case the king against JARVOIS in quare hinder if the plaintiff derive his  title under letter patent from the king and the defendant plead that bene et  yes be that the king be seize of the advowson and grant it prout in the  declaration yet the plaintiff notwithstanding his confession in the plead must  give some evidence that the advowson be once in the crown a trial at bar in a  quare hinder for the church of Northfield set forth that John Webly late prior  of the dissolve monastery of saint James the apostle of Dudley in the county  of Worcester be seize of the advowson of the say modern church in gross as of  fee in right of his say priory and that he and his convent on the nine of June  in the twentyfirst year of Henry the eight grant the next modern er p  presentation thereof to Ralph Bradley and other under their common seal that  by the statute make on the four of February in the twentyseventh year of Henry  the eight the priory be dissolve not have above the clear yearly value of two  hundred pound and the possession thereof be give to the king and his heir  Henry cap a that Henry the eight die seize and it afterward come to queen mary  and so on to queen Elizabeth that Ralph Bradley the fourteenth of August which  be in the last year of queen mary grant the next presentation to sir Richard  levingston and Edward levingston Esq that sir Richard die and Edward  levingston survive and be sole possess that queen mary die seize of the  advowson and the church become void by the death of Richard walker and that  Edward levingston present Henry squire who be institute and induct that queen  Elizabeth die without issue and the advowson of the say church descend to king  James the first and so derive a title to his present majesty and that the  church be void it belong to he to present the defendant plead that bene et yes  be that king James be seize of the advowson in gross as of fee prout in the  declaration but that be by letter patent under the great seal date the eleven  of July in the thirteenth year of his reign grant the same to sir Charles  Montague and Edward sawyer and their heir the church be then full of the say  Henry squire that they on the fifteen of July in the same year grant it to  Edward Skinner and his heir that Skinner afterward levy a fine to sir Thomas  Jarvois and declare the use thereof to the cognizee and his heir that sir  Thomas Jarvois on the thirty march in the four year of Charles the first grant  the next presentation to Phineas white that the church become void by the  death of squire and that Phineas white present Timothy white who be institute  and induct that sir Thomas Jarvois die seize and the advowson do descend to  sir Thomas Jarvois his son and heir and that the church become void by the  death of white that he thereupon present John Hinkley who be institute and  induct modern that sir Thomas Jarvois die seize and the say advowson descend  to the defendant be his son and heir and that the church be void by the death  of Hinkley he present the defendant Hinkley thereunto who be institute and  induct and traverse that king James die seize of the advowson aforesaid modus  et form prout Attorn general pillage dom king nunc per narration svan pillage  superius allegavi protestand that sir Thomas Jarvois decease and the defendant  Jarvois be successive for the space of sixty year and more before this writ  bring seize of the advowson in gross as of fee and that Henry squire die about  sixty year before the writ bring for plea say that bene et yes be that king  James be seize and derive a title to the defendant Jarvois without hoc that  the church be void by the death of Henry squire the attorneygeneral take issue  upon the traverse of Jarvois which be now to be try the question at the trial  be whether the defendant shall give evidence and show how this advowson come  out of the crown for have allege that bene et yes be that king James be seize  and induce his title by a grant from the king and have traverse that the king  die seize c he ought to produce his grant and show how it come out of the  crown for the seize of the king be confess in the plea ex hoc sequitur that he  die seize but notwithstanding this confession in the plea the court make the  plaintiff give some evidence that this advowson be once in the crown the  plaintiff thereupon produce a grant of the prior make by he of the next  presentation and the priory be now dissolve the advowson of consequence must  be in the crown the defendant then produce his grant which be by a warrant  from the commissioner under the great seal for confirm defective title the  counsel for the plaintiff insist that such grant be not sufficient because  those commissioner have not a authority to make a original grant they have  only a special authority give they to supply defective title by confirm such  grant which be already make by the king modern er p this commission which be  date the twentyfourth February in the first year of king James be upon record  under the great seal it be a express authority give to certain person and the  grant make by they be with reference to that authority for it be per warrantum  commissionate therefore they must produce a actual grant from the crown now it  appear that the king be deceive even upon the modern very record which make  the letter patent void without a to know facias for he intend to grant nothing  but what be in the possession of the party before or for which he have some  colour of a grant upon which the commission be to operate but it be argue for  the defendant that he need not show a precedent grant because this make by the  commissioner be sufficient for it shall be presume that the commissioner do  pursue their authority and the possession have be in the defendant and his  ancestor for sixty year and upward and no presentation since from the crown it  shall never be intend that those commissioner exceed their power and of this  opinion be the court especial since the plaintiff can not produce any evidence  that the king do present to this live since the dissolution of the priory and  therefore it be possible that the prior may grant away this advowson before  the statute of Henry c and it may be that evidence be give of such a grant to  the commissioner these letter patent be grant to commissioner to quiet the  possession of the people whether the crown have alley pretence or not the  plaintiff be nonsuit