XCVIII. Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas.
IN a Quare Impedit; The Plaintiff declared, That the De∣fendant was seised in Fee of the Mannor of Orchard, alias Lydcots-Farm, to which the Advowson is appendant, and pre∣sented such a one, &c. And afterwards leased to the Plaintiff the said Mannor per nomen of the Mannor of Orchard, alias Lydcots-Farm, with the appurtenances for 21 years, and the Church be∣came void, &c. And the truth of the Case was; That there is the Mannor of Orchard, and within the said Mannor, the said Farm called Lydcots Farm, parcel of the said Mannor, and the Lease was of the said Farm; and not of the said Mannor, and so the Advowson remained to the Lessor, as appendant to the Mannor: In this Case, It was moved, What thing the Defendant should traverse: Dyer, He shall say; That the Advowson is appendant to the Mannor of Orchard, abs{que} hoc, that it is appendant to the Farm of Lydcots: But it seemed to Manwood, That the De∣fendant shall say; That the Advowson is appendant to the Mannor of Orchard, and that the Farm of Lydcots, is parcel of the said Mannor, and that he Leased to the Plaintiff the said Farm, with the appurtenances, abs{que} hoc, that the Mannor of Orchard, and the said Farm, are all one; For if he traverse the Appendancy to the Farm of Lydcots, then he confesseth, That the Mannor and Farm are all one, &c. But Dyer doubted of it.