[by an instrument] of renunciation, [One cannot renounce to the prejudice of  another.] as in the roll of Easter term in the sixteenth year of king Henry in the  county of Devon, [the case] of Thomas le Butiller, archdeacon of Totton.1[But there  the contrary was held, that a renunciation may prejudice persons other than the  renunciant.]2 Similarly a prohibition will not lie if one is made subject to the other  jurisdiction by his own act, by appealing, as where one impleaded before an ecclesiastical  judge, who is not his proper judge, appeals to another judge not his proper judge,  and then betakes himself to a royal prohibition on the ground that a secular thing is  being claimed; he ought not to be heard, [so far as his own person is concerned but  not so far as the king is concerned, as was said above,] because what he once approved  he cannot afterwards reject.3
It will not lie for a recent spoliation.
 A prohibition will not lie with respect to a recent spoliation, as where clerk despoils  clerk of tithes or of other things the cognisance of which belongs to the ecclesiastical  forum,4 because a restitution of this kind is not prejudicial to the patron's right of  presentation.
Nor in a restitutory action.
 A prohibition will not lie in a restitutory action, when a church has been recently  despoiled of some liberty granted to it at the time of its dedication, as that of having  reasonable estovers in the patron's wood for housbot, heybote, fuel and the like, or  of having common of pasture by reason of land given to the church as its endowment.5  I say recently, for if the spoliation is not recent the result will be otherwise.
Nor because of negligent prosecution.
 A prohibition will not lie where one, negligent and unmindful of his right,6 is slower  than he ought to be in looking to his interests, because he brought the prohibition  only when the case had proceeded to the point of judgment, or after judgment had  been given, for after that there was no one who sued the plea, which was pleaded  earlier, nor any judge who held the plea, which was not sued after the prohibition,  which the plaintiff may attribute to his own negligence, though that would not be  imputed to him had he acted in good time. And that the negligence of the plaintiff  is not imputed to the judges is proved [in the roll] of
1. B.N.B., no. 678; not on remaining fragments of Easter 16 in C.R.R., xiv, 527-34
2. Reading: Factum tamen fuit contrarium, quod renuntiatio . . . renuntianti (lines 4-5)