This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1825 Excerpt: ...Accordingly they do so; for admitting the right of Killigrew, who is the ancestor under whom the defendant claims, the plaintiffs claim by virtue of a fine levied by all the coparceners. This, no doubt, is a full and complete answer to the title set out in the plea. But then the plaintiff, instead of putting any matter in issue on that title, instead of drawing any conclusion on which there can be an issue, concludes with suggesting that the resignation of Romney was fraudulent, and that the usurpation for that turn was not an usurpation on the right of the eldest coparcener, for that is distinctly the effect of the traverse. A great many cases were cited to show that this traverse was material, and we admit that is the point to be proved. But it cannot be material in the abstract; it is material or not, quoad the right to support which issue is taken. Now the right insistea on by the plaintiffs in their replication is a right under the title of Killigrew to the advowson, by a conveyance from the three coparceners; and to that right so set out, whether the avoidance in question is in the first, second, or third turn, is of no sort of consequence. There is no question of turn with respect to a person who claims in himself a title to the whole advowson; and the irrelevance of the traverse taken by the plaintiffs to the title set out, cannot appear more strongly than by comparing this case with the case 3 Wils. 214. which was cited in the argument, to show the sufficiency of the traverse on the part of the plaintiffs. But in the present case, admitting, what in all probability was true, that the right was not in the coparceners, it would not tend to show that the plaintiff had derived a right from Killigrew, who, by confession of the pleadings, was clearly at ...