cannot be apportion••d: and therefore if one d••mise 3
Acres, rendring 3 s. Rent, and afterwards bargains and
sells the reversion 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one Acre, the whole Rent is gone,
because the Contract is entire, &c. Also the Lessee by
that shall be subject to two Feal••••es, where he was sub∣ject
but to one before.
To these Points, it was answered and Resolved, That
the Contract was not entire, but that the same by Act of
the Lessor, and Consent of the Lessee, might be divided
and severed; for the Rent is incident to the Reversion,
and the Reversion is severable, and by consequence the
Rent also: for accessorium sequitur naturam su•• princip••lis.
And as to the two Fealties, to that the Lessee shall be sub∣ject,
though the Rent shall be extinct; for Feal••y is by
necessity of Law incident to the Reversion; but the Rent
shall be divided, pro rata portionis, and so it was adjudg∣ed.
And it was also adjudged, That though Collins come to
the Reversion by several Conveyances, and at severall
times, yet he might b••ing an Action of Debt for the
whole Rent, Hill. 43 Eliz. Rot. 243. West and Lassels Case.
So Hill. 42 Eliz. Rot. 108. in the Common Pleas, Ewer
and Moyl••s Case.
Note, It was adjudged, 19 Eliz. in the Kings-Bench,
that where one obtained a Prohibition upon Prescripti∣on,
de modo Decimandi, by payment of a sum of money,
at a certain day, upon which Issue was take••, and the Ju∣ry
found the modus Decimandi by payment of the said sum;
but at another day, the Case being well debated; at last,
it was Resolved, That no Consultation should be grant∣ed,
for though the day of payment may b•• mistaken,
yet a Consultation shall not be granted where the Soit••∣tual
Court hath not Jurisdiction of the Cause. Taafi ld
Chief Baron hath the Report of this Cause.