the writ as well as for one named, by force of the word who which is distributive and  does not describe specific persons.1 Hence it would not be sufficient to say notwithstanding  the claim of such a one, named in the writ, since any other person, not  specially named, could claim if the assise should find for him. But suppose that the  assise is taken not in the manner of an assise but in the manner of a jury, as where a  gift is put forward and a charter, an agreement or a condition or the like. Let the  phrase notwithstanding the claim of such a one then be used, because the words  who as patron are not indeterminate, as is shown in the roll of Trinity and Michaelmas  in the third and the beginning of the fourth years of king Henry, in the county of  Oxford, between Robert of Harpeden and Reginald of Whitechurch, an assise of  darrein presentment concerning the church of Harpeden.2 And so in any case where  the assise is not taken in the manner of an assise. There may be another form of concord,  where there is a dispute (by the assise of darrein presentment or by writ of  quare impedit or quare non permittit) between several having one right, who are so  to speak a single heir. If one of the several is unwilling to consent the presentation  will remain and the bishop will make provision for the church, nor can any privilege  prevail, neither age, dignity, nor a majority of the persons concerned, for either all  consent or none.3 But they may consent in many different ways, and let the writ  [to the bishop] always be drawn according to the form of the consent. One of the  several may consent in this way, namely, that he will never consent to the clerk his  parceners have previously presented, but will freely consent to another whom his  parceners will choose and present. Let the writ then be drawn in this form.
 The king to such a bishop, greeting. Know that when A. was summoned in our court  before etc. to answer B. and C. the wife [of D.] as to why he impeded them in their  presentation of a suitable parson to such a church, which is vacant, two parts of the  advowson of which church B. and C. claim, the same A. appeared in our same court  and said that he rightfully impeded because the right of presenting to the third part  belongs to him since he is a parcener of the aforesaid B. and C. He also added that he  would never consent to the clerk whom B. and C. had presented, because, so he said,  he was unsuitable, but would consent to someone other than the first presented by  the same B. and C. provided he was suitable. And therefore we order you, if the aforesaid  B. and C. agree on a suitable parson and they together with the aforesaid A.  present him to you in common, to admit that