possession cannot be appendant to the reversion of the manor or acre expectant on the estate for life ('); for though a reversion of part may be parcel of a manor in possession, yet a part in possession cannot be parcel of the reversion of a manor expectant upon any estate of freehold (2), for the advowson which is incorporeal cannot be appendant on the reversion of a manor which is also incorporeal. If the lease of the manor however is for years, the advowson is not in gross, because the freehold being entire, it remains appendant to the manor. (3) Vowson once When a thing appendant is once severed by a When adconveyance of the fee simple, either of the prin- severed by cipal or thing appendant, without the other by act of the parties, it act of the parties, although the estate so con- can never be veyed be reconveyed in an instant, it can never afterwards be appendant, though it come again into the same hands. As if a person levies a fine of an advowson and accepts a grant and render, the appendancy is thereby gone, as there is a period of time in which there is a severance. So if the king grants a manor with the exception of the advowson, and the grantee regrants the manor with the advowson to the king, who again grants the manor and advowson to a third (1) Ives's case, 5 Rep. 11. Fulmerston v.Steward, Plowd. R. 103. per (2) 1 Inst. 324. b. 50. 1 Inst. 324. again appendant. son, the advowson having been once severed continues in gross. (1) So if on levying a fine the patron of an advowson appendant acknowledges the right to the advowson in another, or if an advowson appendant be presented to by the patron as an advowson in gross it can never be appendant again. (2) But the advowson must be completely severed from the estate to make it for ever afterwards an advowson in gross. Thus, if an advowson be severed only conditionally, as in the case of a mortgage, it will be re-united again if the condition is performed, and so in respect to all estates upon condition. As, where an advowson is appendant to a manor, and the patron mortgages the manor in fee, excepting the advowson, the advowson is in gross unless the money is actually paid at the day, in which case it becomes again appendant; and if it is paid after the day, though it may be appendant in reputation, and may pass by the name of an advowson appendant in a grant or other conveyance, yet in fact the appendancy is destroyed, the advowson having been once legally severed from the manor by the act of the party. (3) (1) Arthington v. The Bishop of Chester, 1 Hen. Bl. R. 426. Wats. Cl. L. ch. 7. 68. shop of Chester, 2 Salk. R. 560. (3) The King v. The Bishop of Chester, 1 Salk. (2) The King v. The Bi- R. 24. be tempoFor rary, or Hence the disappendancy may be temporary Disappenonly, which may be therefore more properly dancy may called a suspension than a severance. instance, if the advowson is excepted in the lease be a suspen there may of a manor for life, by the exception during the sion. lease the advowson is in gross, but when the lease expires the advowson becomes again appendant to the same manor. (1) In like manner if an advowson is granted for life, and another enfeoffed of a manor with the appurtenances, the freehold of the advowson by the lease is severed from the manor and will not pass by such conveyance, but the reversion of the advowson passes which is appendant to the manor, an existing corporeal possession, and at the expiration of the lease the advowson becomes entirely appendant again. Where the disappendancy is created by wrong- Disappendancy created ful act, though it amounts to a complete severby wrongful ance of the fee simple of the advowson, it may act. become appendant again by a defeating of such wrongful act; as, if there be a tenant in tail of a manor whereunto an advowson is appendant, the tenant in tail discontinueth in fee, the discontinuee granteth away the advowson in fee and dieth, the issue in tail recontinueth the (1) Ives's case, 5 Rep. 11.b. | Rep. 14. Hartox and Cocke's Wats. Cl. L. ch. 7. 69. Hartop case, Hutton's Rep. 88. and Tucke v. Dalby, Hetley's C Disappendancy created of law. manor by recovery, he is thereby remitted to the advowson; so where there was a recovery after an usurpation, for until recovery, except in the king's case, the advowson was in gross. (') But where the disappendancy arises from the by operation operation of law, as by the nature of an estate in coparcenary, the law will preserve the appendancy contrary to the general rule, unless express means be taken to render the advowson in gross (2); as, if a manor is divided between coparceners, and each has a part of the manor without saying any thing of the advowson appendant, the advowson remains in coparcenary, and yet in each of their turns it is appendant to that part which they have; and so it is if they make composition to present against common right, yet it remains appendant. But if on such a partition an express exception is made of the advowson, then the advowson remains in coparcenary and in gross. (3) If coparceners make a partition of the manor and the demesnes are assigned to one, and the services to another, the manor is destroyed and the advowson becomes in gross; but if on partition the advowson is allotted to one coparcener, and the manor to which it is annexed to the (1) 1 Inst. 363. b. (3) 1 Inst. 122. a. 2 Inst. 365 other, and after one dies without issue, by which the law unites them again, the advowson which was once severed and became in gross is now become again appendant. (') SECTION III. On presentative Advowsons partly appendant and partly in gross. AN advowson may be partly appendant and An advowpartly in gross. son may be partly appendant and As, where a lord is seised of a manor to which partly in gross. an advowson is appendant, and a stranger levies Fine levied. a fine of the advowson to the owner of the manor and advowson, on which fine the conusee grants to the conusor that he shall present to the advowson every second avoidance; by this fine the advowson with reference to the lord of the manor remains appendant to the manor as before, but in every second avoidance is an advowson in gross. (2) (1) Sir Moyle Finch's case, 6 Rep. 64. 1 Inst. 122. a. Reynoldson v. Blake and the Bishop of London, Ld. Raym. R. 198. Wyat Wild's case, 8 Rep. 79. b. The King v. (2) Dod. on Adv. 59. |