus include all occupier of wood house and all kind of  tenement whatsoever though they produce no hay and make they liable to  contribute to the modus who will not have be liable to pay tithe in kind which  raise a presumption that no such agreement can have be enter into by the  patron ordinary parson and occupier I be of opinion if it do afford such a  presumption it will lie in the parson mouth as well as in the occupier to  object to it but I think it do not create such a presumption because suppose  at the time of the agreement or establishment of such a modus all the land be  in the ownership of one person   a b bishop of Winchester case or if they be  not it will not be unreasonable for those who be at that time owner of wood or  arable land and have beside land that produce hay or that by the difference of  culture may produce hay to charge themselves with this payment by reason of  the change and contingency that their land may be turn in point of use to  produce tithe hay though they do not at that time and this be frequent in  these kind of modus and have happen in several case as in Ventr where the  objection be that all the occupier c be to pay a groat for herbage but it  never be object that those may pay who have no herbage at all therefore no  certain presumption can arise that no such agreement be enter into from the  general charge lie on all occupier another objection from the rule of law for  want of a sufficient certainty that the modus or customary payment ought to be  equal certain with the tithe in kind the rule be so and hold to be so in  Sterrop v Doderidge but that doctrine must not be weigh with grain and scruple  the case of Cooper v Andrews hob S c eagle you be not so there be a modus for  acre parcel of a ancient park it be lie that he and all those who estate he  have and all farmer and occupier have use time out of mind to pay every year S  and a shoulder of every three do for all tithe be this equal certain with the  tithe I must take ambler the modus from the state of the agreement suppose to  have be enter into time out of mind and that the party consider the  satisfaction for the tithe to arise out of the shoulder and the S together and  then how uncertain as to part of it for no deer may be kill or only two and  then the parson can have nothing from it so that it be not possible to say  that what be stipulate for be equal certain as the thing in lieu of which it  come for the land will have produce something and yet this be hold to be a  good modus even after it be dispark and no deer can be kill so that the only  satisfaction be the S and the modus remain annex to the land and may have be  lie without the park I mention this ambler er p to show that when the book  speak of the equal certainty of a modus they must be understand to a common  intent and not to every possible intent in the present case the payment be  equal certain the sum be ascertain and I see no objection in that respect but  it be say the uncertainty be in point of remedy for that the rector will be  without remedy or what be equal to none he must sue in the spiritual court and  make all the occupier party to his libel so that the death of any one will  make a abatement for they be all joint not several liable this be a objection  which deserve to be consider it be observe in the reply that the modus be lie  for the occupier of land and tenement within the ville and not say all the  occupier or the occupier of all the land so that it be uncertain for perhaps  some only be liable and it be not show which be so but I understand the manner  of lie it import all the occupier of all the land and what be say in the  bishop of Hereford case be a answer it be a indefinite proposition which be  universal and it be lie they use to pay the several annual sum in lieu of all  tithe of hay upon all and every the land and tenement within the ville so that  take both part together it make it plain the custom be lie for all the  occupier of all the land but as to the remedy suppose all the occupier be  joint liable how far will that affect what be say of the unreasonableness of  make all the occupier party in the ecclesiastical court for that be the legal  remedy and that which the commonlaw allow and the remedy in court of equity be  not take notice of by the commonlaw but only draw here in ambler respect to  the account it be say on the part of the defendant that at the time of this  agreement all the land may belong to one owner and then it be not unreasonable  and the future division will not destroy it now a modus to be pay by the  occupier and owner of the demesne of a manor let they be ever so large or  divide among ever so many hand be good if it be so in its commencement  subsequent alteration have never be allow to destroy a modus modus within park  be all authority Barker v cocker hob Cowper v Andrews hob Skelton v Montague  hob S c e you be so let the land of a park be acre and divide into hand if the  modus be good in the occupation of one it be so of a great many if this  doctrine be to prevail that by reason of the difficulty of remedy you may  destroy the modus it will extend to every case of a park or manor and what a  extensive consequence will this have in the several moduses of this kind I  think the case cite to prove it do not come up to it but rather support the  contrary that a modus lie in the occupier of land be a good modus in Cowper v  Andrews it be lie in the owner of the fee and all the farmer and occupier  joint be the remedy against all joint I apprehend not if it have be lie in the  owner only it will not have be good because the owner may have reside out of  the jurisdiction of the spiritual court and consequent there can have be no  remedy against they the farmer and occupier must therefore be liable do not  that come up to the present case and will not the law be the same whether  there be or acre the law make the occupier equal liable to the parson Skelton  v Montague be the same there the modus be lie in the occupier the quantity of  land do not appear but that make no difference I take no notice of the ground  of the objection though occupier can prescribe general to gain a interest yet  they may for a discharge as in lev stop v peacock I mention this to show that  moduses have be allow as good though the prescription have be lie in the  occupier and though the number of they have be great and uncertain ambler  another case be cite for plaintiff Barker v cocker hob which be not applicable  here because it be not a modus it be a custom that all lamb in the parish  shall be cast together and the ten part or tithe lamb shall be pay for tithe  this pretend custom be condemned because it may happen that a man may have but  one lamb and lose it it be no modus but only a mere advantageous method for  the parson of pay tithe in kind the case in keb be dark and imperfect state I  do not know what to make of it whether he mean that it shall be lie who to pay  the whole or that it shall be lie joint and several be quite uncertain and it  be very different from the case of stop v peacock lev I be not give a certain  opinion but it be not clear to I that it will be necessary to make every  occupier of land a party to the libel it be certain the modus affect all the  land and it be allege by the answer that every part of the land be Chargeable  ambler er p with the modus the consequence of which be that no occupier can be  discharge unless the whole modus be pay and if that be so I think it will be a  very reasonable construction for the ecclesiastical court to make every person  liable for the whole and leave they to take contribution among themselves if  the remedy be from the land it will be so for if a rend come out of land ever  so much divide every part be charge with the whole it be true in this case the  land be not liable there be no real remedy for they but however the occupier  be liable in respect of the land and therefore I think it be a reasonable  ground to say every occupier make himself liable for the whole consequent the  rector may take his remedy against any of they but be that as it will how do  this case come before I if there have be nothing more in it than what pass in  the case of the bishop of Hereford see this case from sir c Weargs ms Swanst n  e you I shall not think myself warrant to disallow or overrule this modus  without have the fact try see white v Lisle Swanst the last cause which be the  material one be depend in that court which have the proper ambler jurisdiction  of tithe so far as they come under the jurisdiction of a court of equity that  court have the most knowledge and experience of they the bill be there bring  and demurrer to the demurrer be argue and solemnly adjudge by the whole court  to be overrule it be say not upon the opinion of the court that the modus be  good but that the court think it too much to disallow the modus upon a  demurrer but why be it not as full before the court upon the demurrer as it  will be at the hear of the cause that be the proper time for it be not the  merit of a modus often examine upon a motion for a prohibition in the  commonlaw court the demurrer be overrule the cause come on again to be hear in  before l c b Reynolds there be then a new c baron and the court still persist  in not give way to the objection of law but be of opinion the modus ought to  be try and the c baron say if it be good in fact he see not why it be not so  at law comens be of the same opinion here be then a authority of the court of  exchequer the most experience in cause relate to tithe before two different  chief baron there be no appeal from that decree though it be a case of great  value and consequence this court will take too much on itself to say that such  a modus continue immemorially and when no tithe have be pay in kind and after  such a cause ought to be overrule without suffer the fact to be try a great  many of the objection that have be make the party may avail themselves of at  the trial for everything that go to lessen the presumption that such a  agreement can have be make be proper to be insist on before the court and jury  as to the distinction that have be make between the case of the bishop of  Hereford and this it must be observe that the case in be very different from  the latter the modus as there lie be not good it be lie that there have be a  ancient usage and prescription in the parish of Whitchurch time out of mind  that the owner and occupier of land have pay a yearly sum to the rector in  lieu of all tithe hay grow there and that each township have pay yearly a  certain sum as such modus that the same have be ambler usual collectedby the  constable and deliver by he to the rector to prevent trouble as this be lie it  be no modus for it be no sum certain but the ascertain it be refer to another  instrument and that instrument do not authorize it as it be lie for the bill  be that the owner and occupier have pay the instrument that the inhabitant  owner and occupier and the inhabitant may be so without occupy a inch of land  and therefore it be not possible to say what the modus be as it stand in the  register it make every inhabitant liable to tithe though he receive aim from  the parish which be absurd and show that the modus be ill lie and in the bill  it be doubtful and uncertain what the modus S the cause as bring on in seem to  I exact the same with the present it be there lie as a ancient usage and  custom that the occupier of land have pay or ought to pay yearly to the rector  the sum of pound S d for tithe of hay and then it distribute the several  proportion between the villes and lie it to have be time out of mind ascertain  and settle this only relate to the several distribution among the villes I be  of opinion that cause be in point and there be no material difference from the  present consequent as that be send to be try before the court will give any  absolute opinion upon it and as that decree have stand without any appeal I  think it be proper for I to follow the example but then it be object this  modus be too rank for it appear by the monastery ambler er p account that on  the dissolution of monastery in the time of h it be say in the return to the  commission direct to inquire c that the value of tithe hay here be S this be  do saint to show that tithe in kind be then pay dly if tithe in kind be not  pay yet such a modus to pay pound for tithe that amount to S only be too rank  as be unreasonable as to the saint I can take it in that sense because it be  say in the answer there be some land to which the modus do not extend and if  any land be liable to tithe in kind possible the return may have relation to  that but it be say to show there be no modus there may be a omission and at  most it be but evidence on one side and ambler therefore will be lie before a  jury and any evidence may counter balance it I think therefore to overrule the  modus upon the strength of the record at the hear of the cause when it be  admit no tithe in kind have be pay be go too far abundant and can be  conclusive there be a objection make to a particular part that be to the modus  of c with a exception of the demesne and grange of the monastery saint that a  custom can be lie in a ville with a exception of part and Ventr be cite for  that purpose but that be a custom lie in a ville and not by way of  prescription the present be lie in the owner by way of prescription with a  exception and be lie by the owner in discharge of themselves nothing be more  common than such a modus d objection that it be uncertain which be the except  land and to make that certain it be necessary to suppose the monastery time  out of mind it may be so but it be not necessary the land shall have have at  the time of commencement of the modus the same description they have now this  be only by way of description and the manner of describe the land be not  material the objection may be all consider by the court on the return of the  verdict therefore let there be a issue to try the fact of the modus as to the  agistment the bill must be dismiss the several issue with respect to the  moduses be direct in the word of the answer and crossbill l r see finch v  master bunb e you wood Ord v clarke Anst e you wolley v Hadfield price e you  drake v smith price e you Driffield v Orrel price e you see Travis v Oxton  Anstr n bro PC Bennet v read Anstr e you Williamson v Lord Lonsdale price than  leison v parson Ves in busk v Lewis Jacob sir t plummer m r hold a modus of  one penny Payable by every occupier of land in lieu of the tithe of hay bad in  sergeant hill ms the note of this case state Lord Hardwicke to have commence  his judgement by observe that all moduses be as first upon a agreement between  the parson patron and ordinary by some instrument in write in the nature of a  contract or composition which though decay by time or lose by accident yet be  run out into a prescription remain good and that the court will not break in  upon such ancient usage upon slight reason and the observation in the next  paragraph of the text then follow as Lord hardwicke own remark and not as the  dictum of any other person see in chapman v bishop of Lincoln p W e you Ord v  clarke Anst e you see ekins v dorm atk e you busk v Lewis Jacob the former  part of this paragraph be thus give in serj hill ms it be true that the  general rule be that the modus must be equal certain with the tithe as it come  in its place and therefore in the case of Hartupp v Dodderidqe salk a modus to  pay two shilling in the pound of the improve rend in lieu of all tithe be hold  nought for that be to rise and fall as the land be let and the parson can know  it and though a custom to pay a double value for a fine may be good yet that  arise from a man contract which I shall never be void where it may be  ascertain and differ from a modus which ought to be certain as the duty which  be destroy by it holt c I doubt and this be upon a motion for a prohibition I  incline to differ in opinion from that case and think the modus be sufficient  certain for when the book say the modus must be equal certain with the tithe  yet that must not be weigh in too nice scale and in the case of Cowper and  Andrews the modus be not equal certain with the tithe the question mention by  Lord Hardwicke in the above observation to have be decide by the king b in the  case of hartop v dodderidge have be it will seem previous consider by the  court of exchequer ambler er p in a suit between the same party when that  court hold the modus to be valid see e you the decision in the exchequer be Tr  term W m that in b r Pasc Ann the opinion express by Lord Hardwicke upon the  decision of the king b be material inasmuch as that decision have be suppose  to establish that a modus of so much upon rend be bad see Toller on tithe p  although in previous case such a modushad be consider good see Holbeck v  tailor wood e you Brill v till wood stride v Bickham wood e you see Simpson v  Tucker wood e you and sawbridge v Benton e you but see the late case of Norton  v Hammond in the excheq you I it appear from the report of the case of Cowper  v Andrews that the court be equal divide and that no decision be in fact give  with regard to the effect of disparking upon moduses Payable in respect of  ancient park it have be hold that a money modus be not destroy by disparking  mascall v price Bulstr S c eagle and young Bedingfield v peak cro Elizabeth S  c Gwill e and you see Cowper v Andrews nob e and you as to moduses of a buck  or do or shoulder of dear and the like the case appear somewhat at variance  one distinction will seem however to be that where the number of deer or the  part of a deer to be pay be fix and certain there the modus be not destroy by  disparking but where they be not fix and certain but dependent upon the number  of deer either keep or kill within the park there the modus be destroy by the  park be lie open in Lord riches case Owen S c e you it be hold that a modus of  a buck in summer and do in winter be not destroy by disparking see also in  pool v Reynolds hut S c e you Naunton v clarke wood S c e you in Skinner v  smith wood S C e you the court of exchequer hold that a modus of a shoulder of  every deer kill in a park be destroy by disparking see also Beddingfield v  feak Gwill S c e you Stockwell v terry Ves Gwill e you in a anon case Br g  year S c e you the court of c b doubt whether a modus of one shoulder of deer  for all tithe of a park be destroy by disparking see Bennet v read e and you S  c Anst n Williamson v Lonsdale price cart v Hodgkin Swanst in note busk v  Lewis Jacob in chapman v bishop of Lincoln it be say by Reynolds I that all  the certainty requisite to a modus be this that when the circumstance be the  same there shall be the same modus see e you S c p wms mrs contra Ord v clarke  Anst eagle and you Driffield v Orrell price e and you but see what be say by  Richard c b in the last case in sergeant hill ms this passage run thus such a  prescription for a modus in the occupier be good for although the occupier can  prescribe for a matter of interest or inheritance in themselves but the  prescription must be lie in the owner yet where it go in discharge of a right  in another person as a modus be or by way of easement then it may be well lie  in the occupier see stop v peacock e and you Shelton v Montague hob e you  contra anon keb S c e and you in the owner and occupier hold good scar v Trin  coll Cambridge Anstr e and you in the proprietor and occupier hold bad anon  vent e and you by certain occupier hold bad de Whelpdale v Milburn price e and  you the occupier of each farm pay his rateable proportion without state the  proportion hold bad wolley v Hadfield price e and you see Norton v Hammond you  I see Bennet v read Anstr e and you Blackburn v Jessop Swanst in chapman v  bishop of Lincoln a modus for person reside out of the parish to ray so much a  acre for land occupy by they in the parish hold good p W e and you contra  bawdry v bushel eagle and you S c keb see pern v fountain wood e and you busk  v Lewis Jacob see in the bishop of Hereford v Cowper Swanst n Cuthbert v  Westwood pale yellow Eq Rep wood e you so also some of the owner and occupier  may maintain a suit to establish a modus Chayler v Trin college Cambridge Anst  e you see Redesd bring Offley v fanshaw atk ambler er p