case sir Charles howard case in the exchequer Chamber see pea v Courtney Ch a  park of which the king be seize in fee may be dispark and all the deer therein  grant over by letterspatent under the great seal and by such a grant the  office of keeper be virtual dissolve S C hut Jones if the king grant the  office of parker and afterward destroy the park the office be virtual  extinguish and all the casual fee thereto annex irrecoverable lose   light  Inst hob cro James   Hutton Com dig Bl Com the grant of a collateral fee as of  forty pound ayear to a parker for life for the exercise of his office be not  determine though the park be discharge and the office thereby dissolve Hutton  ante post cro James   light b upon a conference of all the justice and baron  in the presence of sir James lie and the earl of Marlborough Lord treasurer  who command they to be assemble on a case out of the ex hequer upon a  information by English bill against sir Charles Howard the king be seize in  fee of a park call Putneymooreclap and king James by his letterspatent under  the great seal grant duty jailer of the say park to sir Charles Howard  habendum to he the say office cum omnibus vadiis fee windfall tree profit and  commodity thereto belong in tam opportunity modus et form prout some the  officiarius mock operator to have croak car to hold et to take into possession  seu be glad to be et etian pro consideration prediction grant unto he a annual  fee of thirty pound per annum issue out of all his majesty manor in that  county habendum to he for life afterward the king which now be by his  letterspatent under the great seal publish his pleasure for disparking the say  park and grant all the deer therein to sir Richard Weston chancellor I the  exchequer with liberty to take and carry they away c the attorneygeneral argue  this case for the king and Mr Andrews reader of Lincolnsinn for sir Charles  Howard the justice and baron afterward give their opinion the first question  be whether by these letterspatent the king may dissolve the park and if those  letterspatent be a dissolve of the park they all agree that the park be well  dissolve and shall no more be account a park all the deer be destroy for a  park consist of vert and venison and enclosure and if it be determine in any  of they it be a total disparking and notwithstanding the grant of the office  the owner may well dispark it accord to the opinion of Withers case Edward  dyer the second question be admit the park be dissolve whether the office of  the keeper be determine and if determine whether sir Charles Howard may have  any remedy for the casual fee and profit they all hold that the park be  dissolve the office dependent thereunto be determine and the grantee of the  custody thereof have not any remedy for it be the will of the owner of the  park to dispark it and to destroy the deer the custody be then determine for  he can be keeper where there be neither deer nor wood but all destroy and  although it be true that a officer who have the grant of a office for life or  year and be to have the profit of casual fee as steward bailiff or parkership  as it be in Henry grant break Henry grant croak car er p can be discharge of  the office for then he shall not have his casual fee that be to be understand  that the grantor can appoint another where the park or manor always continue  as Edward fol resolve but when the park itself be determine and dispark the  office which be appendant thereunto shall be also determine but so long as the  park continue a park he may not discharge he of the office and make another  officer because he have that office for his life and the profit thereof  consist in casualty but the office of a keeper be in respect of the keep of  the park and his casual profit be in respect of his pain and attendance upon  the game the keep thereof and it be to be intend that at the beginning of that  office they be only grant in respect thereof and in continuance of time they  be become appendant to the office and when the park be destroy so as there  needs not such attendance then to be remiss causta be remiss execution as if  one grant the office of steward with all profit of court if the manor be  destroy the office and with it the casual profit be determine also so here the  park and liberty of the park be determine the office be determine in itself  croak car the three question admit the office to be determine whether the  annual fee of forty pound be grant in consideration thereof issue out of the  king manor in the county of Surrey be also determined?And sir John Walter  chief baron hold clear it be but all the other justice and baron dissent from  he in this point only because it be grant by a distinct clause and not out of  the park and although the office be determine yet because it be not by the act  or default of the grantee himself but by the act of the grantor only they  conceive the grantee shall enjoy that annuity vide Edward Edward blow sir  Thomas Wroths case and sir Henry Nevil case