XL. Mich. 14 Eliz.
IN an Ejectione Firmae, the Case upon Evidence appeared to be thus; The Bishop of Rochester, Anno 4 E. 6. Leased to B. for years rendring Rent; and afterwards, granted the Reversion to C. for 99 years, rendring the ancient Rent, To have from the day of the Lease without impeachment of Waste; which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter: But B. did not Attorn; And for default of Attornment, It was holden by the whole Court, That the Lease was void; for it is made by way of grant of a Reversion, and to pass as a Reversion. But by Catline, If the Bishop had granted the Reversion, and also demised the Land for 99 years, it should pass as a Lease to begin first after the former Lease determined. And as to the Attornment, it was given in Evi∣dence, That B. after the notice of the Grant to C. spake with C. to have a new Lease from him, because he had in his Farm but 8 years to come, but they could not agree upon the price; And the Iustices were of Opinion, That that was an Attornment, because he had admitted the said C. to have power to make a new Lease unto him. Also the said B. being in Company with one R. seeing the said C. coming towards him, said to the said R. See my Landlord; mean∣ing the said C. Bromley, Sollicitor, That is no Attornment, be∣ing spoken to a stranger. Barham, contrary, because he was pre∣sent. And it was held by the whole Court, to be a good Attorn∣ment. But it was holden, That if the Attornment was not be∣fore that the Bishop was translated to Winchester, That the Lease should be void: and although that the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter was before the Attornment, so as no Estate had vested in C. yet it is good enough; for the assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient, whether it be before or after; by Catline, Southcote, and Whiddon: Wray, contrary.