case mayor of york v Pilkington and other December the that follow smith v  earl Brownlow lr Eq see Warrick v queen coll oxon lr Eq bet v Thompson l r Ch  n distinguish Att Gen v Barker lr ex see commissioner of sewer of city of  London v Gellatly Ch d mayor c of Norwich v brown lt SC post vol where there  have be a possession of a fishery for a considerable length of time a person  who claim a sole right to it may bring a bill to be quiet in the possession  though he have not establish his right at law and it be no objection upon a  demurrer to such bill that the defendant have distinct right for upon a issue  to try the general right they may at law take advantage of their several  exemption and distinct right a bill be bring in this court to quiet the  plaintiff in a right of fishery in the river Ouse of which they claim the sole  fishery for a large tract against the defendant who as it be suggest by the  bill claim several right either as lord of manor or occupier of the adjacent  land and also for a discovery and account of the fish they have take the  defendant demurrer to the bill as be a matter cognisable only at law Lord  chancellor such a bill against so many several trespasser be improper before a  trial at law a bill may be bring against tenant by a lord of a manor for  encroachment c or by tenant against a lord of a manor as a disturber to be  quiet in the enjoyment of their common and as in these case there atkins be  one general right to be establish against all it be a proper bill nor be it  necessary all the commoner shall be party vide Rudge v Hopkins Eq ab pl poor v  clark post vol so likewise a bill may be bring by a parson for tithe against  parishioner brown v Vermuden Charles can or by parishioner to establish a  modus for there be a general right and privity between they and consequent it  be proper to institute a suit of this kind a bill will not lie to direct a  issue to ascertain boundary between two parish parish of saint Luke v parish  of saint Leonard bro Charles Rep there be no privity at all in the case but so  many distinct trespasser in this separate atkins er p fishery beside the  defendant may claim a right of a different nature some by prescription other  by particular grant and a injunction here will not quiet the possession for  other person not party to this bill may likewise claim a right of fish it be  more necessary too in this case there shall be a trial at law for it do not  clear appear whether there be a right even in the plaintiff vide Cressett v  Mitton bro Charles Rep and if it shall eventual come out that the corporation  of York be lord of this fishery then will be the proper time to have a  injunction to prevent their be disturb in their possession his lordship  therefore allow the demurrer this demurrer be set down to be reargued on the  that of march when in support of it it be urge that though it be charge in the  bill that this bill be to prevent multiplicity of suit yet that be never allow  in this court where the defendant have all different title and depend upon  various matter and right and be not like the case of lord and tenant or parson  and parishioner nor proper under the rule of bill of peace for no other party  who have a title or right of the same nature can be bind by this bill the  plaintiff say they have a prescriptive right this be a public royal river the  defendant be lord of manor may have the same right or for the same reason they  can prescribe for that unless for some consideration pay Mr attorney general e  contra the defendant never attempt to set up this exclusive privilege till now  but have always apply for leave to the plaintiff the defendant be owner of  land and lord of manor adjoin to this river and it may proper be determine  whether the plaintiff have that sole and separate right of fishery and that be  incumbent on the plaintiff to prove such bill have be bring by the city of  London for some certain duty and though a great many particular right have be  insist on yet a general issue have be direct to try the right in the case of v  carter a bill be bring by the lord of the manor of Stepney for sixpence on  every load of hay carry to Whitechapel though the lord housekeeper and  scavenger claim each some right in the sixpence yet one general issue be  direct by lord Talbot to try that question and the demurrer in that case be  overrule Lord chancellor when this case be first argue I be of opinion to  allow the demurrer but I have now change my opinion atkins here be two cause  of demurrer one assign original and one now at the bar that this be not a  proper bill as it claim a sole right of fishery against five lord of manor  because they ought to be consider as distinct trespasser and that there be no  general right that can be establish against they nor any privity between the  plaintiff and they in this respect it do differ from case that have be cite of  lord and tenant parson and parishioner where there be one general right and a  privity between the party but there be case where bill of peace have be bring  though there have be a general right claim by the plaintiff and yet no privity  between the plaintiff and defendant nor any gene all right on the part of the  defendant and where many more may be concern than those bring before the court  such be bill for duty as in the case of the city of London v Perkins bro par  can bro p c and ed in the house of lord where the city of London bring only a  few person before the court who deal in those thing whereof the duty be claim  to establish right to it and yet all the king subject may be concern in this  right but because a great number of action may be bring the court suffer such  bill though the defendant may make distinct defence and though there be no  privity between they and the city I think therefore this bill be proper and  the more so because it appear there be no other person but the defendant who  set up any claim against the plaintiff and it be no objection that they have  separate defence but the question S whether the plaintiff heaven a general  right to the sole fishery which extend to all the defendant for  notwithstanding the general right be try and establish the defendant may take  advantage of their several exemption or distinct right another cause of  demurrer be that the plaintiff have not establish their title at law and have  therefore bring their bill improper to be quiet in possession now it be a  general rule that a man shall not come in to a court of equity to establish a  atkins er p legal right unless he have try his title at law if he can see anon  vern east India company v Sandys ibidem paulet v Ingres ibidem east India  company v interloper Charles can Whitchurch v hide post vol Lord Teynham v  Herbert post vol anon Ves weller v Smeaton bro Charles Rep but this be not so  general a objection as always to prevail for there have be variety of case  both be there be two case report together in Prec in Eq bush v western and the  duke of Dorset v sergeant girdler Eq ab pl S c in the former it be hold that a  man who have be in possession of a watercourse sixty year may bring a bill to  be quiet in his possession although he have not establish his right at law in  the latter that a man who be in possession of a fishery may bring a bill to  examine his witness in perpetuan rei memory and establish his right though he  have not recover in affirmance of it at law otherwise if he be interrupt and  dispossess forthen he have his remedy at law in the present case the demurrer  be overrule see the difference between this ease and that of Lord Teynham v  Herbert post vol