deux Guards nor Quare impedit of two Churches Yet by the Judges it was held good eonugh as of Trespaâ—s for a man may joyn Lands of twenty Titles in Trespass and Trespass lyes f Wood Pasture and the like and 4 E. 2. if a man hold Lands in Capite and dye having issue only two Daughters within age and they are ravished the Lord shall have but one Ravishment de Gard. and 31 H. 6. 14. if a stranger enters upon two Parceners they shall have but one Formedon and if the Lessor shall have one Writ of Covenant for those Houses the Assignce shall have the same For the Statute of 32 H. 8. ca. 14. gives the Assignee the power of the Lessor And the Lord Chief Justice Coke said If a man seised of Lands in Fee enfeoffs an other to the use of himself for Life the Remainder of part to one of his Daughters and â—he Heirs of her Body issuing the Remainder of the Residue to the other Daughter and the Heirs of her body issuing the Eldest Daughter dyes without Issue a Stranger enters upon the whole the other Sister shall have but one Writ Mich. 8. Jacobi in Communi Banco inter Pyot dominam St. John If an Infant Lets Lands for a Term of years rendring Rent he may at his Election have an Action of Debt for the Rent reserved upon the Lease or bring Trespass for occupying of the Land and so he may have an Action of Trespass for the use of of a thing sold by him And if an infant do give an Horse to one without actual delivery of the Horse into his hands at the time of the gift and the Donee taketh the Horse by reason of the gift the Infant may have an Action of Trespass against him 18 E. 4. 2. If an Infant makes a Lease for years or a Lease per dures if the Lessee enter the Infant may have an Assise but if the Infant makes a Feoffment and deliver seisin accordingly he shall have no Assise for by the Livery of seisin the Feoffee had a possession at Will at least but if he makes a Letter of Attorney to deliver seisin he may have an Assise 9 H. 7. 24. 8. 2. Mar. 109. Dyer Rug. Case If an Obligation be made to Husband and Wife the writ may be brought in the Husbands name only 12 R. 2. Breif 639. And so Where a Lease for years is made by Husband and Wife of the Lands of the Wife rendring Rent the Action of Debt must be brought in the name of the Husband only 7 E. 4. 5. But by 2 R. 2. in a Writ concerning a Chattel real they may joyn 2 R. 2. Breif 37. As to such things which concern the person of the Wife immediately there the Writ must be brought in both their names And therefore The Husband cannot sue a Writ of Appeal for the Rape of his Wife without naming the Wife 8 H. 4. 21. 1 H. 6. 10 H. 4. Brook Baron Feme 34. Husband and Wife brought an Action of Battery for the beating of them both the Writ was adjudged good for the Battery of the Wife but not as to the Husband 9 E. 4. 54. The Husband and the Wife shall both bring an Action of Trespass for the taking away the Goods of the Wife before Marriage 21 H. 33. In a Writ of Detinue of Chartres against Husband and Wife Declaration was upon a Trover and the Writ was abated 13 R. 2. Breif 644. A Writ of Covenant was brought by the Husband and Wife for that the Defendant had Leased to them Lands by Deed for Term of years and afterwards ousted them and the Writ was adjudged to be good for if the Husband dyes the Wife shall have the Term and in this Case they were both parties to the Covenant 47 E. 3. 12. An Action of Debt for the arrearages of Rent reserved upon a Lease for years made unto the Husband and the Wife shall be brought against them both and so shall a Writ of Wast for the Wife cannot waive the Lease during the life of the Husband 6 E. 4. 10 17 E. 4. 7. An Action upon the Statute of Laborers was brought against Husband and Wife supposing that the Wife had Covenanted with the Plaintiff to be waiting-woman to his Wife for a year and that she departed out of service within the year and the writ was adjudged to be good being brought against them both 8 R. 2. Laborers 59. A man may have a writ of Detinue of Charters and of Chattels joyntly because there one thing is the ground of the Action viz. the Deteyner 44 E. 3. 41 Breif 583. Likewise a man may have a writ of Debt where part of the Debt is due by Obligation and part by Contract because there the Debt is only occasion of the suit 41 E. 3 damage 75. 1 H. 5. 4. So in things of the like nature one writ may comprehend many wrongs and therefore an Action of the Case was brought for hindring the Plaintiff to hold his Leet 2. for the disturbance of his Servants and Tenants in the gathering his Tithe 3. for Threatning so that the people c. durst not come to a certain Chappel to do their Devotion and present their Offerings 4. for the taking of his Servants and Chattels 19 R. 2. Action sur le Case 52. When an Action is given by the Statute and the Statute doth not prescribe any certain form of the writ the writ framed at the Common Law shall serve for that purpose and the special matter shall be set forth in the Declaration Dyer 37. a. 83. Where a man shall have an Action against his own Deed. A man shall have an Action against his own Deed as if I disseise an Abbot and make Feoffment in Fee with waranty and afterwards I am made Abbot of the same House my Feoffment shall not be a Barr to me notwithstanding it was with warranty I shall have an Action against my Alienee because that I recover to the use of the House and not to my own use The same Law if I disseise Major and Commonalty c. The same Law of the Parson of a Church The same Law if I take a Horse of a Feme sole and Sell it and afterwards marry her I shall have an Action of Debt against my Alienee because that I recover to the use of my Wife tamen quaere A Monk shall have a Quo minus debitum Domini Regis solvere non potest for the advantage upon a Lease made by the King reserving Rent 14 H. 4. The same Law if a Villein be made executor to a man to whom the Lord is bound the Villein shall have an Action against his Lord. The same Law if a Monk be made Executor c. The same Law if an Abbot hath been disseised and afterwards the disseisor is desseised the Disseisor releaseth with warranty and after that is made Abbot he shall find against his own Deed
two persons having several Interests in Lands acknowledg the note of a Fine before a Judg and then one of them dyes The Conusee may for all that proceed with his Fine against the other alone for the death of the other is no impediment for the Conusans of every one is against himself and shall work for so much as he can pass A man and his Wife acknowledged a note of a Fine before Commissioners the 26 th of March by Dedimus potestatem and the wife dyed 27 th of the same month and the next day being the 28 th Composition was made in the Alâ—enation-Office upon a Writ of Covenant Retornable in Hillary Term before and the Kings Silver was entred as of the same Hillary Term and so the Fine was past and ingrossed And in Easter Term the Heir of the Wife moves against the Fine But upon debate it was agreed the Fine should stand Tenant in Tail Levies a Fine with Proclamations and 5 years pass in his Life-time Yet this shall not Barr his Issue A man of full age and his Wife being but 19 Levy a the Fine of Inheritance of the Wife whereby an Estate is conveyed to the Husband and Wife in Tail and the Remainder to the right Heirs of the wife and many exceptions taken against the proceedings by the Heir to the Wifes inheritance viz. I. S. as that the said Feme was not of full age at the time of the Fine Levied and other undue means committed in getting out the Son Yet by the whole Court the Fine was held good Law for Facta valent multa que fieri prohibentur If there be Tenant for Life the Remander in Fee to an Infant and they both Levy a Fine and afterwards as to the Infant the Fine is Reversed yet the Conusee shall have the Land for the Life of the Tenant for each may pass and give what he lawfully may If there be two Jointenants and one of them suffer a Recovery declaring the uses of the whole this shall bind but only a Moiety unless the consent of the other Jointenant can be proved Heir IF an Heir be sued upon a Bond and Lands are proved to descend unto him from his Ancestor you must have a special Writ to enquire what those lands are worth to be delivered to the Plaintiff at a reasonable extent and price and if the Heir confess the Action and shew what Lands come to him by descent Then his Body and all other his Lands and Goods and Chattels are free from that Execution but if he deny the Action and plead Riens per descent or it go by default against him then Execution shall be against Body Goods or other Lands And the Declaration shall be in the Debet and Detinet as though it were his proper Debt Outlawries and Outlaws OVtlawry was pleaded in Barr and day given before when the Defendant reversed it the Defendant shall not be condemned for Failer of Record but Respondouster Green against Gascogne vide Title failer of Record Yel 36. Outlawry in the Kings Bench reversed by Error in the same Court but that is for Error in Fact not in Law as if no Outlawry lay in the Case and if Process of Outlawry lie in an Action upon the Case for turning a Water-Course vide P. 10. H. 7. pl. 15. Dy. 195. b. 196. Original in Debt called the Defendant Nuper de Lond. Exig called him de Lond. is erroneous for it must pursue the Original without Variance and the Original was against Lancelot the Exigent was against Lancelot ill 3 Cro. 49. vid. 50 95. 104. 116. 172. Error of a Judgment in Debt and Outlaw'd 2. on it against 2. where the Sheriff return'd quod non habent bona out catalla quod summon ' potuer it should have been per quod c. 2. it should be nec eorum aliquis het ' 3. the Original is against Lancelot A. and the Exigent is against Lancelot A. 4. 't is said in Hastings and it should be in Hustingis de Com. plac revocetur Lancelot vers ' Jones 3. Cro. 50. An Outlawry was reversed because it was against Lewellin with a single l and now the mean Process against Llewellin with a double Ll and it was against two and returned quod non sunt inventi and not nec eorum aliquis Llewellin against Watkins vide M. 2. R. 3 4 13. pl. 16. 3 Cro. 85. 104. 49. 50. 116. 198. 240. 248. 205. M. 21. H. 7. pl. 37. Exigent names no place where the Sheriff is to have the Body and that adjudged Error to reverse the Outlawry For the Sheriff cannot tell in what County to carry him Cesar against Stone 3 Cro. 104. Outlawry reversed because the Party was Indicted in Com. Somerset and supposed to be of London and the Capias awarded to the Sheriff of Somerset where it ought to go to the County where he lives Rorset's Case 3 Cro. 179. vid. Dy. 295. b. vid. M. 1 E. 4. pl. 2. One Outlawed of Felony assigned his Term and then reversed the Outlawry the Grantee shall maintain Trespass for the Profits taken in the mean time between the Assignment and the Reversal of the Outlawry For though it was then the King 's yet it is now as if no Outlawry had been at all Ognell's Case 3 Cro. 270. vide 218. Accord Outlawry is not reversed but by pleading without Writ of Error per tot Cur. though there be apparent Faults in it 3 Cro. 274. vide Co. 1. Inst 259. b. One is Outlawed and has his Term sold and then reversed the Outlawry he shall be restored to the Term it self not the Money Otherwise if sold on a Fieri Facias c. quod vide plus Title Exec. Eyre against Woodfare 3 Cro. 778. Co. 5. Rep. 90. b. 1. Acc. pl. 285. In Debt against an Executor the Defendant pleads that the Testator was Outlawed and doubted if a good Plea because the Testator may have some Goods not forfeited by Outlawry as simple Contract c. but on the other side such special Ass shall not be intended to Com. next he has nothing Wooley against Brade 3 Cro. 575. 851. Outlawry reversed because the Writ was Teste Edmund Anderson so wanting a Title had no Teste which is the Warrant of it Growdy and Juham 3 Cro. 592. Judgment against two in Debt C. and B and Capias only against one and he Outlawed whereupon was brought Error and reversed it because the Capins should have gone against both Also 't was not per Judiâ— ' Coron ' Beverly against Beverly 3 Cro. 648. Debt against the Sheriff on an Escape where the Case was that the Party was Outlawed after Judgment reversed it by Error within the Year and because he assigned not any Error the Plaintiff took out a Capias utlegatum and the Sheriff took him and let him go and resolved for the Plaintiff and in Co. 1. Report of this Case the difference is taken of an Outlawry
makes a Feoffment on Condition VVast is done and he enters for the Condition Lessor shall have wast fo if Lessee of a Bishop commits wast in time of Vacancy the Successor shall have the Action so if Tenant for Life be disseised and wast is done and the Tenant re-enters Lessor shall have wast yet he had no Reversion Note 't is no plea for Lessee in wast to say generally that Lessor had no Reversion c. but must shew how he lost it But in wast by Assignee of the Reversion such Plea general is good vid. 39 E. 3. 19. 20. Wast by Successor of a Bishop or wast done in the Predecessors time quaere sc bon for laid ad exheredationem Ecclesiae Co. 1. Inst 356. a. vid. 1. H. 4. 26. Opinion that Successor of an Abbot or Prior shall have wast for wast done in the Predecessors time or if a Bishop Parson c. that can make Executors Vid. 71 E. 3. 53. b. 43 E 3. 8. 49 E. 3. 26. Successor of an Abbot not chargable for wast of a Predecessor In wast if the Plaintiff's Reversion determine either before or pendant the Suit his Action is gone but if it be pendente the Suit it must be so specified Ewer against Moyle Yel 141. In Wast the Plaintiff declares Quod cùm seisitus fuit and let for years the Defendant had wasted and though not said of what Estate seised so it might be for Life yet being ad exheredationem and that alledging of Seizin but Surplus held by most good enough Sir Walter Astoâ— against Sweten hall 3 Cro. 47. Wast assigned in the house where it appears the Plaintiff has but two parts of the Reversion yet good he cannot assign it otherways Wast inquired of by the Sheriff where it was confessed by Nihil dicit yet no Error Warnford against Haydock 3 Cro. 290. Wast against a Husband Tenant for life in right of his Wife dead not being in the Tenet or Tenuit ill also the Writ is Quod fecit vastum and being in her right it should have been fecerunt vastum But by Co. 1. Inst this Wast is dispunishable by her death otherwise if it had been a term for years Co. 1. Inst 54. P. Note the Estate was made to the use of the Wife for Life yet Action lyes Sackervil against Bagnell Con. to Dr. and Student Co. 3. Cro. 356. 357. In wast the plaintiff prayed a writ of Etrepement against the Tenant and his Servants and at last a Warrant against both though doubted at first if it lye in this Action though it do in Writ of Entry c. Anderne against Anderne 3 Cro. 393. F. N. B. 61. In a Writ of Entry sur disseisin done to himself the plaintiff prayed a writ of Etrepement doubted if allowable because in that Action he is to recover Damages but because Non constat whether the Tenant be able to satisfie him if he pull down his Houses granted Wright against Pearcy 3 Cro. 484. 774. Tenant in cutting three hundred Oaks Defendant as to two hundred justifies that the House was ruinous and he cut and employed them in repairs and for the other hundred he cut them to have them ready to repair Tempore opportuno adjudged an ill Plea on Demurrer for so every Lessee might â—ut where there is no Necessity Grey against Stanfeild 3 Cro. 593. vid. 498. 499. Waâ—t the writ was general and that the woman held c. ex dimissione A. her former Husband and counted that A. enfeoffed B. to the intent a Rocovery be had against him to the use of A. for Life Remainder to the woman for Life which was done accordingly and for this Judgment against the Plaintiff for the writ ought to have been recited for the Husband could not let to the Wife but she is in by the Husband and so has the Estate from the Feoffee Green feild against Dennis 3 Cro. 722. A. le ts to B. B. assigns to C. and D. D. assigns to E. except the Trees then 't is enacted by Parliament that the Heir of the Body of A. shall have the Land A. being dead leaving three Daughters who took Husbands one of them dyes the other two and their Husbands quitt the Tenant by the Curtesie brings wast against C. and E. in the Term the Term being ended adjudged first the Writ good notwithstanding the setling the Estate by the Statute without shewing the special Title and secondly without joyning the Tenant by the Curtesie because he not intitled to the Damages non locum vastat And thirdly the Writ supposes quod tenuerunt which implies a Joynt-tenancy now they appear Tenants in Common good because the Land at first one and entire but if wast can be committed in the Trees excepted by the Lessee not agreed but in Co. 5. Rep. adjudged it does and the Exception void Sir Roger Leuknor against Freed 1 Leon. 48. 3. Cro. 17. Co. 6. Rep. 12. b. Lessee for Life and he in Reversion make a Lease wast is committed they shall joyn and Tenant for Life recover Locum vastatum and he in Reversion the damages Lessee for Life Sans Impeachment c. Wast is committed by a Stranger the Lessee in Trespass shall recover no Damages for the Trees cut but only for the Entry for the property of the Trees remaining in the Lessor 1 Leon. 49. Co. 1. Inst 42. a. p. 27. H. 8. p. 36. Lease of Lands exceptis arboribus grossis super Praemissa crescentibus Trees then little grow great and are cut if wast Semble non per Anderson for they were excepted whereas great and not only what were great at the time of the Lease Garrock versus Cliffe 1 Leon. 61. A. le ts to B. for years and during the Term le ts to C. for years by Indenture to commence presently B. commits wast A. brings a Writ against B. the Defendant cannot plead nul wast nor can he plead that the Lessor had nothing for the Plaintiff will estop him by the Indenture and though the Count be general of a Lease and says not per Indenturam yet a Replication that by Indenture is no departure but a coroborating of the Declaration 1 Leon. 156. Tenant for Life is disseised and Disseisor commits wast he in Reversion shall maintain an Action of wast against Tenant for Life yet note that by the disseisin the Reversion was out of him 1 Leon. 264. If wast be assigned in a whole wood sparsim if the Jury have view of the out-side of the wood 't is good without entring and viewing of every part and so of a house otherwise if the wast were assigned in certain part of the wood or Rooms in the house 1 Leon. 267. Feoffment to the use of himself and wife for Life Remainder to his own Heir he dyes she commits wast the Writ must be general Quas tenet de hereditate c. non ex dimissione for she comes in by the Statute 2 Leon. 222. vid. Co. Entr.
a Chest By which he lost his Marriage with A. D. c. I. S. shall have an Action for these words 2 Cro. 323. Mathews Case Mich. 12. Jac. B. R. Sell against Fairee per Cur. To say to a Woman Thou art a Whore I will marr thy Marriage by which she loseth her Marriage an Action lyes Trin. 22 Jac. B. R. Tonson against Spring adjudged upon Arrest of Judgment In Action upon the Case if the Plaintiff declare that she hath many Wooers to marry her and that the Defendant said of her She is with Child and hath taken Physick for it whereby she came into Disgrace Et perdidit consortium vicinorum suorum c. Although that it be not alledged that she lost any Marriage thereby yet the Action lyes Mich. 21. Jac. B. R. Medhurst against Balam adjudged in Arrest of Judgment If a man saith to an other Thou wast found in Bed with J. S. his Wife by reason of the speaking of which words he lost his Marriage with A. S. c. Although that he might be in Bed with her without any ill done yet because that it sounds in Disgrace and he hath lost his Marriage by it the Action lyes Mich. 8. Car. B. R. Southal against Dawson adjudg'd in Arrest of Judgment If the Plaintiff in an Action of the Case for words declare that the Defendant said of him He had the use of my Wife's Body by Force by reason of which words he was brought before certain Justices c. and examined by them for a Rape committed by him upon the said Woman whereupon to purge himself thereof he expended divers Sums of Money an Action lyes upon this Deelaration for the temporal Dimage he had thereby Mich. 9. Car. B. R. Harris against Smith adjudged upon Writ of Error In Action upon the Case if the plaintiff declares that in London by the Custom a Common Whore ought to be carted and a Bason rung before her And that the Defendant spoke these words of the Plaintiff Thou art a Whore and a common Whore and art a Bawd to thy Mistress and I will have a Bason tinged before thee the Action well lyes upon this Declaration for these Words Trin. 15. Car. B. R. Hassell against Capcot adjudged in Arrest of Judgment In Action upon the Case if the Plaintiff declare that in London there is a Custom that a Bawd ought to be carted and the Defendant said these words of the Plaintiff She is a Bawd and I will have her carted Hill 15 Car. B. R. Riley against Lewes adjudged in Arrest of Judgment If the Plaintiff declares in an Action upon the Case that whereas he was a Parishoner of S. the Defendant being Vicar there to the intent to scandalize the plaintiff and to create an evil opinion of the plaintiff among his Neighbours so that they Abstraherent seipsos à consortio of the plaintiff tanquam ab homine excommunicato nulla fide aut credentia digno and to exclude the Plaintiff injustly from the Church and for a long time to deprive him of the benefit of hearing divine Service in the said Church the Defendant in time of divine Service in the Church in the hearing of the parishioners maliciously pronounced the plaintiff excommunicated Praetextu cujusdam Instrumenti by him received from the Ordinary whereas he never had any such Instrument of Excommunication nor was he excommunicated And also at another time to the same Intent aforesaid in time of Divine Service in the hearing of the parishoners maliciously pronounced the plaintiff excommunicated and refused farther to celebrate divine Service until the plaintiff departed out of the Church whereupon the plaintiff was compelled to go out of the Church whereas the plaintiff was not excommunicated whereby the plaintiff was scandalized and hindred from hearing Divine Service for a long time and for the clearing of this Scandal and of his Innocency therein Diversos corporis sui grandes labores capere diversas ingentes denariorum summas errogare exponere coactus fuit in extremam depauperationem ignominium maximum of the plaintiff This Action lyes notwithstanding he doth not shew that any person did avoid his Company or refused to trade or deal with him and notwithstanding he doth not set forth any temporal or spiritual loss for it is a great Scandal and malicious tho to his Soul and spiritual Mich. Car. B. R. Barnabas against Traunter Adjudged in Arrest of Judgment If a man saith of another who hath lands by discent That he is a Bastard an Action upon the Case lyes for it tends to his Disinheritance and disturbance by Suit Mich. 3. Jac. B. R. per Curiam In an Action upon the Case if the plaintiff declare that he was Heir apparent to his Father and B. his Brother and that either of them hath Lands in Fee to the value of 40 l. per annum and that they did intend to suffer the said Lands to descend to him or to convey the same to him yet the defendant intending to disinherit the plaintiff said to the plaintiff Thou art a Bastard whereby his Father and Brother intended to disinherit him and to convey their Lands to another The Action lyes upon this Declaration for the temporal damage which might come to him thereby Pasch 13. Car. B. R. Humfries against Stutfield Adjudged in Arrest of Judgment Where there was Grand-father Father and Son and the Son brought an Action upon the Case and declared that the Grand-father whose heir he is entailed certain Lands upon him and the Heirs males of his Body and the Defendant intending to scandalize his possibility that he hath to inherit this Land as Heir of the body of his Grand-father said that he was a Bastard notwithstanding that the Grand-father and Father were alive yet the Action brought as above by the Son did lye Humfries Case ubi supra In an Action upon the Case if the Plaintiff declare that he exhibited Articles in the Kings Bench against the defendant for the good abearing and swear the Articles to be true before Justice W. Innuendo the said Oath taken upon the said Articles although it be not averr'd that the Oath was taken of Record yet the Action lyes for it shall be intended the Articles exhibited in Court and sworn before a Justice of the Court Mich. 10. Car. B. R. Yolden against Wannel Adjudged in Arrest of Judgment If a man saith of an other He hath written a forged Will wherein I will prove him salse forsworn and perjur'd in a Will that he made of John Hunt an Action lyes for these words for it shall be intended that he was perjur'd in his Oath taken touching the said Will. Hil. 12. Car. in B. R. Cowley against Clough In an Action upon the Case if the plaintiff declare that there was a Writ to inquire of Damages between A. and B. in a Court of C. at the Sessions-house where he was sworn to give Evidence according to his Knowledge
or conversation are also Excommunicated Co. Lit. 134. If a Bishop be defendant an Excommunication by the same Bishop shall not disable the plaintiff and if no other matter be shewn it shall be intended for the same cause Co. Lit. ib. The Writ shall not abate for Excommunication in the Plaintiff or Demandant But the Judgment shall be that the Tenant or Defendant shall go quit without day because when the Demandant or Plaintiff hath purchased Letters of Absolution and they are shewed to the Court he may have a Resummons or Reattachment upon his Original according to the nature of his Writ Lit. lib. 2. ca. 11. Sect. 42. If an Alien brings an Action personal or mixt in his own right the Defendant may plead it in Abatement in disability of his person or in bar to the Action with this difference that in Actions personal or Trespass for breaking his house the defendant ought to aver that the plaintiff is an Alien born at such a place under the Allegiance of such a Prince who is Enemy to our Soveraign Lord the King for an Alien Friend as he may Traffick and have a House for a habitation so he may have an Action personal and Trespass for breaking his house as he may have a Writ of Error for necessity And the Opinion of the Lord Coke in his Commentary upon Littleton is That if an Alien Friend brings an Action it ought to be pleaded in disability of his person and not in barr to the Writ or Action but if he be an Alien Enemy the Defendant may conclude to the Action And therefore Mr. Theloal in his Digest of Writs well observeth That an Exception taken to a Writ propter defectum Nationis vel potius defectum subjectionis vel Ligeancie is peremptory and that the Action cannot be revived by Peace or League subsequent and that the King may grant Licence to Aliens to implead and likewise that such Aliens as come into the Realm by the Kings Licence or Safe Conduct may use personal actions by Writ though they be not made Denizens and that Denizens lawfully made by the Kings Grant and such Aliens born as are within the express words of the Statute of 25 E. 3. may use actions real by Original Writ Co. Lit. 129. a. b. 130. b. Co. 7. 1. Theloal Digest de Breifs Lib. 1. ca. 6. 32 H. 6. 23. An Alien may be Administrator and have Leases for years as well as personal Chattels and Debts Cro. Eliz. 683. Cro. Car. 8. 9. One brings an Action as Executor Utlary in the plaintiff is no Plea because he sues in auter droit but it is otherwise of Excommunication 21 E. 4. 49. 34 H. 6. 14. 14 H. 6. 14. If the defendant plead that the plaintiff is an Alien born and conclude to the person yet it seems he may demand the View 3 H. 6. 55. For the Pleading of Matters of Record in Abatement observe That in Formedon for a Mannor another Formedon depending for 20 s. Rent out of that Mannor is a good Plea 3 H. 7. 3. That where in Trespass the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had brought Replevin against the Mayor and Commonalty of A. for the same cause and that he was one of the Commonalty die Captionis c. Necnon die impetrationis Brevis and it was there agreed That in Trespass a Replevin depending for the same Cause is a good Plea if there be not more Defendants in the Replevin than in the Trespass 8 H. 7. 27. A Quare Impedit is brought against the Bishop and another as Incumbent the Defendants plead that the plaintiff hath brought another Quare Impedit against the said Bishop for the same Presentation which was then depending undetermined and demands Judgment of the Writ and it was adjudged a good Plea But the plaintiff might have brought divers Quare Impedits against divers Defendants Hobart 138. 9. So in an Assise of Darrein Presentment it is a good Plea to say That there is a Quare Impedit depending for the same Presentation Hobart 184. But where an Assise is brought of Lands in one County an Assise for the same Lands in another County and Judgment thereupon cannot be pleaded So of a Recovery in Ancient Demesne because it cannot be intended that the Lands recovered in the Assise or in Ancient Demesne are the same Lands 4 H. 6. 24. Rast Entr. 65. In Formedon in le Diseender it is no Plea to say that the Plaintiff at another time brought a Formedon in the Remainder of the same Lands except both the Counts be of one and the same Gift 40 E. 3. 31. Where the Heir brought two several Formedons upon one and the same Gift although the last did vary from the first Gift yet it is no Plea in Abatement for he might claim by two Ancestors sub dono 4 E. 3 8. If the Defendant in a personal Action pleads another Action depending at the time of the purchasing the last Writ he ought not to say that it is yet depending for the last Writ is abated in Law notwithstanding he is afterwards non-suited in the first Writ Co. 6. Ferrers Case Where Note the diversity when the writ is general as Covenant Detinue Assise c. and the Certainty is in the Declaration for there if the Plaintiff is nonsuited in the first before he counts or declares the last shall not abate and when the writ is special and the thing demanded is specified therein as in Praecipe quod reddat c. What persons shall be admitted to plead in Abatement and what not Note One Defendant may plead the death of the other before the Writ purchased or that there is no such person in rerum natura 20 H. 6. 30. b. But in Replevin if the Defendant avow upon an Estranger the Plaintiff in the Replevin cannot plead in Abatement of the Avowry 22 E. 4. 35. b. If the Cognizee of a Statute sue execution against one Terretenant only without the other he cannot plead in Abatement but is put to his Audita Quaerela against the other because that the Cognizee is not bound to take Notice of all the Terretenants 16 Eliz. Dyer 331. a. Nota That after a Continuance the Defendant shall not be admitted to plead that the Plaintiff was made Bishop or that the Woman Plaintiff took Husband depending the Writ except that he pleads it after the last continuance but it is otherwise of the death or Coverture of the Plaintiff at the time of the Writ purchased because these Pleas do abate the Writ de Facto 32 H. 6. 10. 11. In a Replevin where the Plaintiff admits the Avowry the Priee shall not plead in Abatement but as Amicus Curiae and not then except it be apparantly known per totam Curiam 34 H. 6 8. In a Praecipe against I. S. the Son of W. Edmond at the retorn of the Grand Cape the Defendant said that his Father was named Esmond and by Thorpe it is a good