burrow king versus bishop DUNELMENSEN Monday that April mandamus to a visitor  to exercise his power during a vacancy deny Mr will on behalf of dr stern  prebendary of the second stall in the cathedral church of Durham move for a  mandamus to the bishop command he to exercise his visitational power over the  temporalties of that church in the instance herein after mention in which dr  stern have apply to the bishop to exercise it who refuse to do so unless under  the authority of this court and he allege that such visitational power be give  to the bishop by the that of their statute and there be no other method of try  this question but before the bishop as visitor Mr Norton for the bishop say  that the bishop be not satisfy that he have such a power and therefore he  propose that the dean and chapter shall be call in to litigate it N B the  merit of the question be whether the successorprebendary dr stern have a right  to two year and a half profit accrueing during the vacancy of the stall from  the death of dr Benson bishop of Gloucester the last precede prebendary which  intermediate profit the other prebendary have receive and divide among they  Lord Mansfield think that a action at law be the proper method and instance  the case of dr young v dr Lynch p g b r and mention likewise canon Seagars  case who be a canon of the church of Salisbury in chancery whether the bishop  can have a jurisdiction to determine this point or whether matter of property  in cathedral can be determine otherwise than accord to the course of the law  of the land be a great question and certain the dean and chapter must have a  opportunity to show cause against a mandamus be issue to the bishop to  exercise such a jurisdiction burrow but in this particular case the question  must be litigate not only with burrow er p member of the body but with  executor and administrator of decease prebendary over who the bishop suppose  he visitor and as visitor to have conuzance of such a case can have no power  which alone be decisive against his jurisdiction in this question Mr will  perceive the court so strong against he agree to take nothing by his motion