Michaelmas term in the ninth and the beginning of the tenth years of king Henry in  the county of Bedford, [the case] of Richard de Vabadun.1 And note that if one  claims land with the appurtenances from another, and claims in demesne what is in  demesne and in service what is in service, if the tenant holds nothing in demesne the  writ falls. And so [as to service], though he who holds of the tenant ought to hold of  him, if the tenant who is impleaded has received none of the service the writ falls in  the same way as above, as [in the roll] of Trinity term in the fourth year of king  Henry in the county of Buckingham, an assise of mortdancestor concerning Hugh de  Gurnay.2
If the tenant acknowledges that he does not hold the whole in fee, only part.
 If the tenant answers in this way, that he does not hold the whole in fee, but holds  part in fee and part in wardship, the writ does not fall for the part he holds in demesne,  as [in the roll] of the eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the county of Kent in the twelfth  year of king Henry, [the case] of Geoffrey de Resintone.3 And so if by one writ one  claims several manors or lands or other things, which have no connexion with one  another; the writ may stand for one part and fall for the other, since the pleas are  completely different.
If one claims a manor with all the appurtenances to which an advowson is appurtenant.
 If one claims with all its appurtenances a manor to which the advowson of a church  is appurtenant, and also claims the advowson by another writ, one of the actions and  writs falls, since it is superfluous, because the demandant claims too much, since he  claims the same thing twice, and one of his claims is nugatory and useless since the  other is sufficient by itself. And so if he claims a manor with its appurtenances by one  writ and afterwards in his narratio says I claim such a manor with its appurtenances  and with the advowson of the church. [Neither the action nor the writ falls on that  account, but let the addition be disregarded as superfluous, since it suffices to claim  the manor with the appurtenances.][When the tenant says that he does not hold the  whole because another holds the advowson,4 the demandant may replicate that the  advowson is not appurtenant to the land claimed but to another barony and another  fee, and therefore that there is no need to except it,5 as [in the roll] of pleas which  follow the king in the twentieth year of his reign