case gee bishop of Chichester against FREEDLAND easter term car roll a grant  by a bishop c of a ancient office with the ancient fee only annex if confirm  by the dean and chapter be not within Henry c nor restrain by Elizabeth c or  Elizabeth c but he can grant a new office nor add new fee to old office except  they be necessary nor can they grant office in any manner not warrant by usage  ante post bridge lev   Pollexf Mod cro James   light replevin upon a distress  take in Allingland park upon deniurrer the case be the bishop of Chichester be  seize in fee of the say park jure bishopric and have the office of parkership  which the bishop grant to the say Freedland for life and also grant to he for  the execution thereof a annual rend of l S d One cum to set free of S d by the  year together with pasturage for two horse in the say park yearly and the  windfall in the park with clause of distress for the say rend of l S d and the  livery of S d in all the possession of the bishopric in the say county which  be confirm by the dean and chapter and for nonpayment of the say rend of S d  the defendant take the distress and aver the office and the fee of S d to be  ancient but do not make any such averment for the residue croak car the  plaintiff in bar of the avowry confess the grant and plead the Elizabeth c r  and that the say pasturage for two horse never be grant before and that the  bishop who make the grant thereof die c and the plaintiff be elect bishop  whereupon it be demurrer the sole question be whether this grant of the office  with the ancient fee of l S d confirm by the dean and chapter be good to bind  the successor notwithstanding the Elizabeth c or void only for the thing add  in the grant or if the addition of those new thing shall make all the grant  void against the successor after argument at the bar it be argue at the bench  and hold by Hutton and Yelverton justice that the grant be good for the office  and the ancient fee of S d be in a several grant by itself and not conjoin or  mix with the other grant and then the one may be good and the other void but  if the grant have be of the fee of where the other fee be only S d because it  be entire in the a   b croak car er p grant it will have be void for all but  here the grant for the rend be one by itself and the grant of the pasturage be  another and distinct by itself and the one do not depend upon the other so it  may be good for one and void for the other and although the grant for the  pasturage be void against the successor yet the rend may be good and Hutton  say that if the bishop have grant the office and rend for he and his successor  and have grant the pasturage only during the time that he shall continue  bishop and so have distinguish they in his grant there have be no question but  both have be good and as he by his express limitation may have limit they and  they shall have be good so the law shall make construction that the one be  good against the bishop himself the other against the bishop and his successor  and the one be ill and void against the successor shall not destroy that which  be good for utile per inutile non to make faulty and although the office  itself be not within the word of the Elizabeth c yet it be within the equity  thereof the office of parkership and stewardship and other office which be of  necessary use for the bishop be admit and allow to be grantable although they  be new office and new fee if they be reasonable and of the necessity of they  and of the reasonableness of the fee the court shall adjudge and therefore in  Hilary James rot in c b in the case of the bishop of Ely a where the bishop of  Ely the that April Elizabeth which be present after the statute grant the  office of the keep of his house and garden with the fee of per annum to  another for his life which be afterward confirm by the dean and chapter  although there be not before any such office yet be a necessary office and the  fee reasonable it be adjudge good against the successor and not restrain by  the Elizabeth c and although it have be object that the livery or fee of S d  and the windfall be not aver to be ancient yet Hutton conceive it shall be  intend they be ancient when the contrary be not aver croak car especial when  nothing be allege on the other part to be new but the pasturage and the  avowant distrain only for the S d need not to aver any other to be ancient  than the rend which be in question and if one grant have be of that office and  ancient fee of S d another grant pro good exercitione the same duty and for  his better maintenance of the livery S d and the pasturage and windfall these  be by such several grant the first shall be good be distinct by itself and the  other shall be void so by construction of the law it shall be take here as  several grant rather than the grant shall be destroy but Yelverton agree that  if he have grant the office for life and have further grant for the execute  thereof these fee follow videlicet the rend of S d the livery or S d the  pasturage and windfall and so put together the ancient rend and new addition  the grant shall be void in all because they be all in one sentence but here be  in several sentence the one not depend upon the other it may be good for the  one and void for the other against the successor whereupon they conclude  judgement ought to be give for the avowant but it be argue by Harvey and  myself that judgement ought to be give for the plaintiff for it be agree on  all part that the Elizabeth c be make for the benefit of the successor that  his possession may not be charge to impoverish he wherefore all estate and  grant which be to the prejudice of the successor be void and true it be that  grant of ancient office with their ancient fee which be confirm by the dean  and chapter be make good by the intention and equity of the statute and that  they shall have officer reasonable with reasonable fee although they be not  warrant by the word of the statute it be within the purview intent and meaning  thereof as   the bishop of sarum case which be the reason that a grant of rend  or annuity pro council impendend be restrain by the intent of the statute  although it be not within the word because the successor be thereby impoverish  and prejudice as by the book of Elizabeth dyer   the bishop of Salisbury case  the case of Bolton there cite and   and that grant of ancient office be take  to be within the intent of the statute and be to be allow appear because in  another statute make the same parliament of Elizabeth c ancient office be  couple with lease reserve the ancient rend make by the bishop a lie more  Brownl burr croak car er p but although grant of ancient office may be allow  for necessity yet they ought not to be with a new addition of a new charge  upon the successor to impoverish he and therefore it ought to be grant as  usual it have be and not otherwise for it be at his peril who take such a  grant that he do not take a new addition or alteration and therefore if a  office usual grant for one life be grant for two life or if it be grant for  life reversion for life and confirm by the dean and chapter it be void against  the successor as well for the first life croak car as for the second a because  it be not grant accord to the usual course and although one of the tenant hold  it during the life of the bishop who grant it yet not be good at the time of  the grant the subsequent Act shall not help it so this addition of the new  charge make the grant void as in the Lord Montjoys case   lease for year of  land usual demise and of other land not demise before reserve the ancient rend  for the land former lease and twelvepence for the land not usual let which be  the full value yet it be resolve that the lease be not good by reason of that  addition and although it have be say that the livery and pasturage be distinct  clause from the first grant of the rend and not depend upon nor conjoin with  it so that the rend may stand and for the other it shall be void it be answer  that it appear full they be one entire grant and not several for the rend be  grant One cum to set free or thirteen shilling fourpence et One cum pasturagia  which be a copulative and one sentence see the yearbooks Henry and Henry in  the abbess of zions case and for the S d or livery it be conjoin in one clause  of distress with the rend of S d so as they be but one grant and upon one  consideration but if they have be in another clause or that for another  consideration he have grant the say livery of S d and pasturage then the grant  may stand for the one and be void for the other and where it have be object  that the livery and windfall although they have not be sufficient aver to be  the ancient fee yet may well be so intend forasmuch as the contrary be not  show on the other side it be answer that the avowant because he be to make his  title ought to aver the several thing grant to be ancient fee to the office  otherwise the aver that the one be ancient do imply that the other be not  ancient for a plead shall be take most strong against he who plead it and in  proof thereof see Plowd   and   Brudenels case and it suffice the plaintiff to  allege that any of they be a new addition and he need not to allege the  residue to be new for then peradventure it will be double also for the  principal point in the case the addition trench to the prejudice of the  successor and this statute have be always construe to redress the mischief  which be at the commonlaw upon grant confirm by dean and chapter in charge or  to the prejudice of the successor and to make they void as appear   and in  scambler v wats b where two office of steward or understeward of a manor usual  grant several with several fee be hold void for both also to both office the  ancient fee be appendant and parcel of they and shall pass by grant of the  office cum appurtenance but those fee new add can be say appertain nor parcel  to be recover by assize as web case c and the book of assize d prove therefore  the grant be of more than be ancient grant be void and to expound this grant  of the office with new fee to be good for all during the time that the grantor  be bishop and to be afterward good in part and void in part against the  successor and so to make croak car fraction of grant be against the exposition  of grant and against all former construction and interpretation of this  statute and therefore they conceive that this grant be void in all ab  beginning quoad the successor and the plaintiff ought to have judgement court  divide a a lamb case b cro Elizabeth c   b d assize a bridge lie croak car er  p