case woodley against the bishop OF exeter Mainwaring and Edward if a incumbent  be make a bishop by which the church become void the king by his prerogative  shall present though the subject be the patron SC winch SC dyer in marge in  text show SC Jones dr saint cro Elizabeth ld ray Com dig will Bl Rep the  grantee of the next avoidance lose his presentation if the incumbent be make a  bishop and the king grant he a commendam or present to another a commendam  grant for a certain number of year entitle the bishop to hold the benefice for  life quare hinder for the church of Tedlin in the county of Devon the  plaintiff entitle himself by grant of the next avoidance and show that the  incumbent be create bishop of in Ireland and that afterward the king grant to  the say bishop to have and retain the say church for six year in commendam  croak throw the incumbent die whereby the church become void whereupon the  plaintiff present c the defendant plead a insufficient plea whereto it be  demurrer this case have be oftentimes argue at the bar be this term argue at  the bench by Hutton winch and Hobart who all agree that the plaintiff be to be  bar for he have not sufficient entitle himself in his declaration Hutton  conceive that the church be void by the incumbent be create a bishop of  Ireland as well as if he have be make a bishop in England for he have take a  great charge and the government of a church have make void the first benefice  but he hold that the king have not any title to present by the incumbent be  create a bishop but only where the king be patron of the same benefice nor be  there any book to warrant it but only the yearbook mark pl a but all ancient  book be to the contrary as Edward pl Henry pl and that there be not any  presentment as by prerogative where the incumbent be create a bishop until of  late day second they all hold that when the incumbent be create a bishop and  the king present or grant that he shall hold it in commendam which be quasi a  presentation and he be thereby full incumbent and may plead as incumbent if  the grantee of the next avoidance do not then present he have lose his  presentation for he ought to have the next avoidance and he can have any other  and therefore they hold if the next avoidance shall be take from he by a  former title as in dower or by a statute or by other title whatsoever that he  have lose it for ever for he can claim any by his grant but the next only and  deny the case put to be law that if one devise the three avoidance and he die  and the wife recover the a coward v martial cro Elizabeth b see the case  revive and determine cro car a dyer croak James er p three that he shall have  the four avoidance vide Henry Br present all Esgl Henry ib Henry Henry dyer    three Hutton in his argument hold that the commendator although he have it but  for six year yet have power to retain it during his life and can be abridge by  the limitation for six year but be permanent incumbent thereof during his life  and it be as a confirmation or attornment or assent to a legacy and can  abridge the estate which be confirm c but that it shall enure accord to the  estate limit winch as to this point agree with he but for the interest which  the king have to present when the incumbent be create a bishop after  consecration winch hold that the king have a absolute title by his prerogative  as well in case where a common person have the patronage as where the king  have it and he be not only as immediate patron or supreme patron because the  incumbency be void by his create of he bishop he have it by his prerogative  and man sort of precedent since the time of king Henry the eight be by he cite  where the incumbent be create bishop in England or Ireland that such  presentment have be ration tribe which voted first and not as patron croak  throw at Lord hobart argument I be not present but I hear he agree with they  concern the grantee of the next avoidance that he have not any title to bring  the quare hinder and that the presentee of the king be in the next turn after  the grantor the grantee have no remedy but must suffer the prejudice by reason  of the prerogative they all agree that the bar be ill for the traverse be of  the conclusion but because the plaintiff have not make a sufficient title in  his declaration it be adjudge quod nothing to take in hand per breve