case anonymous No profert in a return to a mandamus in the argument of a  mandamus to a college at Oxford sergeant wright say that upon a return to a  mandamus they never make a profert in cur because the party have never oyer or  any plea to make to it second that it be a rule in corporation where major  pars there totum and that the master must be name in all corporate act because  without he nothing can be do but that his vote be include in that of the  majority three that if a man by will give land to a college already find with  charge to take in more into the corporation that can be but by surrender of  the former charter and take a new one for corporation can be at this day but  by charter before the statute of Elizabeth they may take a new charter and  that have be a surrender of their old one but I be afraid they can do it  without a Act of parliament because it be a kind of alienation for it be give  a part of the right of the first member away holt chief justice the  corporation be by name of master fellow and scholar and they be as it be the  commoncouncil of the college and though the king make the corporation yet the  founder have power to dispose and order it as he think fit and I take this to  be altogether a lie corporation and then the visitation belong to the founder  and his heir and if he die without heir I take the visitation go to the king  of which vide Edward Simon de Monfords case and this be my private opinion and  whether the right of visitation shall escheat be a point which divide the  court in dr Patrick ease and there be a great diversity between abbot and  convent and master and fellow and mayor and commonalty c for in modern report  case of abbot and convent there must be the major part and the abbot beside  and the reason be because the abbot only act cum general consensus of the  major part of the rest but in case of master and fellow c the master himself  be but part of the act part and he be one of the grantors just as the rest if  it be a donative and a private corporation though it be spiritual I be of  opinion the visitation belong to the founder though he do not by express word  reserve it to himself for why shall it of common right belong to the ordinary  and whether the king may grant the inheritance of a visitation may be a  question for it may be say to be privy to his person but without doubt he may  grant to who he please to be visitor for a time