where the prohibition did not lie, the chief and principal debtor was summoned,  and in the second the sureties were summoned and impleaded, though the principal  debtor was solvent, and where after the prohibition it was adjudged in the secular  court that the parson should betake himself to the principal debtor who was solvent,  and that the sureties be quit. Hence it seems that if the principal debtor were not  solvent, the parson could sue the sureties in the ecclesiastical court despite a prohibition.  A prohibition will not lie in a testamentary or a matrimonial cause because  pleas of that kind are specially excepted, [nor as to matters which are] quasi-spiritual  or annexed to spiritualities, [Nor as to anything accessory to such. Accessory, I  say, as the obligation of a surety, as in the sale of tithes mentioned above.] as1 in the  case of promises made for a matrimonial causa, when the contract is first entered  into,2 for the giving of money in the name of maritagium;3 it is otherwise if a tenement  is promised. And that such money may be claimed notwithstanding a prohibition  may be found [in the roll] of Michaelmas term in the fourteenth and the beginning  of the fifteenth years of king Henry in the county of Suffolk, [the case] of Hugh de  Monte Canisio.4 To the same effect is a case [in the roll] of Trinity term in the fifteenth  year of king Henry in the county of Oxford, in which the prior of Bicester was judge.5  One must always consider the reason for which a thing is done or promised.
A prohibition does not lie by reason of something accessory.
 If the matter is accessory to a testamentary cause a prohibition does not lie, as where  money is bequeathed and claimed as a debt in the ecclesiastical court, by virtue of the  testamentary action. Nor does it lie if a testator bequeaths money owed him, provided  the debt was acknowledged and proved in his lifetime, for sums of that kind  are reckoned among the testator's goods and belong to executors.6 But if debts are  claimed by executors which have not been acknowledged or proved in the testator's  lifetime, [and] the debtors do not willingly acknowledge them after his death, such  debts are not reckoned among the testator's goods and if they are claimed by the  executors or the heir in the ecclesiastical forum a prohibition will lie; the suit must  be brought in the secular forum.7 Actions of this kind are hereditary and belong to  heirs and