chapman against Mattison the cursitor of the chancery of Durham be bind to  make out a mandate upon a latitat direct to the bishop of Durham SC stram a  attachment be pray last Hilary term by Mr denison against Mr Hilton the  cursitor of the ChanceryCourt of the countypalatine of Durham for refuse to  make out a mandate upon a alias latitat which issue out of this court to the  bishop of Durham and it be say that the action be indebitatus assumpsit for  against this motion it be now argue by Mr Bootle and the attorneygeneral of  the countypalatine of d that this latitat command the bishop of d to do what  by Act of parliament he be prohibit for it direct the bishop by your writ to  command the sheriff c whereas it shall have be say our writ in the name of the  king accord to the statute of h c sect which require all writ in  CountiesPalatine to be in the king name and though this writ be mandatory yet  it imply a negative that the process to be issue by the bishop shall not be in  the king name and in the same manner the statute of h c which be in the  affirmative imply a negative that sheriff shall not take more fee than be  there prescribe the statute of g c S be not here comply with this latitat be  not subscribe by any attorney of the countypalatine who name may be put to the  mandate but by a attorney of this court only which be contrary to the constant  practice but suppose that Andrews neither of these objection will prevail the  question will then be whether a latitat run out of this court into the  countypalatine of Durham and this may be now very proper determine especial as  a motion have be already make on the instance of the bishop for supersede the  latitat sand now as to this point which be of great consequence to  CountiesPalatine for if these writ run there they willhave but little  jurisdiction leave it be to be observe that this county be a countypalatine by  prescription and of great antiquity seldom title of honour part c cambden  britan p e a e a and former the owner of CountiesPalatine have jura regalia  they may pardon treason and all felony whatsoever and have the power of  appoint justice in Eyre of gaoldelivery and of the peace and also of issue all  kind of writ both original and judicial in their own name the jurisdiction of  CountiesPalatine be consider as a original jurisdiction and be superior to and  more absolute than that of any other franchise or exempt court as those of the  cinqueport or of ancient demesne for of these the jurisdiction must be plead  whereas of the other this court will take judicial notice h bro judgement Inst  Inst sand SC I side this show that there be no suspicion that there be any  failure of justice within the jurisdiction of CountiesPalatine indeed in case  of treason and attachment process out of other court will run in  CountiesPalatine the reason whereof be that these touch the prerogative royal  and imply a non to let go and so it be in the case of the king debtor as in a  quo minus this be in aid of the crown and a writ of error may be bring on a  judgement give in a county palatine this writ be only in nature of a  commission for correct the error of the judgement and without it there will be  a failure of justice as there be no other way for rectify the judgement but  none of these reason extend to the present case which be that of the king  ordinary writ and that the jurisdiction of this countypalatine be a Andrews  exempt jurisdiction within which the king writ do not ordinary run appear by  the follow authority stat de Praegro king e c stat e c stat e c stat e c stat  in e c stat Elizabeth c S stat Elizabeth c maynard Edward e cite Inst e e h h  b Andrews er p h h b Sav roll Rep Bulst Bulst vent SC lev salk prince and  Moulton a Carth salk ld ray comb Mod holt post a hill W action on the case in  this court for exalt a millbank whereby some meadow in Chester be overflow and  the cause be send down by mittimus to be try there and afterward the judgement  be arrest here for a fault in the declaration a writ of error be bring  hereupon in the exchequer may and it be hold that the action ought not to have  be bring in this court and the judgement be reverse Dodd and Fletcher b post b  Trin W roll debt on bind in the king bench and the cause be try at Chester and  the plaintiff obtain judgement whereupon a writ of error be bring in the  exchequer Chamber and Trin two W the judgement be reverse do and Richardson c  post c Trin in Ann roll action on the case in for obstruct a way in the  countypalatine of and the plaintiff obtain judgement upon which a writ of  error be bring but the defendant in error do not think proper to compel the  plaintiff to proceed leech and page d fort d mich Ann motion to supersede a  habeas corpus which have issue to the countypalatine of Chester because the  cause will be thereby take out of a rightful jurisdiction and after great  debate it be agree that where it appear the defendant reside in the  countypalatine it can not be remove by habeas corpus and the writ be supersede  as to the case of Acton and somner e lill Ent post e hill g in c b that be a  local action and consequent there may be a failure of justice if it be not  maintainable whereas this be a transitory action and may be bring in any  county it be further urge that it will be of great Andrews inconvenience to  the inhabitant of CountiesPalatine to subject they to the writ of this court  and a great infringement of the privilege of the atorneys of those county and  it will also lessen the revenue of the bishop of d who be entitle to a fine  where the cause of action be above beside the writ of this court be never obey  in the countypalatine of Durham whereof affidavit be produce swear by several  ancient atorneys there and if there be any precedent of such writ issue to  other CountiesPalatine it do not affect the right of this county and precedent  of process without any judicial determination be of small weight Vaugh on the  side of the motion it be argue by solicitor general strange and Mr denison  that the statute of h do not extend to a mandate on a latitat this be not a  orginal or judicial writ but only by way of bill beside this latitat be to be  understand accord to common parlance and mean such a writ as by law the bishop  may issue and it be call your writ because it be test in his name the name of  a attorney be set to the latitat and this be sufficient but to mandate in  CountiesPalatine it be never set nor be it to be suppose that the atorneys of  these place will apply for or sign such mandate beside the process have not  yet issue and after this the name must be set as to the main point the  jurisdiction of CountiesPalatine be former shake question but of late year it  have be full settle particular in Acton and somner f ante post f that indeed  be a local action but this make no difference for as in such case if the cause  of action arise within the jurisdiction of the countypalatine yet to prevent a  failure of justice I e if the defendant do not live there or have nothing  amesnable to satisfaction this court have a jurisdiction so in transitory  action which this do not appear to be where the cause do not arise within the  countypalatine it will be a manifest failure of justice if the defendant can  be arrest in the countypalatine that the writ of this court run there seem  plain by the statute of W Andrews c and by the rule make Trin c that the  sheriff of Chester which be a county superior to Durham Inst do return all  writ from this court under the penalty of and to entitle the countypalatine it  must be show that the cause of action arise within its jurisdiction for if it  arise elsewhere the plaintiff can recover in the countypalatine the present  question be certain of great consequence and therefore it be very improper to  determine it on motion but it ought to be put in such a way as that it may  receive the determination of the dernier resort and therefore a plea to the  jurisdiction be the only way in which the defendant can take advantage of this  matter Fitzherbert jurisdiction confirm in comb Sav Inst   Hardr Carth lee and  ransom g post g hill g a latitat issue to the countypalatine of Lancaster to  which it be return that the cause of action arise within the jurisdiction of  the Andrews er p countypalatine and that such writ do not run there but the  court quash the return for that it do not lie in the officer mouth to return  this matter and it be now say that all other CountiesPalatine submit to  process issue out of this court which be a strong proof of its legality in the  case of prince and Moulton cite contra the only matter the court go upon be  the fault in the declaration and in do and Richardson no judgement be give and  though in Dodd and Fletcher the judgement be reverse it be to the  dissatisfaction d c I holt and other judge as be mention in Acton and somner  and that case be not there adhere to as to supersede the writ that can be do  now because it be returnable in which case it be never do and Mr solicitor say  he believe there be a case where the court refuse to supersede a excommunicate  to take in hand after it be return to this point the court now agree and lee  c j say it have be so determine in the case of a mandamus but as to the  principal point the court take time to advice and afterward in this term lee  c j deliver the resolution thereof as follow Andrews there be no ground for  the conceit that the late Act for regulation of atorneys be in this case break  inasmuch as the latitat issue out of this court and be sign by a attorney  hereof upon the last argument the court say that this statute do not extend to  mandate and suppose the practice of the county palatine to be to the contrary  as have be mention this be no excuse to the officer because if this court can  send a writ to the countypalatine it ought certain to be obey in this point  the present case be similar to that of Mr Yeates the deputy of the custos  narrow places in the common plea which be mich g a certiorari be there award  out of this court for remove a original from the in common plea and for not do  this a attachment be pray against the officer upon a affidavit that the say  original be among a bundle of paper in the office and although it be swear on  the other side by Yeates that a ne To take back be enter against the original  and that this can not be file before the ne To take back be take off which can  be do by the practice of the common plea without leave of that court this be  hold to be no sufficient excuse for Yeates because as this court have a power  to send a certiorari they may lawful use all mean that be proper for attain  the end of send it and he be commit and Eyre just say that the power of this  court will be very precarious if such excuse be to be suffer the other  exception to the form of the writ be not material for by the word by your writ  the bishop be command in effect and accord to the meaning thereof by his writ  under the seal of the countypalatine c and to compel the sheriff as by law be  ought under the principal question much bath be say of the dignity of county  palatine and of the superiority of the jurisdiction thereof to other inferior  court and particular it have be say that judgement give in the court of  Westminster hall in all case where the Andrews CountiesPalatine have a  jurisdiction be absolute void whereas they be voidable only where any other  inferior court have jurisdiction this point I shall not controvert but it do  not affect the present question which be whether the king in this court can  send a writ to command the deputyofficer of the court of this countypalatine  to issue his mandate it be urge that be can because short catalog domini king  non to run into CountiesPalatine and the statute of e c e c Elizabeth c S  Elizabeth c and other have be cite to this point however it have be agree at  the bar that this rule be to be understand under some restriction in Inst  there be three exception make to it and beside these it appear that other writ  and in other instance have go to CountiesPalatine as in I side salk as to the  expression in the act that the king writ do not run into CountiesPalatine the  meaning be that they do not run to the sheriff of those county which they do  not because these be not the king officer and that this be the proper  construction of that expression appear partly by the preamble of the statute  of e c on this side of the question be cite Dodd and Fletcher where the  judgement of this court be reverse in the exchequerchamber it appear that the  cause of action arise in a countypalatine but this as I be inform by sir  clement Wearg who tell I he receive his report from the deputy of the  exchequer be do at the instance of the defendant in error for the sake of  expedition the judge in the exchequer be divide in opinion do and Richardson  be also cite but no Andrews er p judgement be there give and in prince and  Moulton the judgement be reverse on a different point and no opinion be give  upon that of jurisdiction it bath on the other side be often determine that if  a personal action be bring in this court where the cause of action arise in a  countypalatine and the defendant do not plead to the jurisdiction he can take  no advantage thereof in the case of Rigden and sir Charles hedge h Bigden  hedge Mod ld ray h Pas W which I have from a ms report sergeant Carthew  Andrews reflect on latitats be send into CountiesPalatine at which holt c j be  great offend and he say that if a man be arrest in a countypalatine and be do  not plead to the jurisdiction this court shall hold plea thereof and so he say  it be not only in a personal action where the cause thereof arise in a  countypalatine but also in a local one if there be no plea to the jurisdiction  and he cite   Fitzherbert law agreeable herewith be the case cite in Carth and  of somner and Acton Pas g in c b there the plaintiff declare against the  defendant in guard mark for take a gelding as to the force they plead not  guilty and as to the residue that two of the defendant be overseer of a will  in Chester and the three a constable thereof and so they justify by way of  distress under the statute of Elizabeth to which the plaintiff reply without  in an unjust manner svan not common with others and judgement be thereupon  give for the plaintiff a writ of error be bring of this judgement and after  two argument the one by Mr Bootle for the plaintiff in error in which he argue  much to the same effect as he have do in this case and by Mr fazakerly on the  other side and the other by sergeant Cheshire and Mr reeve the judgement be  affirm in this court from these case it appear that in all personal action  whether local or transitory if there be no plea to the jurisdiction the court  of westminsterhall may hold plea thereof if indeed the title of land in a  countypalatine come in question in a real action that can be bring only in  such county the true reason whereof be and so it be mention by Lord chief  justice holt in the case of Rigden and sir Charles hedge that in such case the  summons must be on the land and no judgement can be give until after  appearance but in ejectment it have be think proper to plead to the  jurisdiction and in lady Falconbridges case I Barnard b r SC not S p vide hark  tract I Trin g in this court it be move by Mr reeve for leave to plead to the  jurisdiction and he tell I the defendant plead accord where it be say  therefore in the book that where a countypalatine have a jurisdiction a action  bring in another court be void this Andrews must be understand of real action  and of such personal action in which there be a plea to the jurisdiction I Mod  the present action may for ought appear be a transitory one and the defendant  may be flee from the justice of this court and therefore it be within the  reason of the above case and like that of lee and ransom in this court mich g  a latitat be there direct to the duke of Rutland chancellor of the  countypalatine of Lancaster to which there be a return that the county of  Lancaster be a county palatine where the king writ do not run and that all  plead be pleadable in the court of the say countypalatine except c and that no  inhabitant of the say countypalatine ought to be compel to answer out of the  same and further that the defendant be a inhabitant of the say countypalatine  c in this case no solemn opinion be give but the court declare that the return  be frivolous and therefore it be quash but no attachment be grant because the  party come to a agreement in Griffith and Alcock king Barnard b r king hill g  in this court the question be whether the service of a copy of a latitat the  debt be under be sufficient in a countypalatine without a mandate and it be  hold to be a good service on the word of the Act and it be there agree that  there be a right of execute the latitat in the say county and in Trin g the  court of common plea come into the same opinion the statute of W c S seem to  allow of writ issue out of westminsterhall to CountiesPalatine the word  thereof be any of his majesty court of record at Westminster without confine  it to the court of exchequer upon the whole therefore if the defendant will  take advantage of the want of jurisdiction he must plead it and the rule for a  attachment be make absolute a writ of latitat run into Wales vide Penry v  Jones Doug Lloyd Jones Doug n Lampley Thomas I will content vide hargrave  tract Andrews er p