churchman versus Tunstal hold overrule Ruzzey v field c m r in the exchequer  Chamber upon English bill the case be thus videlicet the plaintiff be a fermor  of a common ferry at Bramford in Middlesex at a feefarm rend the ferry have be  a common ferry time out of mind and he lie in his bill that no other person  ought to erect any other ferry to the prejudice of his and the defendant be  waterman who have land on both side the river of Thames about three quarter of  mile distant from the plaintiffs ferry do usual in his boat ferry passenger  horse c which be prejudicial to the plaintiff common ferry wherefore the  plaintiff seek here to suppress the defendant ferry and that the defendant may  be enjoin by decree of this court to use the plaintiff ferry and the plaintiff  council insist that it be usual and frequent in such case to suppress by  decree such nuisance in the king case and that of his fermors as in case of a  mill erect to the hindrance of the king mill and the like in case of a fair or  market although in those case a special action upon the case or a quo warranto  lie well enough and in Trin James lib lose vigor fol inter attorneygeneral and  Webster it be decree that a beam set up to weigh lead near to the king beam  within his manor to the nuisance of the king beam shall be cut down and mich  and Elizabeth n this court there be a case betwixt sir John cut and the mayor  and burgess of Thackstead in Essex concern a fair which be cite in this case  Hardres against a common ferryman a action upon the case lie if he refuse to  carry passenger c or if he exact excessive prize and he be indictable if he do  not keep his ferry in good repair c but a private ferryman be riot again a  ferry be a franchise and a flower of the crown which a private man can set up  without licence and the case in h per Paston and Newton in express in point  vide h the council of the other side urge that these common ferry be in the  nature of monopoly and restraint upon trade that a common stream be like a  common highway which be free to all for which reason tollthorough can be claim  by prescription ass that the restraint which the plaintiff will lie upon other  be uncertain and without limit of distance for by the same reason that the  defendant may not use a ferry three quarter of a mile from the plaintiff ferry  by the same he may not use one two three or ten or twenty mile off nor be this  case like to that of a mill for that a quo warranto lie not here that this  prescription be in the negative and not prove as it ought to be and they cite  ante Cr Cr the distinction ante Cr Hardres er p these case videlicet h h  Edward Rep cro I Rep and the court be of this opinion because it come too near  a monopoly and restrain trade and because no precedent be show in point the  case of a beam that have be urge be of a beam in the king own manor and they  dismiss the bill but without cost say quaere de Ceo for contrary to the book  of h and to precedent in like case in this court which be the proper court for  the revenue and ought to prevent damage and prejudice that may arise to it