case the chapter OF the collegiate church OF Southwell plaintiff against the  bishop OF lincoln and I S incumbent defendant a chapter although it have no  dean be within the Elizabeth c which be a general law and therefore if such  chapter grant a next avoidance it be void ab beginning for otherwise as there  be no dean on who death it may determine it will be good for ever S C Mod post  ante   Hardres Leon     light Mod Peer wms dougl quare hinder the incumbent  title be under a grant make by the plaintiff who be seize of the advowson ut  de to make one young fig in the right of their church of the next avoidance  one Esco be then incumbent of their presentation to Edward king from who by  mesne assignment it come to Elizabeth bley who after the death of Esco present  the defendant upon a demurrer these point come in question first whether the  granter be within the statute of the Elizabeth c which enact that all lease  gift grant feoff conveyance or estate to be make have do or suffer by any  master and fellow of any college dean and chapter of any cathedral or  collegiate church master or guardian of any hospital parson vicar or any other  have either spiritual or ecclesiastical live of any house land tithe tenement  or other hereditament be any parcel of the possession of any such college  cathedral church chapel hospital parsonage vicarage or other spiritual  promotion or any way appertain or belong to the same other than for the term  of one and twenty year or three life from the time as any such lease or grant  shall be make or grant whereupon the accustom yearly rend or more shall be  reserve and Payable yearly during the say term shall be utter void and of none  effect to all intent construction and purpose second whether a grant of a next  avoidance be restrain by the statute three if the grant be void whether it be  void ab beginning or when it become so fourthly whether the statute of the  Elizabeth c shall be take to be a general law for it be not plead Jones  sergeant for the first point argue that the grantors be within the statute the  word be dean and chapter which he say may well be take several for of this  chapter there be no dean if they be to be take joint then a dean be not within  this law in respect of those possession which he hold in the right of his  deanery but the subsequent general word do certain include they and will  extend even to bishop but that they be superior to all that be express by name  the second point he say the statute restrain all gift grant c other than such  upon which the old rend be reserve c he cite the case of the dean of Hereford  v Ballard a cro Elizabeth   a   the case of ecclesiastical person b   a b and  the earl of Salisbury case c     c the three point he hold it void ab  beginning it must be so or good for ever for here be no dean after who death  it may become void as modern hunt v Singleton d cro Elizabeth   d the chapter  in our case never die the four point he argue that it be a oreneral law  because it concern all the clergy holland ease e   cro Elizabeth l roll Abr  more e and Dumpors case f   b cro Elizabeth   Ent f Willmote contra north  chief justice Atkins Wyndham and Ellis justice all agree upon the three point  as sergeant Jones have argue Atkins justice doubt whether the Elizabeth c be a  general law or not but be overrule they all agree that the action shall have  be bring against the patron as well as against the ordinary and the incumbent  but that be only a plea in abatement modern er p the defendant have waive the  benefit thereof by plead in bar and judgement be give for the plaintiff nisi  causan c Atkins say be think the case of hunt v Singleton a hard case consider  that the dean and the chapter be all person capable that a grant shall home in  force as long as the dean live and determine then he think they be a  corporation aggregate of person who be all capable that there be no difference  betwixt that case and this Ellis say that in Lloyd v Gregory a Jones cro car a  report in Jones it be make a point and that Jones in his argument deny the  case of hunt v Singleton b cro Elizabeth   b he say that himself and sir Rome  land Wainscott report it and that nothing be say of that point but that Lord  coke follow the report of Bridgeman who be three or four year theirpaisne and  that he mistake the case