coke CORVENS case right to seat in the church S c sub nom garven and time case  Godbolt see Courton v Frewen lr Eq Phillips v holiday ac any person who have  house or land in a parish time out of mind and have have a seat in a aisle of  the same church and have maintain it at his own charge may have a prohibition  against the bishop if he will dispossess he but if a question arise concern a  seat in the body of the church the ordinary shall decide it a parson can take  a gravestone coat of armour tomb c though they be annex to his freehold nor  can he take thing which be hang up in the church for the honour of the decease  the ornament of the chapel of a precede bishop belong to his successor  although other chattel in the case of a sole corporation belong to the  executor of the decease note James t be resolve in the starchamber that if a  man have a house in any parish and time out of mind he and all those who  estate he have have use oh have a certain pew in the church if the ordinary  will displace he he shall have a prohibition but be must claim it as belong to  his house SC godb more Inst corven do libel against Pym a attorney in this  court for a seat in a church in the county of Devon and Pym by sergeant Hutton  move the court to have a prohibition upon this reason that himself be seize of  a house in the say parish and that be and all those who estate he have in the  house have have a seat in a aisle of the church and it be resolve by the court  that if a lord of the manor or other person who have au house and land in the  parish time out of mind and have a seat in a aisle of the same church so that  the aisle be sole and proper to his family and they have maintain it at their  own charge that if the bishop will dispossess he he shall have a prohibition  for it shall be intend that the party ancestor or those who estate he have  have erect and build the aisle with the assent of the parson patron and  ordinary to the intent to have it only to himself but for a seat in the body  of the church if a question arise concern it it be to be decide by the  ordinary because the freehold be in the parson and the place be dedicate and  consecrate to the service of God and be common to all the inhabitant and  therefore it belong to the bishop to order it in such manner as the service of  God may he best celebrate and that there be no contention in the church a a by  the general law and of common right all the pew in a parish church be the  common property of the parish they be for the use in common of the parishioner  who be all entitle to be seat orderly and convenient so as best to provide for  the accommodation of all the distribution of seat rest with the churchwarden  as the officer and subject to the control of the ordinary neither the minister  nor the vestry have any right whatever to interfere with the churchwarden in  seat and arrange the parishioner as often erroneous suppose per sir John nchol  full v lane Addams Rep a pew may however be annex to a house by a faculty or  by prescription which suppose a faculty and may be transfer with the message  per buller I stock v booth TR note yard v ford sand c so it seem there may be  a faculty for exchange seat in a church which be coke report er p and it be to  be presume that the ordinary who have the cure of soul will take order in such  case accord to right and conveniency that be to say to take care that the  gentleman may have place fit for they and the poor people fit place for they  also b and the order thereof be a matter mere spiritual and with this annex to  house ib and when a person have a pew annex to his house he may have a action  on the case against any person disturb he Com dig action on the case for a  disturbance a Griffiths v matthews TR Hussey v Leighton post p but inasmuch as  he have not the exclusive possession he can have a action of trespass per  buller I stock v booth ub supr nor can a person have a action on the case for  a disturbance if the pew be not annex to a house in such a case the  disturbance be a matter of ecclesiastical cognizance alone Manwaring v Giles  barn and Ald Pews do not become annex to house by mere occupancy and they can  be appurtenant to land per sir John nchol Peltman v Bridger I Phil accord to  the case of Kenrick v tailor I will in a action for disturb the plaintiff in  his pew he need not as against a stranger either aver or prove that he repair  it but otherwise where the claim be make against the ordinary ib stock v booth  ub sup Vid Pettman v Bridqer I phillim so where a suit be institute in the  ecclesiastical court by a person have only a possessory right in a pew a party  insist upon a prescriptive right to a pew as annex to a message must prove if  repair have be necessary within memory that they be make at his expense  Pettman v Bridger ub sup and Vid full v lane ub sup Walter v gunner and Drury  I Hagg con a faculty may be grant appropriate a particular pew to a man and  his family so long as they continue inhabitant of a certain house in the  parish or which be the more modern form to a man and his family as long as  they continue inhabitant of the parish but the ordinary can grant a seat in  the body of the church to a man and his heir without annex it to some  particular message Brabin and Tradams case Poph per buller I stock v booth Ub  sup per abbot I Clifford v wicks I barn and Ald per sir wm Scott Walter v  gunner and Drury I Hagg con whenever the occupant of a pew in the body of the  church cease to be a parishioner his right to the pew howsoever find and how  valid soever during his continuance in the parish at once cease and determine  though the contrary be very often suppose as for instance that he may sell or  assign it or let it to rend as part and parcel of his property in the parish  so again if pew be annex by prescription to certain message it be often  erroneous conceive that the right to the pew may be sever from the occupancy  of the message it be no such thing it can be sever it passes with the message  the tenant of which for the time be have also dejure for the time be the  prescriptive right to the pew per sir John nchol full v lane Addams Vid Com  dig church g burn e l degge Pars Couns starke on evidence Vol III p note yard  v ford sand c with respect to a aisle of a church if it have time out of mind  belong to a particular house and be maintain and repair by the owner of that  house it be part of his frank tenement and the ordinary can not dispose of it  or intermeddle in it and the reason be because the law in that case presume  that the aisle be erect by his ancestor or those who estate he have and be  thereupon particular appropriate to their house Gibs Codex but with respect to  the chancel the general rule be that the rector be entitle to the principal  pew in the chancel but that the ordinary may grant permission to other person  to have pew there per Bayley I Clifford v wicks I barn and Ald Gibs cod a  grant therefore of part of the chancel of a church by a layimpropriator to a  his heir and assign as it will take the chancel out of the jurisdiction of the  ordinary or at least will be inconsistent with the right of the parish be not  valid in law Clifford v wicks barn and Ald and Vid full v lane Addams b the  parishioner have a claim to be seat accord to their rank and station but the  churchwarden be not in provide for this to overlook the claim of all the  parishioner to be seat if sit can be afford they accord they be bind in  particular not to accommodate the high class beyond their real coke report er  p agree h and the chief justice cite the case of dame Wiche in h and say the  case there be that the lady bring a bill in the king bench against a parson  quare One lunicam vocalam a catarmor and pennon with the arm of the say sir  Hugh Wiche her husband and a sword in a chapel where he be bury and the parson  claim they as ablations and therefore that they do belong to he and there it  be hold that if one use to sit in the chancel and have there a place his  carpet livery and cushion the parson can claim as ablations neither ought he  to have the say thing for that they be hang there in honour of the decease and  therefore by the same reason although a gravestone coat of armour tomb c be  annex to the freehold of the parson yet in regard the church be free to all  the inhabitant for bury the parson can take they and the chief justice say  that the lady may have a good action during her life in the case aforesaid  because she herself cause the say thing to be set up there and after her death  the heir to the decease shall also have his action because that as the book  say they be hang there for the honour of his ancestor and therefore they be in  the nature of heirlooms which by the commonlaw belong to the heir as be the  principal of the family the like law of a gravestone tomb and the like c want  to the exclusion of their poor neighbour who be equal entitle to accommodation  with the rest though they be not entitle to equal accommodation suppose the  seat to be not all equal convenient per sir John nchol full v lane Addams c  the ordinary be to judge of the convenience of allow tomb or monument to be  erect and if do without his consent he have sufficient authority to decree a  removal Gibs cod bardin v Calcott I Hagg con all parishioner have a right to  be bury in the churchyard without leave of the incumbent but the permission of  the ordinary be necessary before any monument can property be erect it be to  his care that the fabric of he church be commit that it shall not be injure or  deform by the caprice of individual the consent of the incumbent be take on  such occasion and especial of the rector for monument in the chancel a faculty  likewise be require though it be frequent omit under the confidence repose in  the minister and the ecclesiastical court be not eager to interpose per Lord  Stowell Maidman v Malpas I Hagg con when once a monument be erect it can be  remove without the sanction of the ordinary Maidman v Malpas ub sup monument  coatarmour and other ensign of honour set up in memory of the decease may not  be remove at the pleasure of the ordinary or incumbent on the contrary if  either they or any other person shall take away or deface they the person who  set they up shall have a action against they during his life and after his  death the heir of the decease shall have the same who as they say be  inheritable to arm c as to heirlooms and it avail not that they be annex to  the freehold though that be in the parson but this as I conceive be to be  understand with one limitationif they be first set up with the consent of the  ordinary for though as my Lord coke say tomb sepulchre or monument may be  erect for the decease in church chancel c in convenient manner the ordinary  must be allow the proper judge of that convenience inasmuch as such erect for  so he add ought not to be to the hindrance of divine service and if they be  erect without consent and upon inquiry and inspection be find to the hindrance  of divine service it will not I hope be deny in such case that the ordinary  have sufficient authority to decree a removal without any danger of a action  at law gibson cod in Seager v bowl I Addams it be contend that if monument be  regular set up with the leave of the minister single the ordinary have power  to remove only in the event of their prove nuisance or encumbrance but from  the decree in that case it will seem that no practice can absolute legalise  the erection of a monument without a faculty ornament can be hang up in the  church without the leave of the rector but when private individual hang up  black cloth in a church with the concurrence of the rector from respect to the  memory of some person decease the rector have no right to take any portion of  the cloth unless there be some agreement to that effect by coke report er p  and this agree with the law of other nation Bartbo Cassaneus fol man inaliquo  loco Conc action that si some a situation deleat sive abrasi c etin Edward in  the bishop of carlisle case it appeared coke that the ornament of the chapel  of a precede bishop do belong to the succeed bishop and be mere in succession  although that other chattel in case of a sole corporation do belong to the  executor of the decease party and shall not go in succession so in the other  case thing erect in the church for the honour the dead person shall go to his  heir as heirlooms as in manner of a inheritance note that in easter term James  it be resolve in the court of starchamber in the case between Hussey and  Katherine Leyton and other that if a man have a house in any parish and time  out of mind he and all those who estate he have have use to have a certain pew  in the church that if the ordinary will displace he he shall have a  prohibition for if he have it by prescription he have as good right in the  seat as he have in his house but observe that he must claim it as belong to  his house and not in other manner for proper it belong to the inhabitant in  the manorhouse if any manor be and not to the manor or which include other  tenant farmer and inhabitant but true it be that the ordinary shall dispose of  common and vulgar seat in the church where there be no such prescription as be  aforesaid e