case daniel APPLEFORDS case a writ of mandamus will not lie to restore a  fellow of new college in Oxford who have be remove by the visitor appoint by  the founder of the college S C keb lev lev raym l side show Carth Jones Mod  Mod Mod Fitzherbert g ld ray ld ray stram Peer wms burr burr will Cowp term  Rep to term Rep term Rep term Rep a writ of mandamus be direct to the master  and fellow of new college in Oxford to restore one Daniel Appleford a fellow  they return that the bishop of Winchester do erect the college and among other  law by which the college be to be govern they return this to be one videlicet  that if a scholar or other member of the say college shall commit any crime  whereby scandal may arise to the college and it appear by his own confession  or full evidence of the fact that then he shall be remove without any remedy  and that Daniel Appleford a fellow be guilty of enormous crime and be convict  and thereupon remove and they pray judgement whether this court will proceed  Jones by this conclusion they rely chief upon the jurisdiction of the court I  will lie this for a ground that this court have jurisdiction in extrajudicial  cause as well as judicial   bag be case and modern Appleford have no remedy  but this I will not say that he may not have a action upon the case but by  that he will not recover the thing but damage as for a assize if a man be a  corporation sole or head of a corporation aggregate and be turn out wrongful  he may have a assize but for a man that be but a inferior member of a  corporation no assize lie for he because he be but a part of the body politic  and do not stand by himself but must join with other and as he can have a  assize so he can have a appeal dyer and Rep bag be case Henry pl Henry c Inst  by these authority it appear that we be without remedy by way of appeal a but  see as to this point of bag be case the argument of holt chief justice in the  case of Philip v bury ld ray as report term Rep from his lordship own original  manuscript see also ld ray term Rep a it may be object that there can be do  appeal hither because it be a spiritual corporation now I say this be not a  spiritual corporation as appear by the foundation and I be of opinion that if  a corporation be all of spiritual person yet unless there be a spiritual end  it be no spiritual corporation but a lie one but if it be a spiritual  corporation yet deprivation be a temporal act dyer another objection may be  that the founder have provide that there shall be no appeal I answer the  founder can by his foundation exclude legal remedy against wrong a custom  which be the strong foundation do not bind a man up from his legal remedy  light sect if a man shall dispose of his estate by will and provide therein  that if any difference shall arise concern the execution of the same that it  shall be determine by such and such and no suit commence upon it at the  commonlaw this will be again appointment he must not erect a jurisdiction of  his own to oust the king court of they b see kill v Hollister will b modern er  p Coleman contra I conceive this be such a college as no mandamus shall go to  it in any case whatsoever for it be but a private society and have no  influence upon the public in Rilys record we find that mandamuss be only  letter to college c and there be no judicial mandamuss till bag be case and I  lever know they go but when the party have not only a freehold but one that be  of public concern now a fellowship of a college be for a private design only  to study and if you grant a mandamus in this case whither will it go at last  then the foundation be to a spiritual intent and what be commit to the  ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction this court do preserve ecclesiastical  man hold in alms Litt sect modern lindewode de religious devotee house when  college be find under rule and order it do give the bishop jurisdiction so  that this court will not inquire into this matter no more than it will inquire  into cause of deprivation and matter relate to the institution of clergyman it  have be deny that a fellow of a college can bring a assize but as a pretend  have two capacity sole and aggregate so a fellow be a member of a corporation  aggregate and have a sole capacity in respect of his fellowship for a  churchwarden who be admit accord to the course of the ecclesiastical law a  mandamus will not lie vide Henry pl Twisden justice in one Patrick case a raym  l lev side keb keb a we all hold that a college be a temporal corporation hale  chief justice there be a reason give in dyer why a mandamus will not lie in  the case there videlicet because it be pray to be award to a temporal  corporation Coleman it do appear by the return that the founder have appoint a  visitor now to he there may be a appeal and we have return the sentence of the  visitor and need not return the cause of the sentence and for book I oppose  huntly case b roll Abr b to Specolls case c roll Abr   Leon ander gold jenk c  and ken case d   cro James d in our case the party have a remedy elsewhere and  therefore he shall not come hither if a mandamus shall lie for a mastership  fellowship or scholarship it will in time come to lie for turn out of Commons  and what a combustion will this raise then the nicety of husband and wife be  say by the judge in Scott case e Vanby v Scott post page e to be proper for  the spiritual court and not fit to be bring before the judge hale chief  justice that a mandamus lie I will not positive deny but whether be it fit for  we to proceed after this return it must be take for grant that it be not a  spiritual corporation if it be you ought to appeal to the visitor and then to  the delegate it be a private society as a inn of court a see king v grey inn  dougl a and I acknowledged admitted fact that mandamuss do general respect  matter of public concern I never hear of a mandamus for a monk if there be a  jurisdiction in the visitor and he have determine the matter haw will you get  over that sentence the chancellor be visitor of all the king free chapel and  the Henry c do make he so of all college of the king foundation suppose a  temporal court over which we have jurisdiction do give judgement in assize to  recover a office so long as that judgement stand in force do you modern think  that we will grant a mandamus to restore he against who a judgement be give  Twisden justice in all eleemosynary thing there be visitor appoint either by  law or by creation of the party hale chief justice the freechapels of Windsor  and Wolverhampton be not of spiritual jurisdiction at this rate we shall  examine all deprivation suspension election c and by the Elizabeth c the law  of the university be confirm we ought not to grant a mandamus where there be a  visitor but in this case the visitor have give sentence modern er p