all three died in Lowe's lifetime), and to the heirs of the said Robert Lowe. About the year 1702, Samuel Lowe, the son and heir of Robert Lowe, presented a clerk to the vicarage of Middlewich, who was instituted and inducted, and continued in possession till his death, which happened in the year 1718, when Francis Lord Brereton presented his clerk to the vicarage, who was instituted and inducted. James Lowe, the respondent's brother, brought a writ of quare impedit, but, before the matter was determined, the incumbent died, and the respondent Lowe presented his clerk, who was instituted and inducted; and the appellants brought their writ of quare impedit, to recover that turn of presentation, claiming the same under a conveyance from the family of Brereton. The respondent Lowe having pleaded his title to the rectory and vicarage under the purchase and fine above mentioned, the appellants, in Easter term 1734, exhibited their bill in the Court of Exchequer against the respondent, setting forth, that William Lord Brereton being minded to sell the glebe and tithes of the said rectory, the respondent's grandfather, who was then bailiff to Lord Brereton, prevailed on him, his lady and son, for some small sum of money, to sell and convey to the said Robert Lowe the glebe lands and tithes of the greatest part of the said parish; and other parcels of the said tithes were about the same time purchased by several other persons, and conveyed to them; and the said Robert Lowe, as part of the consideration for the purchase of the said tithes, agreed to take upon himself the payment of the stipend of nineteen marks to the vicar; but neither he nor his son ever pretended or insisted on any right to the advowson of the vicarage, nor ever attempted to present thereto, except in the year 1702, when Samuel Lowe, taking advantage of John Lord Brereton's being then under a commission of lunacy, presented a clerk. The appellants therefore prayed, that the respondent might discover whether there was not some deed wherein the uses of the fine were declared, and whether a subsequent fine of particular parcels of the rectory was not levied in 1667, and deeds executed declaring the uses thereof. In bar to this discovery, the respondent pleaded the purchase so made by Robert Lowe his grandfather, and the fine thereupon levied to him of the said rectory, and the advowson of the said vicarage; and also the payment of the said sum of 1000l., the purchase-money mentioned in such fine. That proclamations were duly made on the said fine, and that no claim was made to the premises within five years next after. That the respondent, and those claiming under him, enjoyed the premises for fifty years and upwards, and insisted on the statute of limitations. On the 9th of November, 1734, this plea came on to be argued before the Barons, when they ordered that the plea should be allowed. An appeal was then brought in the House of Lords; and, on behalf of the appellants, it was argued, that the fine insisted by the plea to have been levied to Robert Lowe, Minshall, Hodgson, and Wilson, was not levied with an intention to convey the rectory to the conusees for their own use, but only to clear the title to the rectory, which was then intended to be sold in parcels; and as there did not appear to be any declaration of the uses of this fine, it would, by the rules of law, result to the conusors. That the end of the bill was to discover the intent and design of the said fine, and of a subsequent fine, said to have been levied in 1667 to the said Robert Lowe, of divers parcels of the said rectory; and by the discovery of this second fine, and the uses of it, and the consideration of such conveyance, to show that the uses of the first fine did result to the conusors, or at least as to such parts of the rectory as were not particularly conveyed by the second fine, and the deeds declaring the uses of it; and, therefore, the first fine ought not to have been pleaded in bar to such discovery, without a denial of the particular circumstances charged by the bill, as an evidence of such resulting use. That the respondent, by not answering or denying the several charges in the bill, touching the second fine, and the declaration of its uses, did implicitly admit the same, and that the advowson of the vicarage was not comprized therein; and this admission was a strong evidence against him, to show, that the first fine was levied only for the purposes above mentioned, and that nothing more was intended to pass to his ancestor, than what was particularly comprized in the second fine, and the declaration of the uses thereof. That it did not appear by the plea what was the real purchase-money of the advowson, nor that the same was paid by Robert Lowe, the respondent's ancestor. That the appellants and the respondent derived under the same title, and the right of the appellants to the advowson appeared from the respondent's own conveyances; the pretence, therefore, of his ancestor's being a purchaser, without any notice of the appellant's title, was without foundation. And as to the quiet enjoyment, the fine and non-claim, and the statute of limitations, set up as a bar to the discovery sought by the appellants, it was said, that as to the glebe, and such part of the tithes, parcel of the said rectory, as the respondent claimed, there might have been a long and quiet possession, nor was his title thereto at all impeached by the appellant's of bill; but as to the advowson of the vicarage, the only evidence of enjoyment insisted on by the respondent, was a presentation about the year 1702, which was during the lunacy of Lord John; and, since that time, Lord Francis, his heir, presented the last incumbent, and regained the possession of the vicarage. It was therefore hoped, that the said plea should not bar the appellants of a full discovery of the respondent's title, but that the order for allowing the same should be reversed. On the other side, it was contended, that Robert Lowe, the respondent's grandfather, and under whom he claimed, was a purchaser of the rectory and the advowson of the vicarage, by the fine levied in 1664, for 10007., without any notice any other title; and therefore, by the known and established rules and practice of courts of equity, the respondent ought not to be obliged any further to discover or disclose his title; nor were the appellants entitled to the aid of a court of equity in respect to such title. That by the fine, proclamations, and nonclaim thereupon, and by the length of peaceable possession and enjoyment, which the respondent's grandfather, father, and brother, and those claiming under them, had successively of the said advowson, under the said fine and purchase; the title under which the appellants, by their bill, claimed the same, was utterly and effectually barred and defeated both at law and in equity; and, therefore, the order for allowing the plea ought to be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs. After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the order therein complained of should be reversed; and that the plea should stand for an answer, with liberty to except so far, as to oblige the respondent to discover any conveyance or conveyances made by William Lord Bre 2 Atk. 389. Pincke v. reton and Elizabeth his wife, and William Brereton, Esq. their son, or any or either of them, to Robert Lowe, the respondent's grandfather, alone, or jointly with any other person or persons; and to discover any deed or deeds, declaring the uses of a fine, in the pleadings mentioned to be levied in the 16th year of King Charles II., or declaring the uses of a fine in the pleadings also mentioned to be levied in the vear 1667. 89. Although a bill in equity is not such an action as will avoid a fine, if the subject matter of the suit be of legal jurisdiction; yet still, in some instances, the filing a bill in a court of equity will prevent the bar arising from a fine and non-claim. And in cases of this kind, the Court will direct a trial at law, with an order that the defendant shall not set up the fine in bar of the plaintiff's claim; upon the same principle that a court of equity sometimes directs that the defendants in a suit of law shall not plead the statute of limitations. 90. Sir John Thornycroft, Bart. being entitled to Thornycroft, the remainder in fee of the estates in question, ex1 Bro. Rep. pectant on the decease of his sister Elizabeth, the 4 Bro. Parl. then wife of General Handasyde, devised the same 289. Ca. 92. to Henry Forster in fee. After the decease of Sir |