atkins case Seymour versus bennet abbot and other December the principal  register in the prerogative office disagree about the appointment of a clerk  the deputy nominate abbot who for a twelvemonth officiate and receive the fee  amount to pound Lord Hardwicke hold as he be the officer de facto he have a  right to the state fee and to retain they without account and dismiss the bill  as against he with cost the two principal register in the prerogative office  of Canterbury disagree about the appointment of a clerk in this office the  deputy register take upon he to nominate the defendant abbot who for a  twelvemonth officiate and constant receive the fee amount to pound in the  whole the plaintiff who be one of the register insist that abbot ought to be  allow only a small salary as a under officer and that he be liable to account  to he and the other principal register for the whole profit Lord chancellor  there be no foundation at all for this bill for to be sure Mr abbot as he be  appoint to officiate in this place be the officer de facto and of consequence  entitle to receive the state fee and to retain they without account nor be  there any other person who can maintain a action for they beside himself and  therefore the bill must be dismiss as against he with cost the next question  be in who the right of nomination of the office of clerk to the register  belong whether it be the right of the survive grantee under the grant of the  late archbishop and I be of opinion it be in the survive grantee note the  original grant be make to three person who agree that if either of they die  his child shall be entitle to a three part of the profit of the office one of  the grantee die and the question be whether the cestuique trust under this  agreement be entitle to nominate with the two survive grantee and his lordship  hold that the trust of the agreement only extend to the fee and pecuniary  profit of the office not only the pecuniary profit be declare by the grant to  go to the beneficiary and trust but it be also declare that they shall have  the nomination of the deputy but to be approve of by the archbishop and his  successor this office have then compare to the case of a advowson but that be  only a bare presentation where the bishop have a right to present on lapse and  have nothing more to do but to see it fill with a proper person but the case  of a office be extreme different because of the labour and skill require and  the person be punishable if he do any thing fraudulent in the exercise of it  or be guilty of any act of extortion atkins upon the whole Mr Seymour and Mr  Bennet have the sole right of nominate the clerk but if they can agree about  the nomination the court can help it it be like the case of a presentation if  there be several beneficiary and trust and they do not all agree there can be  no nomination or as in the case of jointtenants and tenant in common while  they have a joint interest and before severance they must all agree or no act  can be do but then I may do here as in a partition case where there be  parceners of a advowson who can agree in one person the court will direct the  parceners to draw lot who shall have the first presentation vide har   Litt b  note so here I will do the same and direct the plaintiff Seymour and the  defendant Bennet to draw lot who shall nominate first a clerk to fill up the  vacancy which be make by the death of Mr Spurvill Reg lib fol atkins er p