270 LOW S CASE OF TENURES. 



make for us : there be two differences that avoid them. 

 First, there the tenures or rents are in esse in those cases 

 for the king s benefit, and here they should be in esse to 

 the king s prejudice, who should otherwise have a more 

 beneficial tenure. Again, in these cases the first reserva 

 tion was of a thing in esse at the time of the reservation ; 

 and then there is no reason the act subsequent of the king s 

 tenant should prejudice the king s interest once vested and 

 settled : but here the reservation was never good, because 

 it is out of a thing extinct in the instant. 



But the plain reason which turneth Carr s case mainly 

 for us is: for that where the tenure is of a rent or seigniory, 

 which is afterwards drowned or extinct in the land, yet 

 the law judgeth the same rent or seigniory to be in esse, 

 as to support the tenure : but of what ? only of the said 

 rent or seigniory, and never of the land itself; for the land 

 shall be held by the same tenure it was before. And so is 

 the rule of Carr s case, where it is adjudged, that though 

 the rent be held in capite, yet the land was nevertheless 

 deviseable for the whole, as no ways charged with that 

 tenure. 



Why then, in our case, let the fealty be reserved out of 

 the seigniory extinct, yet that toucheth not at all the land : 

 and then of necessity the land must be also held ; and 

 therefore you must seek out a new tenure for the land, and 

 that must be in capite. 



And let this be noted once for all, that our case is not 

 like the common cases of a menalty extinct, where the 

 tenant shall hold of the lord, as the mean held before ; as 

 where the menalty is granted to the tenant, or where the 

 tenancy is granted to the mean, or where the menalty des- 

 cendeth to the tenant, or where the menalty is forejudged. 

 In all these cases the tenancy, I grant, is held as the 

 menalty was held before, and the difference is because 

 there was an old seigniory in being ; which remaineth un 

 touched and unaltered, save that it is drawn a degree 

 nearer to the land, so as there is no question in the world 

 of a new tenure ; but in our case there was no lord para 

 mount, for the manor itself was in the crown, and not held 

 at all, nor no seigniory of the manor in esse ; so as the 

 question is wholly upon the creation of a new seigniory, 

 and not upon the continuance of an old. 



For the third course, that the law should create a new 

 distinct tenure by fealty of this parcel, guided by the ex 

 press tenure upon the manor ; it is the probablest course of 



