clxxxiv the lord Howard and the town OF walden case betwixt the Lord Howard  and the town of Walden the case be that the king make a feoff in fee of land  parcel of his duchy of Lancaster tenant in feefarma redden ind Himself heir  nest or that who de jure To give back debet the question be bow and of who the  tenure shall be it be argue by Plowden that it shall be hold of the king as of  his duchy he say the king be not bind by the statute of because buyer the  earth but here upon this feoff the feoff shall hold of the king as of his  duchy all grant of the king notwithstanding that they be of land yet they  savour of the person of the king and his prerogative be wrap Leonard up in his  person shall guide the disposition of the land and he say that this tenure  shall be employ by reason and in respect of his person and the statute of  because buyer the earth extend to tenant only freely to hold great man another  but the king be not freely to hold alicuj great man h the king have a advowson  in the right of his duchy to which be void he present be mayrepeal his  presentment and he vouch diverse precedent of grant of the king of such land  to hold of he as of bis duchy and sometime of other and the king by his duchy  seal may give land in mortmain and the king under his dutchyseal have make  diverse corporation within his duchy and although this rend be a new thing  never parcel of the duchy yet because it be issue out of the duchy land and  reserve thereout shall be of the same nature and account parcel of the  possession of the duchy if before the statute of west one seize of land on the  part of his mother make a feoff in fee tenant by such Leonard er p service and  die the seignory shall go to the heir on the part of his mother and shall be  descendable as the land it self in lieu of which it come and if tenant in tail  now after the statute of h make a lease for ear accord to the statute render  rend to he and his heir it shall be expound such heir which be inheritable to  the land accord to the entail manwood chief baron demand of Plowden this  question the king make a feoff in fee of land of his duchy be the same a  matter of record who answer yes manwood true no for then there deeded not any  livery Egerton solicitor argue to the contrary and he argue much upon the  statute of h and h of the separation of the duchy of Lancaster from the crown  which see in the comment in the case of the duchy of Lancaster by which act  the possession of the duchy be divest out of the body politic of the king and  vest in his body natural and be as their corporal hold in the king as they be  in the duke of Lancaster be a subject who if he have make a feoff the feoff  shall not hold of he but of the king ergo so shall it be in the case where the  king himself make a feoff and be cite a case put in the end of the duchy case  Elizabeth the queen make a feoff of land of the duchy out of the county  palatine to hold of her in capite the feoff shall hold of her in capite as of  her crown of England the case go far the king after this feoff grant the  feefarm the question be if the rend reserve upon this feoff shall pass by such  grant or not and he say that this rend be not parcel of the feefarm but rather  a collateral charge upon the land for in all case where there be a tenure  express in fait or employ in law there the rend reserve after shall not be  parcel of the tenure but a rend in gross by it self as in our case be end in  feod firm make a tenure therefore the reddendo after shallnot make the sum  reserve parcel of it e annuity before the statute of because buyer the earth a  man make a feoff in fee tenant de dominus capital render the rend of that rend  be a rend in gross and not parcel of the tenure king e grant to Cranmer  archbishop and his heir tenant by the five part of a knight fee reddendo per  and Cranmer make feoff in fee to the use of himself for life the remainder to  the use of his son in tail the remainder to the use of the right heir of  Cranmer make a fee who be attaint of treason by which the remainder to his  right heir escheat to the king and so the seignory be extinct but it be  adjudge that the rend be in be and not extinct by the escheat of the remainder  for it be not parcel of the seignory so here in our case another matter be  move if this rend be a new thing create de to make new and not parcel of the  possession of the duchy h nor Leonard h shall be account in law in the right  of the crown or of the duchy and if of the crown then it can pass by the duchy  seal and the statute of h speak of such land and tenement which be to his  ancestor duke of Lancaster but this rend never be in they c and the queen can  enlarge the possession of her duchy by her own act and therefore if I S be  tenant in feesimple be implead in a praecipe quod To give back and say that he  hold for life the remainder to the king in fee in the right of his duchy now  this remainder be vest in the king in the right of his crown and not in the  right of his duchy for it be only a estoppel so the villain of the king in the  right f his duchy purchase land the king seize he shall have the land in the  right of his crown and not in the right of the duchy if the king give common  out of his land parcel of his duchy and afterward make a feoff in fee of the  land out of which the common be grant and afterward the commoner die without  heir the king shall have the same in the right of his crown and not in the  right of the duchy so although the rend do follow the nature of the land out  of which it be issue yet it be not so to all intent and he say that by the  statute of Phil man the king can not enlarge the possession of the duchy and  therefore by the say Act authority be give for to annex possession unto the  duchy by letter patent and there be another clause in the say statute that if  any part of the possession of the duchy have be alien or grant unto any  subject and be revert to the crown by escheat attainder forfeiture purchase c  they shall be deem and accept parcel of the duchy which case prove that if the  king make a feoff of such land the same be a tenure in chief for if it be a  tenure of the duchy then upon escheat it shall be Leonard er p parcel of the  duchy again without the help of that statute now this rend be a rend in gross  and not parcel of the seignory reddendo lord king heir successor nest or lord  or owner fee when the king grant the seignory to the Lord Audley it have be  move that it be in the election of the feoff to pay the rend to the king or to  the Lord Audley but that be not so for although the law be so betwixt subject  yet in case of the king it be otherwise for the king shall never be overreach  by a election and therefore be shall pay the rend to the king it be adjourn  more Rep post hill Elizabeth in the common plead