castle versus Lichfield in a action upon the case bring here and lie in London  upon a indebitatus assumpsit for money for tobacco the university of Oxford  demand conusance of the cause by reason of a charter grant to they by Henry  and confirm in the of Elizabeth by act of parliament whereby be give to they  conusance of all suit arise any where against any scholar servant or minister  of the university depend before the justice of the king bench common plea and  other there mention and before any other judge though the matter concern the  king but the court of exchequer be not mention in the clause but in the clause  whereby be grant to they all fine impose upon any of they in any court there  the court of exchequer be name and the question be whether the conusans shall  be allow by this court in this action by quo minus per debtor domini king  Hardres crook pro quer conusance lie not here first because the plaintiff be a  privilege person here and it be prejudicial to the king that it shall be allow  for the king may have the benefit of what be recover here by his debtor which  advantage he will lose if this demand of conusance be allow and it appear    Inst roll that where two privilege concur the first that attach shall prevail  second the action be lie in London and be a tranitory action and be lie there  it shall not be alter by a demand of conusance no more than in the case of a  county palatine when a action transitory be lie elsewhere as it be resolve car  vide Henry three it do not appear that the conusance in question extend to  this court for this court be not name vide Henry and the word or other court  will riot include it after the name of other inferior court as in Rep  archbishop of Canterbury case upon the same reason it have be resolve that a  bishop be not within the act of Elizabeth of lease make by spiritual man and  for authority he cite a case in car between Shalcroft and Wilkins in which he  say it have be adjudge so in this court Hardres er p Holloway pro to ward off  cite Henry and say the word other justice whoever do comprehend the baron of  the exchequer and by the same reason that conusance shall be oust here by the  same reason all other officer of other court if sue here shall be oust  likewise of their privilege pron  interrog  opposite direction be yes as  appear by daily practice also by the word here although to touch our the king  have dispense with his prerogative object Henry b resp the word here be well  alibi infra kingdom England to bring forth object wilkin case resp that case  go upon a particular reason there be a copartnership in the case and it be  declare that the university shall not be prejudice thereby the demand there  fail by the lachess of the defendant who do not follow it it have be allow in  chancery which court be not name in the charter and in Elizabeth in pool case  upon a information here for make card it be allow and the defendant not compel  to plead Hardres holt pro to ward off first a quo minus be not a writ or bill  of privilege nor be it so call as when privilege person sue in the court where  they be privilege vide dyer Leon but if the plaintiff be a accountant and  enter upon his account that will alter the case because his attendance will  then be requisite de die in diem but a quo minus be now but a common action  here it appear by ass pl that a quo minus do not lie unless a debt be confess  to the king and then the king debtor have a quo minus for the king benefit so  it appear by Henry that a man in custodian marischalli have the privilege of  the court of king bench if be be sue alibi and may have a supersedeas which he  can have now because it be now common practice and though guard marischal be  but fictitious and not real vide Henry conusance allow nor be there any  prejudice to the king for he may have execution elsewhere as appear Inst and  here the king have grant over the conusance whereby he have deprive himself of  any benefit thereby vide Edward ass bro conusance and the word here although  to touch our be a bar to the king as in more be Rep Reg and the king interest  be here name express the patent ought to be hold as strong against he as the  law will be for he if he have not be name chief baron there be three question  in this case first whether the grant extend to this court or not second  whether it extend to this action and three whether the conusance ought to be  allow here the action be lie in London as for the case of Wilkins that have be  cite that be no precedent for it be declare that the conusance there be not  allow both because of the lachess of the defendant and upon a particular  reason of copartnership three sort of person be privilege in this court debtor  officer and accountant enter upon their account the two latter shall have  their privilege if they be sue elsewhere but not the first his privilege will  not prevent conusance if the grant extend to this court for a debtor have  privilege only for the king benefit which be now disuse but conusance be not  to be allow in any case if it appear that by allow it there will be a failure  of justice as when they can try the cause because it be local but if this do  not appear at first the cause shall be adjourn thither and upon a erroneous or  irregular proceed a resummons lie et adjornatur Hardres afterward in the same  term it be argue by Mr sawyer pro quer and by Mr Montague pro to ward off  sawyer conusance ought not to be allow in this cause first because it appear  by the demand that conusance be grant to the chancellor or his commissary or  deputy but the demand here be make by the deputy and bailiff of the vice  chancellor and so by the deputy of a deputy contrary to the grant make to the  university second the defendant be not allege to have be a privilege person  when the cause of action accrue but only when the action be commence and  perchance he be not privilege when the cause of action accrue and if so he  ought not to have it allow three the grant extend not to this court because  not name but only to the court of king bench common plea and other inferior  court fourthly it be not consistent with the dignity of this court to be  include in the word and other court c after the name of several inferior court  five if they have conusance of the cause yet they can determine this cause  because it be lie in London and they can try by jury a cause lie there because  it be out of Hardres er p their jurisdiction and a inferior court must upon  conusance allow proceed upon the same plea and declaration as appear   light  Inst and they can compel the plaintiff to declare anew Montague it be object  that conusance shall not be allow in this court resp the case in the Rep  archbishop of Canterbury case be to be intend where no superior be name before  the general word but inferior only but without doubt if there have be any  superior name the word and all other ecclesiastical person will have  comprehend all see in   mag chart where it be say that communia placita non to  follow curian our men extend to the court of exchequer another object have be  make because the action lie in London resp this do not hinder the conusance  for the court have jurisdiction in all case that concern scholar or officer  and the cause here be not to be remove or adjourn thither to be try there but  ought to be dismiss here that they may begin again there and so be the  precedent and the clause in their charter be that they may proceed as they  please per testes accord to the common or civil law so that the lie of the  venue in London do not hinder their proceed there because the plaintiff must  begin de to make new Hardres it have be object that the vicechancellor be but  a deputy and therefore can make a deputy to demand conusance resp this be not  material for a bailiff may proper demand it a four objection have be make  because the defendant do not appear to have be a privilege person at the time  that the action accrue resp he shall be intend to have be so if the contrary  appear not and the precedent be with we as to that hale chief baron it seem  clear to I that the demand here be good and that the university ought to have  the conusance allow first because the patent be general that they shall have  conusance of all cause wherever c in England and power to proceed as they will  accord to the common or civil law but such a patent will be void at commonlaw  because not limit to a certain place and because it empower they to proceed  accord to the civil law but this patent be confirm by act of parliament  Elizabeth and that as full as if it have be transcribe into the act verbatim  here be three thing considerable first whether or no the suit here by quo  minus be a hindrance to the privilege of the university and I hold it be not  for the privilege of a debtor only entitle himself to the court but be no bar  to any other privilege second whether the grant extend to this court or not  resp it do not clear because the grant begin with superior court as king bench  commonplea and then descend to other inferior court c these word be sufficient  to comprehend this court which be not superior to the king bench or commonplea  and by the case cite in and Elizabeth it appear that this grant extend to  cause depend in the chancery and exchequer ergo c three whether or no if the  plaintiff be dismiss here there will be a failure of justice resp there will  not there be in Elizabeth a case betwixt spell and Jeffard where the town of  Maidstone demand conusance and it be hold that the lie of the action in London  do not oust the conusance because the suit here be to stay and be dismiss and  the plaintiff to proceed there ab origin de to make new for the better  apprehension of this it be to be know that there be three sort of conusance of  plead first there be rashly placita which do not oust any other court of  jurisdiction but create a concurrent jurisdiction the second be Hardres  getting to know to please as when a plea be commence here of which the  conusance belong to another court three there be a conusance of plead with a  exclusive jurisdiction as in this case that no other court shall hold plea c  and this be a supersedeas to any other court the first be a concurrent  jurisdiction the second be to be take advantage of by plea and after trial the  cause to be remand the three be exclusive of all other and be a supersedeas to  they vide James b r in Halsleys case and I car b r where it be hold that the  lie of the action in another place be not material because they must begin de  to make new nor be the objection material that the vicechancellor and not the  chancellor demand conusance for the court here be to supersede upon notice of  the patent he conclude for the university that the conusance ought to be allow  baron turner accord and conusance be allow accord Hardres er p