case duke of Bridgewater appellant sir Francis Edward respondent that February  where by great length of time it be become impossible to know out of what  particular land ancient quit rend be issuable court of equity have exercise a  jurisdiction and have constant on proof of payment within a reasonable time  decree a satisfaction for all arrear of such rend and payment of the same for  the future see the case of Eton college v Beauchamp c c and Eq ab b with the  other case cite there and in Eq ab so court of equity will interfere where the  day on which the rend be Payable be state to be uncertain holder v Chambury p  wms and see the note there or where there be no demesne land on winch to  distrain Leeds duke v Powell ves or where the distress be obstruct by fraud  Davy v Davy c c or where no distress can be make the subject be of a  incorporeal nature as where a rend be issue out of tithe Berkeley v Salisbury  e cite bro c r as from c c see Fonblanques treat Eq I in n decree of the court  of exchequer reverse the appellant and his ancestor be lord of the manor of  middle in the county of Salop and entitle to receive several small rend or  service from the tenant of the say manor and particular a rend of S a year  from the respondent and his ancestor or those who estate he have which rend be  issue out of land in Houlston a village or hamlet within the manor belong to  the respondent this rend have be neglect to be pay for several year and the  respondent have be apply to but refuse to pay the same the appellant in easter  term exhibit his bill in the court of exchequer against the respondent set  forth his title to the say rend and that the same have be pay by the ancestor  of the brown respondent or their tenant and particular by James Fewtrel and  Margaret Fewtrel his widow on behalf of the respondent or his ancestor but  that the respondent refuse to pay the same and in regard the appellant can not  discover what part of the respondent land be Chargeable with the say rend so  as to distrain or otherwise recover the same at law the bill pray a discovery  out of what land the say rend issue and also a account of the rend and the  arrear thereof and that the appellant right thereto may be establish the  respondent by his answer to this bill admit that the appellant be lord of the  manor of middle and that he be entitle to several rend from the tenant there  but deny that the appellant or his ancestor to his knowledge or belief have  ever have or receive or be entitle to the say rend of S or that the same have  be pay by the respondent or his ancestors He admit that he be seize of diverse  land in Houlston but deny that the same be hold of the manor of middle or that  any of the tenant of the say land of the name of Fewtrel do ever pay the say  rend to the appellant and insist that in case the appellant have any right or  title to the say rend he may have his remedy at law for the same issue be join  in the cause diverse witness be examine and the same be hear on the that of  July when the court without hear any proof read be please to decree that the  appellant bill shall be dismiss with cost from this decree of dismission the  duke appeal and on his behalf it be argue I will d rider that chief rend  commence time beyond memory by great length of time it frequent become  impossible to know out of what particular land they issue but which be  necessary to be prove in a course of proceed at law to recover such rend and  therefore such remedy be exceed difficult and tedious and in most case  absolute impracticable for which reason and that there may not be a right  without a remedy court of equity have for a long series of time exercise a  jurisdiction in case of this nature and have constant where there have be  proof of payment make within a reasonable time decree a satisfaction of all  arrear of such rend and payment of the same for the future and if in these  case court of equity be to deny relief many rend of this kind though  indisputable due brown er p will be irrecoverable and entire lose that the  appellant have suggest by his bill that he can not discover what part of the  land be Chargeable with the rend so as to distrain for or recover the same at  law and have make proof in the cause both by the deposition of witness and by  ancient rentals that the say rend have be constant pay for many year by the  tenant of the respondent ancestor to the ancestor of the appellant until about  the year if it shall be object that these proof be not mention in the decree  to have be read nor order to be enter as read it may be answer that the court  do not dismiss the bill upon any defect in the proof but because they be of  opinion brown that they have no jurisdiction and can not give the appellant  any relief even though his case have be make out as state in the bill and  therefore there be no proof read and it be the usual method of that court not  to permit any proof to be enter as read but what be actual read at the hear  the appellant therefore hope that he shall either be permit to read his proof  at the hear of the appeal although they be not read or enter as read in the  court of exchequer or that the court shall be direct to enter into the  examination of the fact contain in the appellant bill and in that case that  the decree of dismission will be reverse for the respondent it be only say t  Lutwyche n fazakerly that the appellant have not evidence to support his  pretend demand and that if there be sufficient evidence of it there be nothing  appear in the cause which make it necessary to come into a court of equity but  that the matter may as well have be determine at law and will have be attend  with much less expense after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and  adjudge that the decree complain of shall be reverse and that the court of  exchequer shall proceed to hear the cause upon the plead and proof jour vol p  satisfaction