(b)  3  Wood,  29;  2  E.  &  Y.  188.
254  EQUITY  CASES  IN  THE

1831.         for  some  of  the  tithes;  and  there  is  therefore  a  clear  ad-
mission  by  them  of  the  plaintiff's  title.
Mr.  Jervis,  and  Mr.  Wilbraham^  for  the  defendants. — ^It
is  a  settled  point,  that  there  cannot  be  a  lease  by  parol  of
tithes,  which,  as  incorporeal  hereditaments,  lie  only  in  grant.
It  does  not  appear  in  Jackson  v.  Benson  bow  the  claim  was
made  out;  here,  it  appears,  upon  the  plaintiff's  own  shew-
ing, that  the  lease  was  by  parol.     In  Henning  v.  WUUSf  it
appears  that  the  amendment  was  by  adding  another  party,
and  there  was  a  tender  before  the  amendment.    The  Court
only  decreed  the  payment  of  the  money  tendered,  and  costs
of  suit,  to  be  paid  by  the  plaintiff  to  the  defendant.     There
is  no  substantial  difference  between  Henning  v.    WiUis
and  the  present  case,  except  that  here  the  tender  was
made  before  the  filing  of  the  bill.     The  plaintiff  ought  to
have  brought  the  other  defendants  to  a  hearing:  their  an-
swer and  disclaimer  cannot  be  read  as  evidence  against
the  occupiers.  The  plaintiff  has  no  legal  title  to  the  tithes;
he  is  a  mere  equitable  owner  of  the  tithes  under  the  agree-
ment; the  occupier  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  equitable
owner;  all  he  has  to  do  is,  to  account  with  the  legal  owner,
who  is  not  now  before  the  Court.
