Bartons case prohibition the case be this a man be tax by the parish for  reparation of the church and the warden of the church sue for this taxation in  the spiritual court and hang this suit one of the warden release to the  defendant all action suit and demand and the other sue forward and upon this  the defendant there procure a prohibition upon which matter show in the  prohibition be a demurrer join and davenport of grays inn move the court for a  consultation and upon all the matter as he say the point be but this if two  warden of a church be and they sue in the court Christian for taxation and one  release if that shall bar his companion or not and it seem to he that this  release shall not be any bar to his companion or impediment to sue for he say  that the warden of a church be not party interest in good of the church but be  a special corporation to the benefit of the church and for that he cite the  case in Edward the warden of the church bring trespass for good of the church  take out of their possession and they count ad damnum parochianor and not to  their proper damage and the h h h where it be say express that the warden of  the eburchlare a corporation only for the benefit of the church and not for  the disadvantage of that but this release sound to disadvantage of the church  and for that seem to he no bar also this corporation consist of two person and  the release of one be nothing worth for he be but one corpse and the moiety of  the corpse can not release and for these reason he pray a consultation and  Yelverton to the contrary and he take a difference and say that he agree that  if the warden of the church have once possession of the church there in action  of trespass bring for these good one warden can release but this tax for which  they sue be a thing mere Brownlow goldsborough in action of which they have  not any possession of that before and there he can sue alone and for that this  release shall bar his companion and the court interrupt he and say that clear  consultation shall be grant and Fleming chief justice we have not need to  dispute this release whether it be good or not and there be a difference where  suit be commence before we as if warden of the church bring trespass here for  good of the church take and one release then we may dispute if this release be  good or not but when the matter be original begin before they in the spiritual  court and there be the proper place to sue for this tax and not any where else  we have nothing to do with this release and for that by the whole court a  consultation be award Hillary James in the king bench