case alice master administratrix of Charles master against lews to a  indebitatis assumpsit bring by a administrator against the debtor of the  intestate the defendant can plead in bar that a creditor of the intestate have  enter a plaint in the sheriff court against the ordinary and that the debt for  which the action be bring be thereby attach in his hand at the suit of the  creditor S c ante S c Carth S c ld ray S c skin S c salk S c holt S c comb  Indebitatus assumpsit against lews and upon non assumpsit plead the cause be  try before holt chief justice of the king bench in guildhall London and it be  give in evidence modern that master be indebt to Gosfright and lews be indebt  to master who die intestate that the defendant after the death of master  receive two hundred and fifty pound due to the say intestate for wage as  master of a ship and before any administration be grant to the plaintiff for  that be contest by Gosfright he Gosfright levy a plaint against the archbishop  of Canterbury as ordinary for the debt due to he there be a nothing return in  the sheriff court of London and upon four summons there be a to know facias  and judgement against he and the money of the ordinary be attach in the  defendant hand which be afterward condemned and receive by Gosfright then  administration be grant to the plaintiff who bring this action against lews  and have judgement to recover but whether the point in law be a good bar to  her action the custom of foreign attachment as in the present case be always  plead special skin salk ld ray but it may now be give in evidence under the  general issue will Bl Rep a it be refer to the opinion of the court by the  chief justice himself to who it be refer at the trial it be argue that such a  attachment be well warrant by the custom of London for above one hundred and  fifty year that there have be no writ of error in all that time bring upon any  such judgement neither be there any precedent to the contrary the objection  against it are First that by this mean the administrator will be liable to a  devastavit second that no such action will lie in the sheriff court against  the ordinary as to the first objection this can be no devastavit in the  administrator for if he be sue he may plead plene to manage which will be good  especial in this case where no good come to his possession then as to the  second objection by the statute Westminster the second c the ordinary be  liable for any debt so long as he have good in his hand which Act be make in  affirmance of the commonlaw now until administration be grant the ordinary  represent the person of the intestate there be many custom in London which be  allow there and in no other place as arrest before a debt be due c ante  calthorp hob vent roll Abr Bac Abr a and they be the proper judge of their own  usage and this court will presume that they have act accord to custom unless  the contrary appear so in London a executor shall be charge to pay a debt upon  a simple contract of his testator Snellings case   cro Elizabeth b and this be  hold a reasonable custom modern e contra the plaint be enter against the  archbishop and he be summon modern er p which ought not to be for the money be  in London the bishop of London if any body ought to be summon but the chief  question be whether this be a suit within the custom of foreign attachment in  London and as to that matter it be argue that this be not a reasonable custom  for at commonlaw before the statute of Westminster the second though the  ordinary can not sue for or release a debt due to the intestate yet he may  seize such good which he find to be in the intestate possession and dispose  they at his will or to pious use and it be a question whether debt will lie  against he if he do otherwise for the creditor of the intestate can not call  he to account because the law adjudge he the fit person to take care of the  estate it be true the commonlaw be a little defective in this matter but now  by that statute debt will lie against he for such good which shall come to his  possession and the reason which be give in the statute be the same which be  before for if the ordinary will intermeddle with the good he shall account as  a executor ought to do and this be the very ground of the writ in Fitzherbert  Fitzherbert n b c praecipe a bishop Lincoln ad pron  interrog  manus good et  catalla who fuer b who to go without a will ut to say to come c and for this  very reason if the ordinary die his executor shall be liable now if he can be  sue but where the good of the intestate to come to his possession then the  plaint bring against the archbishop be wrong for he have no good of the  intestate in his hand and be a mere stranger to the suit and judgement and  therefore be no proper defendant for which cause this attachment be not good  since the statute Edward c the ordinary be compellable to grant administration  to the next of kin which if he refuse the court of king bench will grant a  mandamus to compel he now here be a plaint bring against a ordinary to who the  right of grant administration belong and who never refuse to grant it and who  can be answerable unless he actual intermeddle with the good but here he be  condemned to answer before he know any thing of the suit the custom be that if  the defendant who be real the debtor appear the attachment against the  garnishee will be discharge and then he must put in bail to render his body or  pay the condemnation money but the archbishop can be compel to do either so he  be not within this custom modern the authority which come near to this case be  in dyer where one Toft be indebt to Foxcroft and Wilkinson be indebt to Toft  who die intestate the ordinary grant administration to martial then Foxcroft  levy a plaint in London against the ordinary and upon a nothing return as in  this case the money be attach in the hand of Wilkinson and recover and pay to  Foxcroft and the administrator bring a action of debt for it the defendant  plead the custom of foreign attachment in London and all the matter before  mention and upon demurrer to the plea the plaintiff have judgement now though  administration be grant in that case before the plaint levy against the  ordinary which be not in this case yet the reason of that judgement may govern  this case because the ordinary can have no action against Wilkinson the  garnishee to recover the debt due to the intestate therefore no action shall  lie against he so in this case because the ordinary can sue it be unreasonable  he shall be sue and the custom will not extend to make he liable to such suit  curian the reason why money be attach in the hand of the garnishee be to make  the debtor appear now the defendant lews be never indebt to the ordinary  therefore he can not be compel to appear by enter a plaint against the  archbishop to who there be nothing due there be several custom in London  against law as arrest the bail without a to know facias or capias against the  principal c but this custom can be support by reason and though their custom  be confirm by Act of parliament yet such custom which be contradictory to  reason and to the principle of the commonlaw shall not be allow in the court  of king bench afterward in Michaelmas term follow it be hold that no action do  lie against the archbishop and by consequence the plaintiff in this case have  judgement modern er p