case Howard against wood easter term car roll a grant to two person of the  office of stewardship of a honour and of the keep of the court leet and court  baron within the honour with the perquisite to hold they after a prior grant  determine for thirty year if they or either of they shall so long live be good  and they may after the grant take effect maintain a indebitatus assumpsit for  take the fee incident to the court baron as for money have and receive to  their use SC lev SC Freem SC Jones Indebitatus assumpsit for the fee and  profit of the office of stewardship of a court leet and court baron be bring  by a grantee of the reversion of the office for ninetynine year against a  stranger who take the fee and profit thereof c in this case the question be  two first if such office be grantable in reversion a roll     win Rep a  Elizabeth c b Elizabeth c shower KB er p second if this action lie as to the  first it be argue that a stewardship be a ministerial office and therefore be  grantable in reversion the reason why a judicial office be not grantable in  reversion be the great regard which the law have thereto which it have not to  a ministerial office that be but of a mean consideration in the eye of the law  in the case of young v foul a it be adjudge that the registership of ail  ecclesiastical court be grantable in reversion because exercend per see well  per deputy suum although sir John savage case b seem to the contrary but sure  a steward office be grantable in reversion the grand objection be that it be  partly judicial partly ministerial as be auditor curl case c where the grant  of a auditor place in reversion be hold void because partly judicial as well  as ministerial and can be divide and the rule be quod offician judicialia non  to go away before to be empty for that otherwise great inconvenience will  ensue for he who at the time of the grant in reversion be able and sufficient  to supply the office of judicature and administer justice to the king liege  subject before the office fall may become unable and insufficient to perform  it but it be argue that the stewardship of the leet and court baron here be  distinct for the former come by prescription the latter of common right shower  KB one may be hold at one time the other at another time there may be two  steward and therefore that the stewardship of a court baron at least may be  grantable in reversion second the next point be if the plaintiff have a right  to the place can have a indebitatus assumpsit it be argue that he may because  it be his money and he have a right to it and by construction of law the  defendant receive it to his use and then the plaintiff by bring his action  give his subsequent assent thereto in the case of Tottenham v Bedingfield d it  be agree that if one receive my rend I may implead he in a writ of account and  then by the bring of my action there be privity for I may make a privity by my  own consent and I may as well bring case as a account and so be the case of  lady Cavendish v Middleton e and for late authority there have be two know  case express in the point as that of arris v Stukele f in the exchequer about  a year since indebitatus assumpsit for the fee of the office of the controller  of the custom at Exeter and hold upon debate that it will lie for the  plaintiff in such action must prove his title to the office ere he can make a  right to the money and this be as necessary here as in a assize so that a  title to ail office may be try in this action as well as in that there be also  in this court the cause of Aston v uvoodward g the two present clerk of the  paper concern that office try at this bar in this action three as for its be  grant for year it be answer that it be for ninetynine year if they shall so  long live Mr bigland e contra a assize proper lie of a office the book be full  thereof a special action of the case will lie but not a general indebitatus  assumpsit there must be a contract or agreement of the party before ever the  law will raise a promise therefore he think the action will not lie the  declaration ought to be accord to the fact it be lie that the defendant  receive the fee ad use et just to express grief whereas in truth he receive  they to his own use this course will turn out assize and ejectment too for  they will now try all such title shower KB by this action nay they may by the  same reason try title to land by bring this action for the profit thereof the  office of a stewardship of a manor be not grantable in reversion h nun can  give judgement in going to be none can take a office in reversion therefore  none can grant it the office be grant to two person videlicet to Lord Howard  and his son now a stewardship be not devisable so a prothonotarys office be  not a Trinity term car in b r cro car and see SC cro car b dyer   light c c    d Leon e cro car f Mod g Mod SC vent SC Freem h see the case of sir John  savage dyer and auditor curl case   co light shower KB er p grantable to two  for two can have the custody of the roll and such patent be void so be sir  John Foggess case I where it be likewise hold that such grant of the office of  chief justice to two person will be void for it may be grant to twenty as well  as to two as for that case of auditor curl king there be a Act of parliament  to make two person one officer so he conclude that the grant be void and he  urge that the action be ill bring the first case where a indebitatus assumpsit  be bring for the profit of a office be that of Bruehill v Foukes of a  coalmeters place Mr William in Trinity term follow urge that if it be a  ministerial office it may be grant in reversion the countess of shrewsbury  case m be express therein and that he may make a deputy be express resolve in  the same case though there be no word in the grant to that effect the case of  the office of Walton n be another direct resolution in the point the main  objection be that the office be to be steward of a court leet and court baron  both that of a court leet be a judicial office that of a court baron be only  ministerial and therefore they will have it a void grant as to the whole he  answer that it shall enure as two several grant for he first grant the  stewardship of a court leet and then that of the court baron they may be  distinct and separate in grant as they be in their nature they be two office  and there may be two steward there may be two grant in one deed and as for the  action there may be many injury without force oh shower KB Mr attorney general  e contra it be a question whether a subject may grant this office in reversion  I think not sir John savage case p afore cite be positive that if it be a  judicial office it can be grant in reversion and if this be but one office it  can be good for one part and void for the other it must be void for the whole  as to the indebitatus assumpsit he cite Fitzherbert Q that if a man enter into  my land and receive the profit I shall have a writ of account in brook r it be  say that account lie not against disseizors for want of a privity which there  ought to be in law or fact as by assignment or guardian or on a pretence of  the defendant to the plaintiff use but can be where the defendant claim to his  own use he urge many thing insist on before c Lord Scroggs in Hilary term  follow deliver the opinion of the court we have consider of the case by  ourselves and discourse it together and be agree on both point first whether a  indebitatus assumpsit lie against a man who receive the profit of a office  claim a right if this be now a original case we be agree it will by no mean  lie for nothing then which may not be try by itself but because judgement have  be upon it and that on solemn argument and many judgement though some pass sub  silence yet other have be debate and settle and particular in the exchequer we  be therefore Willing to go the same way and be of a opinion that it be better  to comply with thing once use that be not of very pernicious consequence than  to make one court thwart and contradict another in its judgement and certain  the inconvenience be not so very great since the title must be give in  evidence and so be well try we do upon that account adjudge that the action do  well lie second point whether the stewardship of a court leet and court baron  be grantable in reversion for ninetynine year if they shall so long live we  take this to be different from sir George reynold case S because that be a  lease for year absolute which carry it to executor and administrator and so  perhaps to person unable for if it have be shower KB to I S for ninetynine  year if I n shall so long I yearbook Edward pl but in uvoodward v Aston king      light m   n dyer pl oh see king v Blifill dougl and Milward v thatcher term  Rep p dyer Q Fitzherbert n b a r bro Abr account S   cro James bridge shower  KB er p live then it have be nought but the case in question be not so and  therefore the reason of reynold case do not reach this far we make a great  difference between the place of judge here in a court of record and steward  who inter alian have the keep of a court of record the former must be personal  attendant the latter may exercise the office by deputy so auditor curl case  must be understand secundum to throw under means a auditor place be a office  very great and can be exercise by deputy and so it be of any office partly  judicial and partly ministerial if personal attendance be requisite and where  a deputy can be make there the reversion can be grant t but this office may  and usual be exercise by deputy for several nobleman have the stewardship of  court belong to several bishop and they exercise they by deputy and this be  agree upon by the whole court and judgement for the plaintiff which be sir  Robert Howard note these reversionary grant of office be of late invention be  first introduce in the reign of James the first and be contrary to the rule  and reason of the commonlaw no one for to be able dare id quod non to have c  Bracton