Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	fee_n	life_n	tenant_n	3,230	5	9.8217	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43221	Maxims and rules of pleading, in actions real, personal and mixt, popular and penal describing the nature of declarations, pleas, replications, rejoynders, and all other parts of pleading, shewing their validity and defects, and in what cases they are amendable by the court, or remediable by the statute-law, or otherwise : likewise, which of the parties in his plea shall first offer the issue, and where special matter may be given in evidence upon the general issue : of demurrers upon evidence, of verdicts, general and special, and of bills of exceptions to the same, of judgments, executions, writs of error and false judgment, and of appeals, indictments, and informations and the pleadings relating thereunto / published from the manuscript of Sir Robert Heath ... ; with additions of new matter to every title, from all the reports since his time.	Heath, Robert, Sir, 1575-1649.	1694 (1694)	Wing H1340; ESTC R21584	172,855	372

any Continuance from Trinity Term to Lent Assizes which was much insisted upon yet the Court gave Judgment for the Plaintiff So Brownlow's Rep. Part 1. fo 81. a Bill was Exhibited against one of the Clerks of the Court of Kings-Bench for Mony due upon Bond and Issue being joyn'd the Cause was Tried and found for the Plaintiff And to stay Judgment it was Objected That the Bill not being filed was not helped by the Statute of Ieofails nor within the same To which Opinion the Court seemed to Incline but gave leave to the Plaintiff to File a Bill that so the Matter might be put to Arbitration So Hob. 181. a Bill was Exhibited in Debt against an Attorney of the Common Pleas upon which a Verdict was had for the Plaintiff and to stay Judgment it was Objected That the Original Bill was not Filed with the Custos Brevium as it ought to be But because the Tenor of the Bill was Entred of Record in haec verba it seem'd to be in the Nature of the want of an Original after Verdict and so help'd by the Statute of Ieofails To which Opinion the Court did incline but would Advise of it because it had been otherwise Adjudged in that Court before But then we shall Enquire What Matters are not Remedied or Helped by any or either of the Statutes of 32 H. 8. and 18 El. before-mentioned For which see first Goldesbrough's Rep. fo 49. where the Plaintiff brought his Action against the Defendant for an Assault and Battery and the Defendant was Condemned therein by Nichil dicit and a Writ of Enquiry of Damages issued out and then the Plaintiff's Attorney died and another Attorney without Warant prayed the Second Judgment and had Execution thereupon Cur ' If the Attorney dies after Judgment a New Attorney may pray Execution without Warant but here the Attorney died before the Second Judgment and therefore he that comes after ought to have a Warant of Attorney Prothon If one of the Parties dies after Judgment the Writ shall abate And per Cur ' This is not within the Statute of Ieofails for a Verdict is that which is put in Issue by the Joyning of the Parties So Hob. 112 113. The Plaintiff declared in Trespass for an Assault and Battery made upon him by the Defendant who pleaded Iustification and Conveyed an Estate to himself by Copy of Court-Roll in a certain Piece of Ground Parcel of the Mannor of D. whereof I. S. was seised in Fee and because the Plaintiff came upon it he laid his Hands molliter upon him And the Plaintiff in his Replication also Convey'd to himself an Estate by Copy of Court-Roll to another Piece of Ground within the said Mannor and lays a Prescription in the said I. S. Lord of the Mannor to have a Way over the Defendant's Piece of Ground Upon which they were at Issue and Verdict for the Plaintiff And per Melieur Opinion this was no Issue at all nor Thing nor possibly Issuable and therefore the Verdict must also be void and so not holpen by the Statute of Ieofails For a Verdict cannot make that good which the Court sees cannot be in Law so that this is in the Office of the Court to judge So Cro. Part 2. 526. In Trespass brought in the Kings-Bench for Taking and Carrying away three Loads of Wheat set out for Tithes contra Pacem Domini Regis the words Vi Armis were omitted Per Cur ' the Bill shall abate for it is the Essential part of the Declaration and that which induceth the Court to set a Fine for the King and it is not help'd by the Statute of Ieofails And so Adjudged Hill 13 Iac. in the Case between Welsted and Taylor where Judgment was Reversed because Vi Armis was omitted Vide Hoh 127. In Debt upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. the Writ was Praecipe A. quod reddat Nobis B. qui tam pro Nobis quam pro seipso sequitur Centum decem Libras quas Nobis praefat ' B. debet And the Count was for Taking to Farm six Acres of Land and holding the same for six Months Per quod Actio accrevit for 60 l. And for further Taking to Farm other Lands and holding the same for five Months Per quod Actio accrevit for 50 l. To which the Defendant pleaded Quod ipse non debet praefat ' B. qui tam c. praedict as Centum decem Libras neque aliquem inde Denarium in forma qua c. whereupon Issue was Joyned and the Jury found That the Defendant did owe 30 l. and for the Residue Quod non debet And to stay Judgment it was Objected 1 That the Verdict expresses not for which Farm nor which of the Months the 30 l. was due sed non allocatur for the Demand and Issue were for 110 l. in several tho' it would have been more formal to have distinguished them 2 The Defendant hath not Answered the Writ and Declaration for the Plea ought to have been as the Demand is Quod ipse non debet dicto Domino Regi praefat ' B. qui tam c. And this was allowed because Penal Laws are Excepted out of the Statute of Ieofails And see Hob. 101. where Judgment was Reversed because there were no Pledges to Prosecute Entred for the Plaintiff and so not within the Statute of Ieofails because a Penal Law excepted out of the same But see Trin. 30 Eliz. in Com. B. Goldesbrough 90. where a Writ of Right was brought against Baron Feme of two parts of Forty Acres of Land in S. who pleaded That I. S. was seised and devised to his Wife one of the Tenants for Life the Remainder to B. in Fee who was his Heir who died and they prayed in Aid of B. who joyned in Aid with them and then they came and pleaded to the Grand Assize and the first Day of the Term the Assize appeared and sixteen of them were Sworn whereof four were Knights the rest Esquires and Gentlemen and the Title was as befor in Trinity Term Anno 28. for B. was Tenant in that other Action for the Third part Per Cur ' This is not aided by the Statute for here is no Certainty in the Grant yet if the Thing granted had had a certain Name given to it as Black-Acre or the like then tho' the Parish had been mistaken it would have been good enough See more of these two Statutes of 32 H. 8. and 18 Eliz. after in the Title Error In the next place We shall take a view of the two last Statutes concerning Ieofails viz. 21 Jac. 1. cap. 13 16. and 17 Car. 2. cap. 8. and enquire what Mis-pleadings are aided by the same and what are not By the Statute of 21 Iac. 1. cap. 13. after Verdict given in any Court of Record the Judgment thereupon shall not be stayed or reversed for any Variance in Form only

6. 46. not in Entry in nature of an Assize nor other Action And so is 21 H. 6. 18. and also 34 H. 6. 22 48. in Trespass and all other Actions except Assize where although the Bar be at large yet the Plaintiff ought either to Traverse it or to Confess and Avoid the same Where it appeareth that a Plea at large is where the Plaintiff in his Replication medleth not with the Defendant's Bar As to say That a Stranger was seised and did Enfeoff him or That his Father was seised and died seised and so he was seised until c. not shewing expresly the Discent to be after the Defendant's Title And 38 Ed. 3. 10. the Defendant in Trespass did plead his Freehold and the Plaintiff Replied Que il prist ses arbres prist and could not but was forced to make Title And 1 2 Mariae Dyer 171. the Defendant in a Replevin avowed that B. was seised and let to him for years to which the Plaintiff Replied that antequam B. aliquid habuit A. was seised and let to C. whose Estate the Plaintiff had and doubted whether it were not a meer Title as before at large because he doth no way encounter with the Avowry nor Confess and Avoid the same but only with the word Antequam Where also a Case is Vouched in 41 Ed. 3. how the Defendant in Trespass did plead his Freehold to which the Plaintiff Replied Que long temps devant le Defendant riens avoit en le Franktenement J. S. fuist seisie Et Lesse a luy pur ans and so was he possest until c. and holden a good Plea But 3 4 Mariae Dyer 134. where the Defendant in Trespass doth plead his Freehold the Plaintiff is to Traverse the same or to Convey a Title to himself and alledge a Disseisin and Regress and the Trespass mean quod nota vide accordant 34. H. 6. 32. And by 42 Ed. 3. 2. the Defendant in Trespass for taking a Ship pleaded the Gift of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff would have Replied that he took his Ship prist and ill and after would have added to that his Plea Absque hoc that the Ship was the Plaintiffs tempore doni and ill also and lastly would have pleaded that tempore doni the Ship was to Alice at Stile and was not suffered wherefore he added to his Plea that after the Gift Alice gave the same unto him and so he took his Ship and that holden a good Plea And the Defendant Rejoyned That it was the Ship of the Plaintiff at the time of the Gift And 49 Ed. 3. 19. the Defendant in Trespass did Prescribe in Common to which the Plaintiff Replied that the Place was his Several Absque hoc that the Defendant had Common there But where the Plaintiff in an Assize shall be forced to Answer the Bar without making Title at Large Vide Bro. Abridgm Tit. Assize viz. to every Special Bar. And what shall be good Replications and Titles further than hath been before-mentioned see the Abridgments of Fitz. and Bro. Tit. Replications and Titles where the same more plainly appears As if against an Act of Parliament Recovery or Matter of Record the Title must be set forth Specially and de puisne temps and so 10 Ass. 23. of a Waranty But against a Matter en fait the Plaintiff maywell say That after his Father was seised and died seised without shewing coment And as it appears by 47 Ed. 3. 13. If the Title be before the Fine or Recovery it may be general And 18 Ed. 4. 10. the Defendant in Trespass pleaded a Gift in Tail by the King and the Plaintiff Replied Ne dona pas and good And 9 Ed. 4. 46. where the Defendant giveth to the Plaintiff a Title and in his Plea destroyeth the same That Matter the Plaintiff may Maintain or Traverse without other or further Title And so is 40 Ed. 3. 5. and 3 Ed. 4. 18. where holden that where the Defendant in Trespass made Title by a Gift in Tail of a Stranger the Plaintiff Replied That he was seised until the Defendant did the Trespass and Traversed the Gift in Tail and good although his Title was but of his own Possession Next shall be shewn In what Cases there is no occasion either for Replication or Rejoynder And therefore First It appears by 2 Ric. 3. 9. that where Error is alledged in that which the Course of the Court doth approve and allow of there needs no Answer to the same And by Littleton 12 Ed. 4. 13. where one doth Counterplead the Possession upon a Voucher or plead Quod partes ad finem nihil habuerunt mes A. c. he shall add also Et hoc petit quod c. And so is 22 H. 6. Bro. Replic 21. But 7 H. 6. 20. to the contrary in the Plea of Partes ad Finem But 31 H. 6. 21. as also 22 H. 6. and in all other Cases where the Plea is in the Negative as Non Culp ' Ne dona pas Ne unque seisie que Dower Nul Tort Nil debet c. Otherwise upon Pleas in the Affirmative But this Matter is more proper to be Treated of in the Title of Issues But by 2 H. 4. 4. where the Defendant in Debt did plead that the Plaintiff had nothing tempore dimissionis And 11 H. 4. 79. where said that an Issue shall be always upon an Affirmative and Negative except in Special Cases Vide Dyer 2 Eliz. 182. the Tenant in a Formedon by Fish to parcel did plead one Fine and so to the other parcel another Fine To which the Plaintiff Replied Quod seperal ' Fines minime proclam ' fuerunt and good although there said that it would have been better to have made several Replications Then it is to be observed where not only Rejoynders but also Surrejoynders ought to be As 5 Ed. 4. 108. where in Debt upon an Obligation with Condition for performing an Arbitrement if the Defendant pleads Quod Arbitratores non fecerunt c. And the Plaintiff doth say Prist que cy that is ill for he ought to shew the Award and alledge the Breach and the Defendant must thereto plead That they made no such Award to which the Plaintiff must say Prist que cy and the Defendant Rejoyn Que prist que non And so you may see Count Bar Replication Rejoynder Surrejoynder and Rebutter to Surrejoynder in Pleading A Rebutter is where a man grants Land to the use of himself and the Issue of his Body to another in Fee with Waranty and the Donee Leaseth out the Land to a Third person for years the Heir of the Donor impleads the Tenant alledging the Land was in Tail to him the Donee comes in and by virtue of the Waranty made by the Donor Repels the Heir because tho' the Land was Entailed to him yet he is Heir to the Warantor likewise So if I grant to the Tenant to

4 5. Mariae 162. How the Plaintiff Recovering 40 l. against one that hath Land in divers Counties may dividing his Debt or intirely have several Elegits But by Hobart 58. There may not be two several sorts of Executions out an once but one after another Yet Idem fo 2. If one Elegit be sued out and entred of Record tho' the Plaintiff get nothing by it yet he shall never have other Execution till something be found and no man will Record the Execution till he find somewhat Vide Yelvertons Reports fo 52. Where said That if a man be taken upon a wrong Writ of Execution tho' it be returned Executed yet because he in Truth never was in Execution a new Capias may issue out against him And Idem 180. Where Goods are taken in Execution in another County upon a Testatum returned That the Defendant Nulla habet Bona c. in London where the Action was Tried but in the County of B. where the Goods were taken which is false the Execution shall be avoided and the Party restored to his Goods again But by Moor Case 428. though the Court grant an Erroneous Execution yet that will not excuse the Sheriff where there is an Escape Yet by Hetley Rep. 157. Where the Sheriff upon a Fieri Facias takes a part of the Defendants Goods in Execution and delivers them to the Plaintiff and they be taken from him he shall have Execution de novo And by Popham in his Reports fo 206. one may be discharged out of Execution by word only as where one is in Execution at my Suit and I bid the Sheriff let him go this is a good discharge Vide Dyer 306. Where said That in all Cases where the Law doth once adjudge a Defendant to be in Execution at the Suit of the Plaintiff if the Sheriff suffer him to escape he shall be chargeable to the Plaintiff for the same in an Action of Debt or upon the Case Yet by Popham 41. if he be taken in a Fresh Pursuit tho' in another County by that he shall be in Execution again And by Co. lib. 3. 71. where the Sheriffs of London at the going out of their Office by Indenture did deliver B. in Execution to the New Sheriffs and he being in Execution at the Suit of C. and D. did make his Escape D. only is named C. sues the Escape and had Judgment and held that B. was not in Execution of the Old or new Sheriffs and that the Old are to give notice to the New Sheriffs of them in Execution tho' they be upon Record and the Prisoners are in Custody of the Old Sheriffs tho' out of Office till delivered to New and if the Old Sheriffs die the New must take notice of them at their Peril and the Prisoners are in Custody of the Law between the death of the Old and the coming in of the New Sheriffs But see Co. lib. 4. Blomfields Case where two were bound jointly and severally by Bond both sued and condemned and taken in Execution the one escaped the other brought an Audita Querela and held not to lie Vide Rolls Abridgment 904. Where said That if A. be taken in Execution on a Capias ad Satisfaciendum at the Suit of B. and escape from the Sheriff and no return is made of the Writ nor is the Writ filed or any Record made of the Award of the Capias B. may have a Scire Facias against A. and thereupon what Execution he will And see More Case 1177. and Hob. 55 56. Foster and Iacksons Case If the Defendant die in Execution this is a discharge of the Execution for ever as an Escape is Yet Co. lib. 5. 86. contra But by Hob. 59. If two be bound jointly and severally to me and I sue them jointly I may have a Capias against them both and the Death or Escape of the one shall not discharge the other But I may not have a Capias against one and another kind of Execution against the other when I sue them jointly But when I sue them severally I may sever them in their several kinds of Execution but yet so as if a very satisfaction be had of one or against the Sheriff upon the Escape of one the other may be relieved by Audita Querela But if a Capias ad Satisfaciendum be had against one of them in this Case so as there is such an Execution as is a Satisfaction no other can be had against him or his Heir or Executor if he dies here none may be had against either of the others For where the Law gives three or four kinds of Execution by way of Choice and the Plaintiff chooseth a Capias ad satisfaciendum and the Defendants Body is taken thereupon it cannot be for part as in a Fieri Facias Vide Anderson Part 1. Case 166. Where the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad Satisfaciendum against one of the County of C. that was brought into Court in Custody of the Sheriff where the Plaintiff was present and being asked by the Court whether he would pray that the Prisoner might be committed to the Fleet answered that he would not And this he did because the Prisoner was poor and not able to pay and had escaped out of the Sheriffs Custody against whom he said he intended to bring his Action and thereupon the Court discharged him of his Execution not committing him to the Fleet nor leaving him in the Custody of the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not pray it Then as to the Force of an Elegit See Westm. 2. cap. 18. Dyer 206 335. Co. lib. 7. 49. lib. 4. 67 68. Fitzh Nat. Brev. 48. Plowd 224. 178. 2 H. 4. 14. Bulstrode part 2. 98 99. Lane 20. That upon an Elegit the Sheriff is to make Execution of a moiety or one half of all the Houses Lands Meadows Pastures Rents Reversions and Hereditaments whereof and wherein the Defendant at the time of the Judgment had or after had any sole Estate or Interest in Fee Tail or for Life into whose hands soever the same do afterwards come So also if the Husband and Wife do hold Lands for their two Lives they are Extendable upon this Writ But a Right only to Land an Annuity Copyhold-land the Land the Husband holds in Right of his Wife in Fee or for Life is not Extendable after her Death nor liable to Execution And all the Goods and Chattels except only the Beasts of the Plow which the Defendant hath or at time of Execution had are liable to Execution on this Writ as on a Fieri Facias But no Goods and Chattels really and Bona Fide made away before Execution are liable to be taken upon this Writ Vide Hob. 57. An Elegit may be sued of Lands in Ancient Demesn And ibidem it may be sued after a Capias or Fieri Facias both and after a Capias returned non est inventus But

plead a Recovery of Twenty Acres Inter alia ill but ought to plead That he did Recover Forty Acres whereof these Twenty Acres were parcel Nor shall he plead That I. S. was seised of Twenty Acres Inter alia and did Enfeoff him Inter alia but ought to plead as before Yet said there it might be permitted in pleading a Feoffment And the same Case of Dyve and Maningham taketh this difference between the Pleading of an Act of Parliament and a Recovery quod nota Where holden also That the Defendant in that Action could not take advantage of the Statute of 23 H. 6. being but Particular although it be touching all Sheriff's in General without Pleading but containing divers Things may well be pleaded Inter alia or so much as doth avail him And in Fulmerstons and Steward's Case there either of the Parties may take advantage by Pleading of so much of the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries But in the Case of Debt there brought by Partridge against Strange and Croke upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Buying of Titles holden by all the Justices except Mountague That the same being General need not Specially to be recited as to pray to be Received and to Demur Generally upon a Vouchee out of the Lieu. But by all the Iustices there the Misrecital maketh the Declaration ill For in Pleading many times a thing not Material is made Effectual And there in Debt by Stradling against Morgan a Receiver upon the Statute of 7 Ed. 6. for Taking great Fees there set down by Statute Exception was taken for not reciting the Statute of 34 H. 8. that set down the Fees And in Williams and Barkley's Case in Coke's Reports although one did but plead part of that Act which did Enable the Queen to Take yet sufficient where said That every one hath Interest in the King therefore the same is a General Act. See the like Learning in Dyer as 28 H. 8. 27. where a Condition of a Lease made to a Parson was That he should not Grant the Estate over if he will have advantage of the Statute of 21 H. 8. which Enacteth That such shall be granted their Terms over it must be Specially pleaded because Particular as a Private Custom And this Statute is but General in Particularity as a Statute that Pardoneth all that were of the Party of Richard the Third of the Statute De Medietate Linguae or if a Statute were made That Tenants for Life shall not be punished in Wast and the like And as it hath been taken of late in all Cases of Pardons by Act of Parliament if any Persons be Excepted for the same thing And Ibid. 7 Ed. 6. 83. by the Better Opinion in an Assize of Tithes given by the Statute of 31 H. 8. the Plaintiff in his Plaint need not to mention the same Statute as well in respect the said Statute is General as that it is to give Jurisdiction to the Common Law as a General Pardon by Parliament and Resembled it to the Case of 14 H. 4. were Conusance granted and after a New Action is given by Parliament the Grant shall not extend to the same But otherwise where the Action was before and other Things granted to be within the same Where said also That in Pleading a Feoffment by Cestuy que Use according to the Statute of Ric. 3. need not to mention the Statute or in Pleading a Feoffment to use at this day to say That it was Executed Vigore c. of the Statute of 27 H. 8. Or in Pleading a Devise to Recite the Statute of Wills quod nota Then How one shall Plead by a Per Nomen And First 30 Ed. 3. Fitz. Tit. Feoffments 18. One pleaded a Grant to I. S. A. sa Feme Per Nomen I. S. Uxoris ejus And 1 H. 7. 28. the Tenant in Assize did plead a Feoffment de praedicta terra per Nomen omnium Terrarum quae sibi discendebant de parte Patris and took no Averment because of the word Praedict ' And so 33 H. 8. Bro. Tit. Pleading 143. in a Praecipe de Manerio de B. the Tenant pleaded a Recovery de praedicto Manerio Per Nomen c. So if I. S. pleads a Feoffment made to him Per Nomen I. N. Where holden also That he may plead the Feoffment Generally of the same thing without a Per Nomen and the Variance in the Deed not Material But there said to be better to Plead it with a Per Nomen Touching which see more in Dyers and Plowden's Reports as namely 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 83. where in Serjeant's Case the Plaint being of a Portion of Tithes issuing out of 300 Acres in N. did make his Title in the same Plaint That Hen. 8. dedit concessit praedictam Portionem inter alia Per Nomen totius Portionis c. provenien ' de Terris Dominicalibus Archiepiscopi Eborum jacen ' in N. nuper Monasterii dudum spectan ' adtunc vel nuper in Tenura A. and did not Aver in facto That the Lands put in View were the Demean Lands of the Archbishop in the Tenure of A. and yet as there seemeth good but not for the Reason aforesaid but in respect there was other Certainty enough As 26 Ass. of a Grant of 20 Carucat ' Ligni in Bosco de D. quas habuit de dono Patris that Deed De dono Patris needs not to be shewn or averr'd because of other Certainty enough And so 2 Ed. 4. where one doth Release all his Right in White-Acre quem habuit per discensum c. Where said also That if one of the Recitals be false yet the Patent good enough because Certain in some part and then in Averring that which was false might be hurtful and that the Counsel should then deserve their Fees ill Where said also That if false in all yet the Patent good and aided by the Statutes of 34 35 H. 8. of Confirmations c. but there not stood upon but if the Patent had been of the Land which the King had by the Attainder of I. S. or in a Release in a Common Person 's Case of all such Lands as discended c. there although pleaded by a Praedict ' yet an Averment ought to be The like Learning where sufficient Certainty is in the Patent as 3 4 Mariae in Wast between Wyburn and Dorril The like in Wortley's Ejectione firmae in Plowden where the Grant was of all that his Farm in the Occupation of A. needs no Averment of the Occupation But in Throgmorton and Tracy's Case his Per Nomen must not be direct contrary or repugnant Then Of the word Continetur in Pleading First Holden 28 H. 6. 3. that to plead Quod patet by the Obligation That A. and B. was bound Joyntly ill but ought to say In facto that they were bound But 21 H. 6. 51. good Pleading of a Condition of an

was no such Mis-continuance of Process as is helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. So if the Trial be in a wrong County Quaera tamen inde for Mich. 2 3 Eliz. Dyer 188. and Mich. 21 22 Eliz. ibid. 367. seem contrary although Process awarded to the Coroners without Cause and although as the first of the said two Books is the Trial was not between the Parties to the Writ but between the Tenant and the Vouchee Yet Ann● 32 Eliz. it was said to be Ruled That if one pleadeth an Award in Trespass without Satisfaction and Issue and Verdict taken upon the same yet not helped by that Statute quaere inde And Mich. 33 Eliz. in the Case between Upton and Walsh no Venire facias being put upon the File Ruled to be aided by the Statute although it could not be found See a Report 1 2 Mariae where the Declaration doth not warant the Writ As in Debt where it doth appear that the Day is not yet come or in Trespass that the same is committed after the Date of the Writ or a Declaration be in the Debet and Detinet by an Executor The same and the like although Issue and Verdict thereupon are not helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. Note by what hath been said it appears That the said Statute of 32 H. 8. being touching Mis-pleading and the Matters therein contained in any of the King's Courts of Record that the same helpeth not in that Case in any other Court of Record For as it seems in Stradling's Case in Plowden's Commentaries If a Statute give an Action in any of the King's Courts of Record the same will not extend to Oxford although the Style be Cur ' Domini Regis or to the Exchequer or Chancery And yet if a Statute provides Remedy for a thing by an Action that lay before as it appears in Bro. Tit. Conusance and doth not limit by Express Terms where the Suit shall lye there it will lye in any of the said Courts In which if the Law be so then touching Mis-pleading and Mis-joyning of Issues in other Courts the same is as it was at the Common Law before the Statute of 32 H. 8. See Trin. 29 Eliz. Goldsborough's Reports 48. where in Case sur Assumpsit the Defendant pleaded Non Assumpsit and found for the Plaintiff and Moved There 's no Place laid in the Declaration where the Promise was made and it s there said That when an Issue is Mis-tryed it is not helped by the Statute and here no place is alledged whereupon the Trial may be had But per Cur. the Statute shall be taken liberally so that if the Verdict be once given it shall be a great Cause that shall hinder the Judgment for when it is Tried and Found for the Plaintiff he ought to have Judgment And Trin. 10 Iac. 1. Godbolt 194. In an Action brought in the Common Pleas after Verdict moved to stay Judgment that the Venire facias did vary from the Roll in the Plaintiff's Name for that the Roll was Peter and the Venire Iohn and the Postea agreed with the Roll his true Name Where holden That if no Venire goes forth the same is aided by the Statute of Ieofails and it is in Effect here as if there were no Venire fac or Hab. Corpora yet if the Sheriff do Return a Jury the same is helped by the Statute of Ieofails And Pasch. 12 Iac. Brownl 2 Part 167. Upon a Motion to stay Iudgment it was Objected That the words Et habeas ibi Nomina Iur ' were omitted in the Venire fac ' but Venire fac ' Duodecim c. were in the Writ and good per totam Curiam for that the first words are supplied by the last and the Omission helped by the Statute of Ieofails after Verdict And see Mich. 21 Iac. Cro. 2 Part 672. In Case for Words brought in Chancery by a Clerk there a Venire was awarded Retornable in B. R. in this Form viz. Venire facias duodecim quorum quilibet habet 4 l. terrarum aut minus c. Moved to stay Judgment that the Venire was ill and not helped by the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 6. for that extends only to Writs of Venire fac in the Kings-Bench Common-Pleas Exchequer Iustices of Assize and no other Courts and the Chancery is omitted and therefore the Venire not waranted by the Statute But per Cur. This Clause inserted in the Writ although not waranted by the Statute yet is not prejudicial to any but makes the better Trial. And by the Common Law the Judges may direct a Venire to be Quorum quilibet habeat tantum de Terris and Precedents were shewed out of Chancery where the Venire was as in this Case And per Cur. If it was not good at the Common Law yet now c●early made good by 32 H. 8. Wherefore Adjudged pro Quer. So Trin. 9 Car. 1. Cro. 1 Part 215 228. In a Scire facias in Chancery against C. upon a Recognizance of 200 l. The Defendant was Returned Dead whereupon a Second Scire facias issued against the Heir of C. and the Tenants of the Lands of C. tempore Recognitionis upon which the Sheriff Returned T. terr-Terr-Tenant of such Lands omitted to Return any thing concerning the Heir Whereupon the Defendant pleaded That he had nothing in the Lands at the time of the Recognizance nor ever after It was found for the Plaintiff that C. was seised and moved in Arrest of Judgment because nothing was Returned against the Heir viz. That there was not any Heir or the Heir had nothing And it is a Non-Return of the Sheriff and not a Mis-Return and is not helped by the Statute of Ieofails But per Cur ' Though the Return had been better if it had been found who was Heir and that he was Warned or that there was not any Heir in the said County yet it was well enough and the Mis-Return or Insufficient-Return of the Sheriff quoad the Heir not being named in the Retnrn is but a Dis-continuance helped by the Statute of Ieofails Vide Hob● 326. Where the Plaintiff Declared in Debt upon a Demise for Rent To which the Defendant pleaded That before the Rent became due the Plaintiff did Enter upon him not saying He did Expel or Hold him out so that Issue was only Quod Quer ' non Intravit and found for the Defendant and Judgment given for him For tho' the Plea was Insufficient yet the Verdict did fully answer the Issue And see Hob. 76. Banks versus Parker In Trespass for taking a Kettle at W. The Defendant Justified by reason of the Custom of the Mannor of T. And the Plaintiff took Issue de Injuria sua propria absque tali Causa and the Venire was awarded de Visn ' de W. Manerio de T. upon the Roll and a Verdict for the Plaintiff And tho' the Plaintiff should not have Traversed