case johnson vers lee in b r it be lie down in the case of Horton and Wilson  that no court can better judge of the fee that have be due and usual in the  spiritual court than themselves and that therefore the suit for fee be most  proper for that court unless where the foundation of the demand shall be  custom and it shall come in question whether the custom be so or not Mod  prohibition to spiritual court when grant for fee there Mod SC skin SC holt SC  salk ray SC holt S c Mod S c keb Gibs cod burn Ec law vent Mod keb bunb Bac  Abr Com dig a prohibition be pray upon suggestion of the statute of h c by  which it be enact that none be cite out of his diocese that the plaintiff be  resident at Hungerford in the county of Berks within the peculiar jurisdiction  of the dean of Sarum and that the defendant have cite he to the court of arch  for fee expend in the spiritual court which be the customary fee the defendant  show that the dean of Sarum request the dean of the arch c Northey argue that  the suit out of the diocese be ill for the request of the dean of the arch  upon which the defendant rely ought to have be make to the next superior who  be the bishop hob cro car cro James burn Ec law Gibs cod a hob side roll Rep  second the suit ought not to have be in the spiritual court for fee for demand  pro need labour be proper determinable at commonlaw and in this case the law  imply a promise in the retainer if it shall be object that this court bath not  cognizance of fee in the spiritual court by the same reason it may be say that  no action shall be bring here for fee in a court of equity but the defendant  say that the fee demand be customary fee due time out of memory if so it may  be prove in evidence and although suit here be not frequent for proctor fee  yet it comens make nothing against we for suit for they be in general term pro  need labour vide roll Rep Mod Rep keb Freem a where a prohibition be grant for  a suit in the spiritual court the like car keb b by hale c j upon a motionHale  c j say in this case that no action upon the case be ever bring for such I e  proctor fee and that therefore they may be sue for in the spiritual court sir  Barth shower be on the other side and be say that the dean of Sarum have  independent jurisdiction and therefore his request to the dean of the arch be  good second fee be necessary in all suit and whoever bath cognizance of a suit  may have it of the fee incident thereunto the spiritual court shall always  determine incident mark shall have cognizance of a way to a church of seat in  the church so if a be indebt to b in and bequeathe so much to b the spiritual  court shall determine of both holt c j a dean quatenus dean have no  jurisdiction but as he bath a peculiar he be exempt from the ordinary for that  be the import of a peculiar then the principal question be whether a suit in  the spiritual court shall be bring for fee it be grant that a suit may be  commence for they at commonlaw fee can be settle by the canon law but they the  spiritual court give cost and expense of suit but debt do not lie for such  cost at commonlaw Rokeby I cite a case between Goslin and Froggat churchwarden  of the church of d in Staffordshire salk this case be know by the name of  Goslin v ellison c and in c b where at a visitation of the archdeacon a  presentment be make among other for register fee and after several motion a  prohibition be grant and then the matter be compoundedIt be say that after  several motion a prohibition be grant Gibs cod comens er p