case the king against champion the king can be put out of the possession of a  advowson by any number of usurpation ante post SC Yelv SC brown roll ab   more  hob   light Mod error of a judgement give in the common plea in a quare hinder  for the church of Moreton valance the sole question be whether a double  usurpation shall put the king out of possession and put he to a writ of right  of advowson and against the opinion of Anderson it be there adjudge that the  king be put to his writ of right and can not maintain a quare hinder but now  the error be assign in matter of law after diverse motion the court resolve  that the king may well maintain a quare hinder for the king have such  privilege that he can by any act be put out of his inheritance unless by his  own patent and as he can be oust of his inheritance concern land so he can be  oust of a advowson but usurpation upon he and plenarty shall bind he quoad the  possession until he remove the incumbent by quare hinder for reason require  that the church shall be serve and one be in by presentment and accord to the  ceremony of the church can be put out without action and as it be agree that a  stranger can put the king out of possession of a advowson but that it be in he  to grant or dispose thereof by the same reason a second presentation shall not  gain any possession nor twenty presentation but that he always remain seize  and in possession of the advowson for there ought to be a time when one may  say that a party have gain possession against the king a and if he can gain it  by the first then the croak throw king remain in possession after the first  presentment and plenarty thereby there be no more oust from he by the second  than by the first and by consequence he be not oust by twenty others And  Popham say it be so resolve in Hussey case a that two or three usurpation upon  the king do not gain such a possession against he but that the advowson remain  always in he which he may grant and upon avoidance may present thereto and  maintain a quare hinder upon disturbance and although it have be say that in  Yeardleys case b which be adjudge Eliz the queen be not put out of possession  by a double usurpation but maintain a quare hinder and be not put to her writ  of right of advowson the record do not mention any induction upon the second  presentment so as there be not any plenarty against the king yet Popham and  Tanfield say they well remember the case be then argue as if there have be  induction and then the court do not conceive but that induction be full plead  and yet resolve that it shall not bind the queen c and give judgement accord  and so Lord Anderson have report it wherefore they all here resolve accord and  judgement be reverse Fenner unanimous send haesitanter a by Geo c a time of  limitation be now extend to the case of the king who be thereby disable to  make title except to liberty and franchise beyond the space of sixty year to  be reckon backward from the time of commence any suit or proceed to recover  the thing in question a cro Elizabeth W Jones b   a roll Rep c and now by the  Ann c no usurpation upon any avoidance in any church vicarage or other  ecclesiastical promotion shall displace the estate or interest of any person  entitle to the advowson or patronage thereof or turn it to a right but he or  she that will have have a right if no usurpation have be may present or  maintain his or her quare hinder upon the next or any other avoidance if  disturb notwithstanding any such usurpation c croak James er p