work to the prejudice of a grantee by a strict and literal exposition of the words of a grant. (') It will be observed, that in this and the last case, the enjoyment of the grant was affected by In these cases enjoy event subse grant. ment of the an event occurring subsequent to the grant. In grant affectlike manner, if the disability to present accord- ed by an ing to the tenor of the grant conveying the quent to the avoidance, arise subsequently to the grant by the act of the grantor, the right of the grantee shall only be postponed; as if a person grant the three next avoidances successively, and the first avoidance, the grantor himself presents, the grantee is not ousted, but may present at the subsequent avoidances. upon So if such disability arise after the grant, as by an usurpation on the grantee of the next avoidance, who brings his suit, and pendente lite the clerk resigns, the grantee after judgment shall have the subsequent avoidance. But where the grant of the next avoidance is Where grant defeated by defeated by the act of the grantee, as if the act of grantee of the next avoidance does not present grantee. the next time, the church becomes vacant, he loses his right, and cannot present at any (*) Calland v. Troward, | 330., affirmed in 6 T. R. per Eyre C. J. 2 H. Bl. R. 439. A grantor cannot alien his interest continues. subsequent avoidance ('); so though the grantee may assign his right before the avoidance, yet it is void after avoidance, and his right will be lost. (2) A grantor can only alien an advowson for so for a longer long a period as his estate or interest continues, period than for conveyances which operate by grant are not tortious conveyances, that is, they convey nothing more than the grantor has a right to convey. Thus, a tenant in tail of a manor to which an advowson was appendant, granted the next avoidance of the advowson, and died; the issue entered upon the manor, and the grant was held void. (3) So if a tenant in tail grants his advowson to others, to the use of himself and his wife, and the heirs male of the husband, and the wife survives the husband, she gains nothing by such grant, the estate being determined by the death of the tenant in tail. (4) In these cases, however, though the estate created by the grant is determinable by the heir by his entry, instead of being put to his action, if it had passed by a tortious conveyance, and a discontinuance had been created, yet until determined it has all the (*) Baskeville's case, 7 Rep. (3) Bowles v. Walter, 1 Rol. Abr. 843. (4) Lord Say v. The Bishop of Peterborough, Gould's R. 161. properties of a fee simple or tail, and is subject years not de surrender of On the other hand, where a grantor, possessed Grant by of a term of years in a rectory to which the ad- tenant for vowson of a vicarage was appendant for years, feasible by granted the next avoidance of the vicarage, and his adminis the defendant pleaded, that after the grant the trator. grantor died, and his administrator surrendered his term in the rectory to the bishop then in reversion, it was held that, notwithstanding the surrender, the grantee should have the next avoidance; for the grantor himself would derogate from his own grant, and would make it void at his pleasure, which is contrary to the rule, that the grant of every one should be taken most strongly against himself; and the term for the benefit of the grantee has in some respects a continu (1) Sir Marmadukes Wivel's case, Hob. R. 45. (2) Davenport's case, 8 Rep. 144. To whom the grant should be limited. One of two grantees may release before avoid ance. ance, and therefore, if lessee for years grants a rent charge, and afterwards surrenders, yet, for the benefit of the grantee, the term has continuance, although in rei veritate it is determined('); for the doctrine of surrender or merger never operates to the disadvantage of strangers, though it may benefit them to the disadvantage of the persons between whose estates the surrender or merger takes place. The grant of the next avoidance to a person, his heirs and assigns, is but a chattel, and goes to the executors; for where the thing is a chattel, the word heirs will not make an estate of inheritance. (2) One of two grantees of the next avoidance of a church may release to the other before the avoidance happens, for although the grantor cannot release to them, to increase their estate, because their interest is future, and not in possession, yet one of them, to extinguish his interest, may release to the other in respect of the privity. (3) (*) Davenport's case, 8 Rep. of Norwich, Cro. El. 600. 144. (2) Dyer's Rep. 26. a. Wolverston's case, 3 Bur. R. 1506. Brooksby's case, Cro. El. 174. SECTION VI. On Grants of Avoidances by the Crown. void turn THOUGH a grant made of a void turn by a Grant of a common person is void, yet if the king is where the grantor, the grant is valid; although if even the king grantor. king grants a manor with an advowson appendant, the void turn does not then pass unless it is also mentioned in the grant ('), but if the advowson had been in gross and not appendant it is otherwise. If the king does not take the benefit of the first avoidance upon the promotion of the incumbent to a bishoprick, but suffers a stranger to present, and the clerk presented dies, the king will not have his prerogative presentation to the second avoidance (2); but if the church becomes void by the act of the incumbent, and the patron presents and dies, then the king does not lose his presentation. (3) (1) Anon. Hob. R. 140. | Bishop of Exeter, Cro. Jac. Fane's case, Cro. Jac. 197. 691. Grey v. Hesketh, Amb. R. 268. Moore, 249. (2) Beverley v. Cornewall, Cro. El. 44. Woodley v. The (3) The Queen v. The Bishop of Lincoln, Cro. El. 119. |