case the king against the bishop OF chester and other grant to a man by the  name of knight who be only esquire be void S c salk S c salk S c Mod S c show  p c S c skin S c ld ray a writ of error from the court of common plea in a  quare hinder the question be whether a advowson grant to sir William Thexton  by king Charles the first pass and by Eyre and Rokeby justice and holt chief  justice it be adjudge that the advowson do pass and therefore judgement ought  to be reverse a Turton justice argue e contra but another point be start  videlicet a variance in the grant as plead in the letter patent it be set  forth in the plea that king Charles the first grant the advowson W Thexton  armigero et postea military spirit and the letter patent be William Thexton  military spirit and for reason of this variance the judgement be affirm by  Eyre and Turton justice and holt chief justice but Rokeby justice e contra  because he say a grant make to a man by the name of knight who be not a knight  be not void so as constat de mask and there be nothing in this record to  oblige they to take William Thexton knight and William Thexton esquire for two  distinct person and therefore the court will never intend it on purpose to  make void a grant but by the other three it be hold that a man who be not a  knight can take by the name of a knight for first knight be part of a man name  as be hold by all the book without contradiction and be not only a addition a  second a knight be a name of dignity modern report and a name of dignity be as  much part of a man name as his Christian name and a grant make to a man by a  wrong Christian name can be good it must to agree de mask not in the plea only  but in the grant itself now it do not appear by that that William Thexton  knight and William Thexton esquire be the same person now the name of esquire  be certain drown in the name of knight for all name of worship be drown in  name of dignity but it be object that though a man be no real knight yet he  may be a repute knight so a name of reputation will be a sufficient  description to take by to which it be answer first that be who be a repute  knight and yet be not a knight can take by that name for where a man take by  name of reputation there must be some foundation to ground that reputation  upon as there be in case of a bastard who take by name of a son but there be  no foundation for a man to be a knight who be no knight but it may be object  that name of dignity may be support by reputation as the old son of a duke  have the title of a marquis or earl now suppose a grant be make to the old son  of a duke by the name of marquis that grant will be good because there be a  foundation for it for by the law of heraldry every duke old son take place as  marquis that be after all real marquis and the common usage of the realm give  they those title in all write nowadays but the old conveyance be cautious in  so do they call they such a one esquire common call marquis c and even in  modern conveyance they be always mention to be the old son of such a one it be  say by Hutton and Richardson in the debate of the earl of Pembroke case b that  if a grant be make to one by the a see the plead the state of the case and the  judgement of the court on this part of the case Mod to a see yearbooks Henry  pl Henry pl Edward pl Inst Hutton b Litt Rep modern report er p name of knight  who be no knight it be a good grant but there be no foundation for it for if  that be so a name signify nothing and Thomas may as well take by the name of  John as a esquire by the name of knight but suppose reputation will have do  yet the defendant shall have aver that he be a esquire send cognit et think  over by the name of knight Eyre chief justice if a feoff be indeed make to a  man by a wrong name but livery be make to he in person there the feoff be good  because constat de mask and the book put a difference between a grant that  have its operation by a deed itself and where it be by livery in the former it  can be good in the latter it S in the case of the earl of Pembroke a modern  report the issue in a quare hinder be whether sir William Sandys grant the  next avoidance by the name of sir William Sandys esquire and the court hold  that the verdict have make this a good grant but without that it have be void  as to Lord ewer case b a grant be make to my Lord ewer by the name of r ewer  Knt Lord ewer and though he be not a knight at that time the grant be hold  good but the reason of that be because it be a sufficient description of the  person there be but one Lord ewer at the time as in   light a if land be give  to r earl of Pembroke when his name be Henry or George bishop of Norwich when  his name be John the grant be good because there can be but one earl of  Pembroke or bishop of Norwich at a time but here the grant be to sir William  Thexton knight and the defendant plead it to William Thexton esquire which be  two several person for which reason judgement ought to be affirm this  judgement be afterward reverse in the house of lord easter term the ten of  William the three in the king bench sir John holt Knt chief justice sir Thomas  Rokeby Knt sir John Turton Knt sir Samuel Eyre Knt justice sir Thomas Trevor  Knt attorneygeneral John hawles Esq solicitor general