case rotherham against green a release of part of a common extinguish the  whole and gold Noy trespass the defendant plead that William green his father  be seize in fee of a tenement in l and that he and all his ancestor and all  those c in the say tenement from time whereof c have use to have common in the  place where c for all their beast levant el eouchant upon the say tenement and  that it descend unto he c issue be take upon the prescription and a special  verdict find videlicet that a this judgement be reverse on a point of form  post croak Elizabeth er p Edward green croak Elizabeth grandfather to the  defendant be seize of the tenement and that he and all his ancestor and all  who c from time whereof c have use common c accord to the prescription and he  be so seize release to sir Thomas Rothe rham the plaintiff ancestor all his  right and his common in part of the land where he have the common and die and  the tenement descend to William green and from he to the defendant el si c  draw pray judgement for the plaintiff for by release of the common in part of  the land the whole common be go and extinct for otherwise the tenant of the  residue of the land shall he charge with all the common which be not  reasonable and thereupon it be that if a lord release his signiory in one acre  all be go as Edward to know facias S spurling contra because the common be  appurtenant and it be for the manurance of the land and stand with common  right Anderson this be not a common of common right for it be for swine and  sheep and it be not like to dyer where the lord improve part of the common  leave sufficient to the commoner and feoff a commoner of that part improve for  there the common be not extinct because the land improve be discharge of  common before the feoff but this be like to bampton case which be adjudge in  this court where one have Compton in a great field wherein many mon have land  he purchase a acre from one of they it be adjudge that all this common be  extinct c so here the common also be entire through the whole land wherefore a  release in part shall discharge the whole the prescription also be general to  have common in all the place where c and the jury have find a release in part  of the land and therefore the prescription be find against the defendant  Heaumond and Owen agree with he in both point but Walmsley hold that the  common be not go for the residue because this release go in benefit of the  tertenant and it be a improvement by he but as touch the prescription he agree  that it be find against the defendant for the reason abovesaid wherefore they  all agree against the defendant and it be adjudge accord