That Graduates of the two Universities have no privilege to practise in London, and within seven miles circuit,[91] has been repeatedly decided; see Doctor _Levet’s_ case, Lord _Raymond’s Rep._ 472; _The Coll. of Physicians against West 10, Modd 353 and Appx._ That by Graduates is meant Graduates in Physic only. _See College Questions. Appx._ The case of _Doctor Bonham_,[92] which we have been the more particular in citing as it contains much learning on the subject of our enquiries, and is reported by the first authority of his time, having shown that the College cannot fine or imprison for unlicenced practice, but must proceed by action in the ordinary Courts for the statutable penalty of five pounds a month, we must next show by what name the College ought to sue, for upon this point much difference of opinion and practice appears to have prevailed. In the case of _The President and College of Physicians v. Talbois_, exceptions were taken that the action should be by the President alone. But _per curiam_, “being a Corporation, it is natural for them to sue by their name of creation.” 1 _Lord Raymond_, p. 153. _Hil. Term_ 8 & 9, _Will._ 3. See also _The President and College of Physicians v. Salmon_, B. R. _Trin. Term_ 13 _Will._ 3. 1. _Ld. Raym_, p. 680; 5 _Mod._ 327; and this appears to be the best rule. In the previous case of _The President of the College v. Tenant. Hill. Term._ 11 _James_, _Bulstrode’s Rep. Part._ 2, _p._ 185, the action was brought by the President alone, on which the Judges were divided in opinion, _Haughton_ Justice saying, “he may here well bring the action alone in his own name,” but the Declaration being bad in other respects, the rule of the Court was, _Quod querens nil capiat per Billam_. The Entry in _Rastal_, _p._ 426, is in favour of the doctrine that the President may sue alone, as is also the case of Doctor _Laughton v. Gardner_, 4 _Croke_, _p._ 121. _Trin. Term._ 4 _James_, and more especially the consequent case of Doctor _Atkins v. Gardner_, 2 _Croke_, 169 _Pasc_ 5 _James_, where Dr. _Laughton_ having brought an action of debt on the Statute, as President of the College obtained judgment _Nisi_, but dying before execution, his successor _Doctor Atkins_, brought a _scire facias_ against the defendant to have execution, it was therefore demurred because the _scire facias_ ought to be brought by the executor or administrator of him who recovered and not by his successor; but the Court held that the successor might well maintain the action, for the suit is given to the College by a private Statute, and the suit is to be brought by the President for the time being, and he having recovered in right of the Corporation, the law shall transfer that duty to the successor of him who recovered and not to his executors. 1 _Rolle Abr._ 515.