Brownlow goldsborough the late king James against Matthew Trin James the king  be plaintiff in a writ of error against Matthew upon a judgement give in a  quare hinder against the king in the common plea of the church of a and the  question be whether a double usurpation upon the king do so put he out of  possession that he shall be force to his writ of right and it be adjudge in  the common plea against the opinion of Anderson that he be put to his writ of  right but a writ of error be bring upon that judgement in the common plea the  judgement be reverse by the opinion of Popham Yelverton William and Tanfield  Fenner be of a contrary opinion and they allege two reason first because the  right of patronage and the advowson it self be a inheritance in the crown upon  record the law will so protect it that by no force or wrong do by a subject it  shall be divest out of the king for there be a record to entitle he but there  be no matter of record against he for a presentation by a subject be but  matter in fait the which act although it be mix with the judicial act of the  bishop to wit institution yet it shall not prejudice the king be only ground  upon the wrong of a subject and the second reason be because no man can show  when the usurpation upon the king shall commence and begin for it be not to be  doubt but that the king after six month pass if the incumbent by may have  present for plenarty be no plea against he and no one time to run up king and  after that usurpation upon the king the court doubt not but that the patronage  be still in the king and Popham say that a confirmation be make by the king to  such a presentee be good to establish his possession against a recovery in a  quare hinder by the king afterward but that it shall not inure to any purpose  to amend the estate of the usurper for he gain no possession by the  presentation against the king but the release to he make by the king be void  as to so much as be in possession and during the life of the first presentee  the whole court do not doubt but that the king right present and then the  death of the incumbent can not make that to be a usurpation which be not a  usurpation in his life for the death be a determination of the first wrong  which will rather help than injure the king and Tanfield say that so it have  be resolve in the common plea and Elizabeth in one Yardleys case for in that  case there be not any induction for which reason judgement be not enter but  they be all of the same opinion as the court then be and only e e and e be  against it and Popham say that a quare hinder be by the commonlaw but it be  only upon a presentment to wit induction but if the incumbent be to be induct  then at the commonlaw a writ of right of advowson only lie