chapman against pendleton casual entire service in second deliverance the case  be this a man seize of a house and fifty acre of land hold by rend fealty and  harriot service feoff the lord of three acre parcel of the land and after  feoff the plaintiff in this action of three other acre and upon this the sole  question be if by this feoff to the lord of parcel harriot service be extinct  or not Harris sergeant conceive that the harriot remain for he say that it be  reserve to the reversion of the tenure but it be not as annual service but  casual and it be not like to rectifier for that it be incident to every  service and by Edward it be no part of the service but improvement of the  service and Bracton in his tractate de releviis book say that be alian bring  outpost peremptory or urgent call harriot c and to greater extent fit de  agreeableness how ex jure and it be not like to a relief see the book at large  old woman he agree that if the tenant have make fifty several feoffmetits to  fifty several meet that every of they shall pay a several harriot as it appear  by Bruertous case coke Brownlow goldsborough Edward harriot Edward avowry  Edward ibidem Edward avowry Edward assize Edward h tenor but he ground his  argument principal upon Littleton where it be say that the reason why homage  and fealty remain if the lord purchase part of the tenancy be for that that  they be of annual service and it seem to he that Littleton be ground upon  Edward extinguishment Edward Edward b apportionment last case which accord the  reason and upon this he conclude that for that that the harriot be not annual  it shall not be extinct by the feoff but remain but he agree if a man make a  lease for year render rend and parcel of the land come to the lord the rend  shall be apportion if it be by lawful mean as it appear by r f quid law  Clarnat Plesingtons case and h dyer Rushdens case by which c Nichols sergeant  that it have be agree that it be entire service and that then be conclude upon  that that it shall be of the nature of other entire service as it appear by  Edward avowry and Edward f harriot Edward avowry and he agree that in the case  of Littleton the homage and fealty remain and the escuage shall be apportion  but this be not for the reason allege in Littleton that be for that that they  be not annual service but for that that the homage be incident to every knight  service and as the Lord coke say fealty be incident to every service in  general and the tenant shall make oath to be faithful and loyal to his lord  for all the tenement which he hold of he and the reason for which the escuage  shall be apportion be for that that it be but as a penalty which be inflict  upon the tenant for that that he do not make his service as it appear by the  plead of it and shall be apportion accord to the assessment by parliament and  by Edward it appear that this purchase by the lord be as a release and if the  lord release his service in part this extincts the service in all and he say  there be no difference where a entire service be to be pay every three or four  year and where it be to be pay every year as to that purpose and yet in one  case it be annual and in the other it be casual and yet in both case if the  lord purchase parcel of the land of the tenant Brownlow goldsborough er p all  the entire service shall be extinct and go though that they be to be perform  every three or four year by which c foster justice that the harriot be entire  service and for that though that it be not annual it shall be extinct by  purchase of parcel of the tenancy by the lord as if a man make a feoff with  warranty and take back ail estate of part the warranty be extinct as it appear  by the of assize so if a man hold his land by the service Brownlow  goldsborough to repair parcel of the fence of a park of the lord and the lord  purchase parcel of the tenancy the tenure be extinct as it appear by Edward  and it be agree in the h in Kellawaies report by frowick that there be no  difference between harriot and relief and relief shall be extinct and so he  conclude that the harriot be extinct Daniel justice accord and he say that  this purchase shall be as strong as release and if the lord have release the  service entire for part it shall be extinct for all and if tenant hold by suit  to the court of the lord and the lord purchase parcel of the tenancy the suit  be extinct as it appear by h and Fitzherbert no brey and so conclude that the  harriot service be extinct by the purchase aforesaid Warburton accord and say  that in Littleton case the homage and fealty shall remain for they be personal  service and for that shall remain entire and of rend shall be a apportionment  by the statute of Westminster de because buyer the earth but for other entire  service by the purchase of the lord he they annual or casual and they be  extinct and Edward be a suit for a hawk which be keep back twenty year and so  for suit if the tenant make a feoff to diverse they shall make but one suit  but they all shall make contribution to the suit but if the lord purchase  parcel he can make contribution and though that the homage and fealty be  personal service the horse and hawk be of the nature of land so the harriot of  his good and if the tenant have no good the lord shall lose it and for that he  conclude as above walmesley accord and he say if a tenant hold by entire  service of two lord and one purchase parcel of the tenancy all the entire  service shall not be extinct but the other lord which do not purchase shall  have they for res inter elsewhere acta no one mocere to withhold to which coke  chief justice agree and he say if harriot custom be due peradventure it shall  not be extinct by purchase of parcel of the tenancy for that be personal and  it be not issue out of land but for entire seivices which be issue out of land  he say there be no difference betwixt annual service and casual service which  be entire and so he conclude as above coke chief justice accord and he say  there be no difference between annual entire service and casual so that they  be service to be pay at the death or alteration of every tenant or otherwise  but he say there be no doubt but that rend service shall be apportion though  that the lord purchase parcel he that in the king case or of a common person  and this by the common Brownlow goldsborough law without the aid of any  statute for there be not any statute that shall aid that if it be not remedy  by the commonlaw and he say that some entire service may multiply as if a man  hold by payment of a pair of gild spur or of a hawk or a horse or other such  like and make a feoff of parcel the feoff shall hold by the same entire  service but if the tenant hold by personal service as to cover the table of  the lord or to be his carver or sewer at such a feast or such like these  personal service can multiply if the tenant make a feoff of part for by this  the lord may be prejudice and peradventure at his house he will not include  they but he may distrain every of they to make the service and he say the  reason for which knight service shall be apportion be for that it be for the  public good and for the good of the commonwealth but so be not the other  personal service and in the principal case he conceive that if the tenant have  make a feoff first to a etranger and after the stranger have feoff the lord  that by that all the entire service shall not be extinct for by the feoff of  the estranger be severance of the service and he hold by a harriot as well as  his feoff and for that nothing shall be extinct but the harriot due by that  parcel of which the estranger be feoff and he agree with walmesley that a  harriot custom shall not be extinct where the custom be that every tenant  shall pay a harriot for there it be pay in respect that he be tenant and  custom shall not be drown by unity of tenancy and signiory and for that he  conclude that the harriot for that that it be entire service though that it be  casual and not annual that yet it shall be extinct and judgement be give  accord Brownlow goldsborough er p Hillary James in the common bench