Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	heir_n	part_n	tenement_n	1,627	5	10.4553	5	false

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

which divers Grants and Renders were made and in the third Render all the Mannors Lands and Tenements were rendred to A. and B. and the Heirs of the Body of A. and in the fourth Render part of the Premisses were rendred to B. in Tail the Remainder to the Right Heirs of A. It was Resolved that the same was not Error First That the fourth Render as to that was contained in the third Render should be in the quality of a Charter which needs not such a precise Form as a Judgment Secondly That the Conusor should not assign that for Error because he gets an Estate by it and no man shall reverse any thing for Error unless he can shew that the Error is to his advantage So More Case 202. If an Infant levy a Fine and take an Estate by Render he may not have Error for this And see Mich. 31 Eliz. in B. R. Leon. Rep 1 Part 317. Pigot and Harrington's Case where Baron and Feme were Tenants for Life the Remainder in Fee to an Infant and they three levied a Fine and the Infant only brought Error to Reverse it It was Objected that they all Three ought to joyn in the Writ according to 29 Ed. 3. 14. But per Cur ' the Writ is well brought for the Error is not Assigned in the Record but without it in the person of the Infant and that is the Cause of Action for him and for no other and the Fine was reversed as to the Infant only Vide Cro's Iacobi 330. Point's Case and Bulstrode's 1 Part 206. Batts and Ienning's Case where Inspection of an Infant in Error to Reverse a Fine upon the day of Adjornment of the Term held good by all the Judges of England And see Mo. Case 701. That a Writ of Covenant Retornable before the Date is Error CHAP. XIV Of Appeals Indictments and Informations APPEAL according to Co. on Littleton Lib. 2. cap. 11. comes from the Latin word Appello to Call quia Appellans vocat Reum in Iudicium and is used in our Law for the private Accusation of a Murderer by a Person who had Interest in the Party murdered It is as much as Accusatio with the Civilians for as in their Law Cognizance of Criminal Causes is taken either upon Inquisition Denunciation or Accusation so it is in ours upon Indictment or Appeal Indictment comprehending both Inquisition and Denunciation Accusation or Appeal being a lawful Declaration of another man's Crime of Felony at least for tho' there be an Appeal of Mayhem yet that according to Bracton is but in a manner an Action of Trespass before a Competent Iudge by one who sets his Name to the Declaration and undertakes to prove it upon the Penalty that may ensue of the contrary Appeal by others is defined to be The violent pursuing of a Subject unto Death and is the most nice kind of Suit that is commenced at the Common Law for every small matter will quash the same if it be not freshly pursued and shall in divers respects be taken strictly in favorem vitae And Note That the Process in every Appeal is to bear Date the same day of the Retorn and if not it will be a Discontinuance of the Process Note also That the Omission of any word which is material in the Writ of Appeal will abate the same And it is to be Observed That the Process in an Appeal doth vary from all other Proceedings at the Common Law for there shall be no Amendment of a Writ of Appeal nor is the Discontinuance of it helped by any Statute Then Where an Appeal of Murder will not lie for the Heir For which see Mich. 33 H. 8. Dyer 50. The Statute of 31 H. 8. made it Treason for a Woman to Poison her Husband A Woman Poisoned her Husband Afterwards the Statute of 32 H. 8. Of General Pardon pardoned the Offence the Heir brought an Appeal of Murder And it was the Opinion of all the Justices that now an Appeal of Murder did lye for the Heir for that now Murder was turned into Treason and the greater Offence shall extinguish the lesser And see Co. Lib. 6. fo 13. in the Case of Pardons acc and 7 Eliz. Dyer 235. where Petty Treason is pardoned by a General Pardon there one who killed his Master was Indicted of Murder and holden the Indictment did not lye against him but being found Guilty was Reprieved And see Mich. 33 H. 8. Dyer 51. and 33 Eliz Co. Lib. 4. 45. where an Appeal of Murder was brought against W. to Answer to A. B. alias dict' A. B. Fratri haered ' of the Person murthered but because the Plaintiff in the Appeal was named Brother and Heir in the Alias dictus which is no part of the Name the Appeal did Abate and the Defendant discharged by the Court. And see 5 Ed. 6. Dyer 69. where there were three Brothers and the Middle Brother is killed and the Eldest Brother dies within the Year without bringing any Appeal and the Question was If the Younger Brother might maintain an Appeal It was not Resolved but left a Quaere See 11 Ed. 4. 11. Stamf. 59. 20 H. 6. 43. by Fortescue that he shall not but 16 H. 7. 15. contra Then How Appeals shall be brought by Infants First See Pasch. 17 Ed. 4. Pl. 4. and More Case 646. where an Appeal was brought by an Infant and the Defendant prayed to be dismissed because the Plaintiff was an Infant Per Cur ' If the Defendant be guilty he shall stay in Ward till the Infant comes of Age. But by 27 H. 8. 1. b. the Plaintiff now shall appear by Guardian By Co. 2 Inst. 5. If an Infant bring an Appeal of the Death of his Ancestor the Parol shall not demur for want of Battail but the Infant shall be outed of it as if the Appellor were Old or Maimed But Mirror of Iustices 127. contra the Parol shall demur And see 2 Ed. 4. 19. b. and 20. a. acc and 11 H. 4. 93. a. And Pasch. 27 H. 8. 25. an Infant brought an Appeal of Murder in the time of H. 8. and prayed that the Parol might demur and Resolved it should not By 35 H. 6. 10. If an Infant be found guilty of Felony 't is in the discretion of the Court to give Judgment or not as they find the Infant hath Discretion or Malicious Intent By Owen 59 63. and Popham 115. in an Appeal of Murder after Pleading to the Writ the Defendant must Plead over to the Felony else it is a Confession of it for there his Life is in question And see 3 Cro. 223 224. where in an Appeal of the Death of an Husband the Defendant pleads Ne unques accouple c. and quoad c. Not Guilty The Plaintiff Replies fueront accouple but pleads nothing to the rest yet it seems the Plea is not Discontinued because the first Plea is not Triable at Common Law so answers

not good to every Special Intent As where one Sues as Executor and the Defendant saith That the Testator made the Plaintiff and one I. S. Executors and do not say after this That he did not make the Plaintiff Executor yet this may be sufficient So in Trespass where the Defendant pleads that the Place is his Freehold this is good yet the Plaintiff may have a particular Estate So upon an Obligation to perform Covenants the Defendant alledgeth two Covenants and saith he hath Performed them and doth not say There are no more Covenants in the Deed to be by him performed yet this is good for it shall be Intended that there are no more for him to perform But Ibidem No substantial part of a Bar may be omitted As where one is bound to do a thing between such and such a time and the Defendant saith That he did it or did it before the Day this is not sufficient but he must shew that he did it such a Day within those times So if one saith He was Lord of a Mannor and entred for an Alienation in Mortmain and do not shew that he did it within the Year for this shall not be Intended unless it be shewed Yet per Plowden puis 28. If one plead a Feoffment in Bar it shall be allowed as good albeit it might be by an Infant or per Duress c. unless it be shewed on the other side And if the Lessor Covenants with the Lessee that if he be ousted within the Term that he shall have as much other Land he must shew that he was Ousted on such a day in certain within the term So to plead in Bar that I. S. died seised and R. S. Entred as Son and Heir to him this is good tho' he say not that he was his Heir for that shall be Intended and the best shall be taken for the Defendant So Ibidem in an Assize if the Tenant plead in Bar a Discent to the Plaintiff and two others and that he hath the Estate of one of them it is good and yet he might have it by Disseisin but it shall be taken in the best Sense that he had it lawfully So per eandem in Colthirst's Case where the Ancestor is Tenant pur auter vie and the Heir pleads that he Entred as Heir to him and says not that he Entred first after his death for Occupanti conceditur And Ibidem if a Lease be made to A. and B. for Life the Remainder to C. and if C. shall dye during the Life of A. or B. then that it shall remain to E. for Life si ipse vellet esse Residens c. and E. being Defendant pleads his Entry after the Death of A. and B. and C. and doth not say when they died nor when he entred yet held to be good in a Plea in Bar. For per eundem 32 33. if it be a Condition it shall be Intended that the Defendant did Enter as soon as his Title accrued and if the Case be otherwise in truth than by Common Intendment it is taken to be the Plaintiff must set it forth in his Pleading As in a Formedon in Discender if the Tenant pleads in Bar a Release of the Demandant without Waranty it is good and yet the Release might be made by the Demandant in the Life of his Father and then it is no Bar to the Issue But it seems by Brook in his Title of Pleading 155. that in a Declaration or Replication this way of Pleading is not good For tho' a Bar may be good to Common Intent yet a Declaration and consequently a Replication or other Pleadings of the Plaintiff ought to be good to every Intent But by Co. Lib. 3. 52. If one declare upon an Escape in London and the Defendant doth Justify by the Taking again of the Prisoner in another County and answereth not the Escape in London this will not be good for every part of the Charge must be answered And Lastly It appears by Hobart 127 128. that a Plea that hath some Matter of Law in it tho' it seems to amount but to the General Issue is always allowed Note There be some Pleas in Bar upon which the Plaintiff shall have Present Iudgment As 16 H. 7. 19. where in Covenant to Perform Divine Service The Defendant pleaded that the Chappel was decayed So in Curia Claudenda if the Defendant plead Sufficient Inclosure or in Warantia Chartae Nient Implede or in a Writ of Mesne Nient Disir ' in some Default or upon the Plea of Riens Arrere in Annuity or upon Ne surcharga pas in Admeasurement of Pasture or Ne disturba pas in a Quare Impedit c. In other Cases the Plaintiff upon the Defendants Plea shall be barred for the present and yet afterwards have the Effect of his Suit by Scire Facias or the like Process upon that Iudgment or by New Action As appears in 19 H. 6. 27. in Debt against an Executor who pleads Plene Administravit which is found for him and so the Plaintiff is Barred pro tempore viz. until Assets come afterwards to the Defendant's Hands and then the Plaintiff may have a New Action So in Debt against an Heir who pleads Riens per Discent or in a Formedon pleads the Waranty of his Ancestor with Assets and after the Assets are Recovered against him he shall have a New Formedon and if he Alien the Assets his Heir shall have a New Formedon But as 21 H. 7. 10. where in Formedon Cui in vita Mortdancestor and the like such a Plea is pleaded either against the Issue in Tail or the Heir of Tenant by the Courtesy c. and no Assets found and after Assets discend the Defendant in the first Action shall have Scire facias for the Assets if the first Action be a Formedon otherwise as it seems for the first Land Quaere And see 11 H. 4. and 4 H. 6. Bro. Tit. Scire fac ' 74 130. in the last of which it is doubted when Executors plead Fully Administred and it is found for them and afterwards Assets discend whether the Plaintiff be not driven to a New Action or may have a Scire facias thereupon scil upon the first Judgment Which seems not by the Books 40 Ed. 3 43 Ed. 3. abridged by Brook in Tit. Scire facias 17 29. where a difference is taken when the Plaintiff is Barred and when he doth Recover In the next place shall be shewn How an Accord or Arbitrement is a good Bar. And for this see first 4 H. 7. 16. That in Debt upon a Contract Lease or Arrerages of Account before the Plaintiff himself Arbitrement is a good Plea although the Demand be certain otherwise of Arrerages of Account before Auditors because it seems to be Matter of Record and the Defendant cannot Wage his Law Qu. then in Debt upon a Lease for years And 13 Ed. 4. 5. is That an Award is

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

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-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

he was obliged after the year to take out a New Writ of Debt And see by the Book of 5 Ed. 4. and Experience That where a Scire fac ' is had upon a Iudgment there shall be no Execution without a Garnish i. e. giving Notice or Warning to the Party or two Nichils returned Vide 19 Ed. 4. 5. where said That in all Cases where the Heir Executor or Administrator may sue to have an Execution of any thing recovered by the Ancestor Testator c. he must first have a Scire facias against the Party against whom the Judgment is had to warn him to shew Cause why Execution may not be had for him against the Defendant and then if he either make Default or at his Appearance cannot shew good Cause why Execution should not be had against him Execution shall be awarded for the Plaintiff as it should have been for him under whom he claimed Vide Roll's Abridg. 890. If one recover Damages of A. whereof part is levied by a Fieri facias but not all and A. dies the Plaintiff may have a Scire fac ' against the Heir at his Election And Idem 900. a Scire facias lies upon a Recognizance if the Conusor be dead against the Heir in general or against I. S. Son and Heir of the Conusor without suing of the Ter-Tenants for he shall have no Contribution against the Ter-Tenants And see Dyer 208. If a Judgment be had against one that hath Land who dies and the Land discends to his Heir after a Scire facias had he may have Execution of this Land in the Heirs hands by Elegit against him Vide Co. Lib. 5. 88. If a Judgment be had in the Common-Pleas and removed from thence by Writ of Error into the Kings-Bench and there confirmed within the year the Plaintiff may have the same kind of Execution in that Court as he might have had in the Common-Pleas without any Scire facias But by Hob. 196 197. where the first Action is laid there the Execution must be by Scire facias if it be had Vide Godbolt 76. where W. had Judgment in Debt in the Common-Pleas against F. and after the Year without Scire facias took out a Capias against him and Arrested him whereupon he brought Error upon the Judgment in the Kings-Bench where the Judgment was affirmed and F. was discharged W. took him again by an Alias Ca. sa without any Scire fac ' out of the Kings-Bench and upon that the Sheriff returned a Cepi It was Moved He might be discharged for that having been once in Execution in the Common-Pleas and set at liberty by Sureties in the Kings-Bench upon a Writ of Error he ought not to be taken again But deny'd by the Court. For there said That one being in Execution and discharged by Privilege may be in Execution again But 16 H. 7. 2. and 21 Ed. 4. 67. as also 8 H. 7. 10 12. contra Vide Cro. 1 Part 334. where Judgment was had in Debt by Husband and Wife for the Debt of the Wife as Administratrix of her former Husband and after Judgment and before Execution the Wife died the Husband brought a Scire facias and Scire feci being Returned had Judgment by Nichil dicit and held the Scire fac ' ought not to have been brought by the Husband but being done the Judgment thereupon though Erroneous must stand till Reversed by Error Next we shall consider What Plea or Matter will stay Execution For which see first 10 H. 6. 6. That in Debt or Scire fac ' upon a Iudgment or Redisseisin no Plea that the Defendant hath Error hanging of the first Judgment And so is 37 H. 6. 16. in a Scire facias in the Common-Pleas after the Record removed until it be Reversed For it s there said that 't is but Tenorem Recordi removed and that if nothing be done in the Kings-Bench upon Error or the Judgment be affirmed then at the Election of the Plaintiff in the first Judgment he may have Execution in the Common-Pleas quaere tamen But 19 H. 6. 7 8. if the Record be not removed or the Party be not delay'd the Court useth to grant Execution notwithstanding Error And so 7 H. 6. 42. if the Plaintiff in Error do not sue out a Supersedeas Execution shall be granted notwithstanding his Writ of Error be allowed But 4 H. 6. 31. no Debt or Scire fac ' after the Record be removed by Error unless for a Nomine poenae in the Annuity See more hereof afterwards in the Title Error Next What other Pleas one shall have in Bar of Execution See Brook 6. in Abridging the Case of 20 H. 6. a good Plea That formerly the Sheriff by another Writ levied the Mony or took the Body in Execution although the Writ was not Returned And so 21 H. 6. 5. where also 37 H. 8. and 19 Ed. 3. are Vouched somewhat differing The like 44 Ed. 3. 18 in a Scire fac ' upon Arrerages of Annuity although there Payment or Riens arrere be no Plea Vide Dyer 344. If a Judgment be against an Heir by Nichil dicit in an Action against him on the Deed of his Ancestor on a Scire fac ' he cannot plead Riens per Discent at the time of the Writ brought but Execution shall be against him of his own Lands by Elegit And see Godbolt 79. where Judgment was given on an Obligation of 400 l. and a Scire fac ' was sued on the same Judgment for 300 l. and the Party did not acknowledge that he had received the other 100 l. and held That the Scire fac ' should not Abate and that he should have Execution But by More Case 693. in a Scire fac ' on a Recognizance Joyntenancy will Abate the Writ Vide Noy 143. where A. recovered against B. in Debt and afterwards brought a Scire fac ' To which B. pleaded That A. was Outlawed and held a good Plea if he be Outlawed after the Plea in Bar pleaded in the Action of Debt But otherwise it is if he be Outlawed before for then B. might have pleaded that in Bar of the first Action And it was said there That the Mony being in Court if the King's Counsel pray to have it for the King they must shew the Outlawry sub pede Sigilli and he must confess himself the Party Outlawed And see Godbolt 96. where Debt was upon a Recovery in a Scire fac ' in London on a Recognizance taken in the Chamber of London and it was not shewed That it was a Court of Record and that they had been used to take Recognizances And Exception was taken to it and Cases put That though a judgment were void yet Execution might be by Scire fac ' and the party might not plead that in a Writ of Error And this difference was taken where Execution was sued on such a Judgment and Debt brought

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 against his Heir or Executor if he die For where the Law gives several kinds of Execution by way of Choice and he Chuseth a Capias ad satisfaciendum and the Body is taken it cannot be for part as in a Fieri facias But see the Statute of 21 Iac. 1. cap. 24. how the Law is thereby changed in this Point For it is Enacted by that Act That he or they at whose Suit any Person is charged in Execution for Debt or Damages recovered their Executors or Administrators may after the Death of the Person so charged in Execution lawfully sue forth New Execution against the Lands and Tenements Goods and Chattels of the Person so Deceased in like manner as if the Person Deceased had never been in Execution And see Roll's Abridgment 903. That if one Recover in Debt against I. S. and then Outlaw him on the Judgment and afterwards I. S. is taken within the Year by Capias Utlagatum at the Suit of the King and dies in Prison before any Prayer made by the Plaintiff That he might be in Execution at his Suit This is no Satisfaction therefore the Executor or Administrator of him that is dead may be charged for the Debt notwithstanding he was in Execution by being taken upon the Capias Utlagatum But by Anderson 1 Part Case 273. if one that hath an Execution of Land Release one Acre of the Execution all is Extinct by the Release of the Execution in one Acre And by Hobart 60. If the Party in Execution Escape of his own wrong the Plaintiff can have no other Execution of him or of his Executors But if he take one in Execution where there are several Debtors by one Obligation there he may take another after the Escape of that one or he may have Satisfaction from the Sheriff upon the Escape at his Choice And by Co. 5 Part 86. and 6 Part 13. and 8 Part 152. and Dyer 152. If the Defendant pay the Mony he is discharged But if the Plaintiff makes any Release or other such like Act to the Defendant being in Execution amounting to a Discharge this will not be a Discharge Ipso facto but by this means he may have a Discharge And yet if the Plaintiff himself shall deliver the Prisoner out of Execution he is thereby Ipso facto discharged of the Execution for ever So if the Plaintiff doth acknowledge Satisfaction upon Record So by 13 H. 7. 1. Plowd Com. 36. and 33 H. 6. 47. If one taken in Execution upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum doth Escape and the Plaintiff bring his Action against the Sheriff or hath a Cepi Returned on the Writ and it be Filed by this the Defendant is discharged against the Plaintiff for ever But if no Cepi be Returned nor Action brought against the Sheriff the Law will Adjudge the Party to be out of Execution But by Co. 5 Part 86. If Two be in Execution for one Debt on a Bond made by Two and the Sheriff suffers one of them to Escape this will not discharge the other till the Plaintiff hath Recovered his Debt of the Sheriff But by Co. 8 Part 143. and 38 H. 6. 4. If one be in Execution upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum and the Court adjudge the Judgment or Execution Erroneous and so null it by this the Defendant is discharged of that Execution Yet by Fitz. Nat. Brev. 146. If Two be in Execution for one Debt and one of them dies under Execution that will not discharge the other But 38 H. 8. Dyer 6. One in Execution being a Burgess of the Parliament and discharged by a Writ of Privilege doubted whether discharged for ever But by the Statute of 1 Iac. 1. cap. 13. it appears That if a Prisoner be delivered out of Execution by Privilege of Parliament it is no discharge but after the Privilege is gone he may be taken again So Pasch. 30 H. 8. Dyer 62. Trewynyard's Case where Trewynyard being a Burgess of Parliament was taken upon an Exigent after a Capïas he brought a Writ of Privilege of Parliament and the Sheriff let him at Liberty In this Case it was Resolved First That the Privilege was Grantable notwithstanding the Execution because the King and Realm have an Interest in the Body of every Burgess of Parliament and the Common-Weal shall be preferred before the Interest of any private Person Secondly That after the Parliament ended he might be taken in Execution again For that the Plaintiff shall not be prejudiced in his Execution by the Act of the Law which doth Wrong to no man See 3 Ed. 6. Dyer 66 67. where the Sheriffs of London in Debt upon an Escape by going at large by Baston in London did plead That their Predecessors let him at large and good And Note by Dyer 4 5 Mar. 162. 10 Eliz. 275. and 12 13 Eliz. 206. If the Prisoner have the King's Protection to go at large by Baston it is an Escape and the Warden of the Fleet may be Charged upon an Escape And see the same Book of Dyer 10 Eliz. where Debt was brought against the Marshal of the Kings-Bench or his Deputy And see Plowden's Commentaries in Platt's Action of Debt against the Sheriffs of London where it seemeth That by the Custom of the City of London one in Execution in Ludgate may go by Baston within London but otherwise in Southwark But Note the same Book of Dyer in 3 Ed. 6. That the Sheriffs of London were there Charged for suffering one in Execution in Ludgate to go at large in London by Baston quod nota Then Where the Act of the Court of the Law or of the Plaintiff doth discharge the Party of the Execution As namely 24 Ed. 3. 44. If one recover the Land and Body in a Writ of Ward and Release the Body the Land is thereby discharged But otherwise of a Grant The like seemeth 40 Ass. although the Land be Extended and Granted over The lik in Pop●'s Case in Plowden's Commentaries If the Cognizor after Execution Enfeoff the Cognizee of part but it is otherwise before Execution for there the Lands be in the Hands of the Cognizor and his Body is Charged See 6 Ed. 4. 4. and 24 Ed. 3. 45 46. That if one in Execution be Outlawed or Condemned for Felony and afterwards have his Pardon yet touching his Body the same shall still remain in Execution Notwithstanding by the same Book of 6 Ed. 4. if he take himself to his Clergy he shall be out of Execution And so seemeth the Book 7 Eliz. 248. but ibid. 261. è contra See hereof Bro. Abr. 272. And see 10 Eliz. 275. That one in Execution by Agreement of the Parties and the Chief Justice went at large for a

Judgments in certain Actions in the Kings-Bench there particularly named and not touching the King may be Reformed in the Exchequer-Chamber or in Parliament and if in the Exchequer-Chamber then before the Iustices of the Common-Pleas and the Barons of the Degree of the Coif and the Record to be brought back again into the Kings-Bench And see the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 1. of Discontinuance of Writs of Error in the Exchequer and the Kings-Bench That it shall not be needful for all to be present And by the Writs of Error in the Register it appears That sometimes a Stranger to the Judgment may have his Writ of Error as Tenant by Resceit Vouchee He in the Reversion or Remainder and the Tenant both at one time And if the Feme be Resceived upon the Default of the Husband both of them may have Error or False Judgment And if Erroneous Execution be awarded upon a Recognizance the Feoffee may have a Writ of Error as appears 17 Ass. 24. See Dyer 4 H. 8. 1. accordingly and that he in the Reversion by the Common Law might have it when his Title accrued and by the Statute of 9 R. 2. presently But 21 Ed. 4. 27. in Debt against a Sheriff upon an Escape he shall have no advantage of Error in the first Record because he is a Stranger to it And so is 9 Ed. 4. 3. That a Stranger shall not Falsify but in that which disproveth the Cause of Action But 22 Ed. 4. 30. the Vouchee Tenant by Resceit Garnishee in Detinue or Foreign Attachment in London may have these Writs Then shall be considered Whether the Heir or Executor or Successor shall have these Writs And first by Fitzh Nat. Brev. touching the Successor if the Matter touch and lye in Succession then the Successor of the Abbot Parson and the like shall have these Writs But if Judgment in Debt or Damages in an Action Personal be given against a Bishop or a Parson his Executor and not the Successor shall have these Writs And for Debt or Damages recovered the Administrator or Executor and not the Heir shall have these Writs But touching that which the Heir is to have by Discent of that the Heir shall have Error and False Judgment The Heir shall likewise have a Writ of Error to Reverse an Utlary of Felony or Treason against his Father as appears by Fitzh Nat. Brevium and by that Reason the Executor shall have a Writ of Error to Reverse an Utlary in Trespass or Debt against his Testator because of his Right to the Goods And so is 11 H. 4. 65. But where the Writ of Error doth both Entitle the Heir and Executor as where Judgment in an Assize or Entry sur Disseisin c. is given against one who dieth if the Heir do not bring Error or Attaint for the Principal the Executors are remediless for the Damages and Costs recovered And so seems the Book of 9 Ed. 4. 12. 314. But if the Heir Reverse the Judgment he shall not as it seems be restored to the Damages but the Executor by Scire facias upon that Judgment of Reversal Yet if two Jointenants lease Land and Damage the Survivor shall be restored to the one and the other And accordingly 46 Ed. 3. 13. the Feme had an Attaint of a Verdict against her and her Husband although the Goods of the Husband subject to the Damages And so 19 Ed. 4. 6. the Executor shall not have Damages recovered in Detinue of Charters before the Heir have a Scire facias to have the Charters And see 50 Ed. 3. 3. where one in the Remainder in Tail recovered in Wast and before Execution died without Issue and his Executor had Execution And see 11 H. 4. 16. That if one of the Sisters after Abatement die and the Aunt and Niece joyn in Mortdancestor the Damages from the Death of the Aunt Jointenant and before the Damages for the surviving Aunt to be several Where also appeareth That if found for the Baron and Feme Plaintiffs in an Assize and that the Goods of the Husband were taken like Judgment as before shall be given And 14 Ed. 3. Fitzh Execution 15. if three Coparceners recover and one of them die before Execution the Damages survive not except they had once joyned in an Elegit See more hereof before in the Title Execution and in the Abridgments of Brook and Fitzherbert under that Title And by this Reason the Heir to the Land and not the Heir at the Common Law shall have these Writs as the Heir in Tail Special and Borough English and the like For it is not like to a Condition or Waranty as are 9 H. 7. 24. 3 H. 4. 19. and other Books Then we shall see What things one shall be Estopped by or past the Advantage to assign Error For which see Fitzh Nat. Brev. as followeth viz. That if one Utlawed do purchase his Charter of Pardon yet he may have Error to Reverse the Utlary And so is 18 Ed. 3. But against a Disclaimer the Tenant shall have no Writ of Error But as there and 6 Ed. 3. after Non-tenure found against him he may And one Condemned shall not assign Error in the Process Yet he that doth Confess the Action shall have a Writ of Error And it appeareth there also That if in a Writ of Entry sur Disseisin there want these words Quod clamat esse Ius Haereditatem if the Tenant plead he shall not have advantage thereof by Error And so in a Writ of Detinue of Charters of Land and in the Count the Certainty of the Land is not declared yet thereof is a qu●ere And so of the like to this for which see Brook's Abridgment Tit. Error and 25 H. 8. Dyer 5. That the Party having Interest in the Land by Discent or otherwise shall neither have Error or Attaint Some things there be also that one shall not Assign for Error As That the Clerks of their own Heads gave Judgment Or That the Jury gave a Verdict contrary to the Judgment because these are Repugnant to that which the Court do as Judges Neither as there appeareth may many Things be assigned for Error that were for the advantage of him that doth Assign them As That he made an Attorney was Essoined had Aid the View or the like when it ought not or that he had a Day longer than he ought as appeats in Bro. Abridg. Tit. Error See 14 Eliz. Dyer 315. that the Plaintiff shall not Assign That he wanted the Judgment Ideo in misericordia nor the Defendant Quod Capiatur c. And touching Diminution which according to Fitzh Nat. Brev. 25. and Bulstr. 1 Part 43. is where a Record is Certified in part but not all of it so that there is some Diminution in part thereof then the Party concerned in it may have a Writ directed to the Court from whence it came to send the whole 〈◊〉

Issue viz. Et de hoc ponit se meaning the Defendant super Patriam Et praedictus Willielmus the Defendant again for Iohannes the Plaintiff similiter Per Cur ' these are but Misprisions of the Clerk and not Errors and shall be amended being like to the Mistake in 10 H. 7. 23. and 11 H. 7. 2. where Defendens was written for Querens and Iohannes for Rogerus and amended by the Advice of all the Justices And by Coke Chief Justice Misprisions were amendable the same Term at the Common Law because during the Term the Record is said to be in pectore Iudicis and not esteemed to be on the Roll so absolutely but that they may amend the same at their Discretions But the Justices of the Common-Pleas after a Writ of Error cannot at all amend the Roll where a Judgment was given the same Term and is mistaken in the Entry because the Roll is not a Record of that Term. And by 5 Ed. 3. this was so at the Common Law until the Statute of 14 Ed. 3 gave power to amend Misprisions in another Term. But 46 Ed. 3. the Case was that Defendens was mistaken for Querens but could not be amended because an Old Roll and the Statute gives Power only to amend New Rolls of the same Term they are Entred By the Statute of 26 H. 8. the Justices of the Common-Pleas have Power to amend a Plea-Roll in Misprision only but not Omissions Misprisions are Vicia Scriptoris Faults of the Clerk as the Declaration varying from the Writ or the Roll from the Original or the Mean or Judicial Process these by 19 H. 6. shall be amended if it be only in default of the Clerk But if in a Plea that be Omitted which should be Averred this shall not be amended because it ought to have been part of the Plea and cannot be said to be any Default of the Clerk but a meer Omission which makes the Plea imperfect So Mich. 5 6 Mar. Dyer 164. a Record came out of Ancient Demesn in Banco by Writ of False Iudgment and the Writ was Sub sigillo suo sigillis quatuor legalium hominum ejusdem Curiae which according to Fitzh Nat. Brev. fo 18. b. ought to have been per quatuor legales homines c. upon which the Court doubted if it might be amended but seemed to be of Opinion That the Plaintiff might have a New Writ to the Justices of the Common-Pleas to Authorize them to proceed to discuss the Errors in the Record which lay before them So 2 Mar. Dyer 105. a Common Recovery was suffered to Bar the Issue in Tail and the Warrant of Attorney was That Alicia po lo. suo for Elizabetha also the Writ of Error was de loquela quae fuit in Cur ' nostra coram Iustic ' nostris per breve nostrum It was a Quaere if it were amendable but Resolved in Blackmores Case Co. Lib. 8. fo 152. quod vide nota And see Brownl Rep. 2 Part fo 300. where a Writ of Error was brought by Frances Fulgham against Sergeant Harris in this manner Praecipe c. quod c. Franciscae Fulgham Viduae contrary to the Form of the Register which is quae fuit Uxor and not Widow and the subsequent words were rationabilem dotem Tenementorum quae fuerunt Francisci Fulgham quondam viri sui Per Cur ' this is Error for tho' it varies not in substance yet because it is contrary to the Form of the Register it shall not be amended So Cro's Iacobi 21 Merrel's Case in a Writ of Error of a Judgment in the Common-Pleas in Ejectment it was assigned for Error That the Plaintiff declared that I. S. 25 Martii Anno sexto Iacobi had demised to him for Seven years by virtue whereof he Entred and was thereof possessed until the Defendant postea scilicet Anno sexto did oust him After Imparlance the Plaintiff made a Second Declaration wherein he supposed the Ejectment to be done 26 Maii Anno supradicto and of this Ejectment the Writ was brought it was found against the Defendant and Judgment for the Plaintiff and whether it was Erroneous because no day was mentioned in the first Declaration was the Question Agreed That the first Declaration is the Principal and if any Matter of Substance be omitted in it it cannot be helped or amended by the second for that is but a meer Recital and therefore if the first be not good the Trial is Erroneous But per Cur ' the first Declaration was good for the Demise is laid to be 25 Martii sexto Iacobi which is the first Day of the year and the postea scilicet 6 Iacobi that the Defendant Ejected him is certain enough for the Year when the Ejectment was made and the Day of the Ejectment are not material being before the Action brought Then Of Errors in Fines upon Writs of Covenant and Common Recoveries upon Writs of Entry in the Post. For which see first Brownl Rep. 2 Part fo 300. where upon a Fine the first Proclamation was made in Trinity Term 5 Iac. the second in Michaelmass Term 5 Iacobi the third in Hillary Term 6 Iacobi when it should have been Hill 5 Iacobi and the fourth and fifth Proclamations were in Easter Term 6 Iacobi Per Cur ' This is palpable Error for the fourth Proclamation was not entred at all and the fifth was entred as of Hillary Term 6 Iacobi when it should have been of Hillary Term 5 Iacobi and so cannot be amended because it was of another Term. And see Cro's Iac. 77. Earl of Bedford's Case where in a Writ of Error to Reverse a Fine it was assigned for Error that the Writ was Praecipe c. quod teneat c. Conventionem c. de octo Mesuagiis duobus Toftis decem Gardinis and it was Certified de octo Mesuagiis decem Gardinis c. and Adjudged no Error But see Cro's Caroli fo 300. Done and Smithy's Case where a Writ of Error was brought to Reverse a Fine levied by Baron and Feme and others and the Writ of Covenant wat directed to the Coroners with this Clause fiat Executio brevis praedict ' per Coronatores ita quod Vic' se non intromitteret because the Sheriff was one of the Cognizees and this was Objected for Error because as there said if the Sheriff had been sole party to the Fine yet the Writ ought to have been directed to him because but a Summons for the Sheriff may summon himself But Resolved to be Error because a Doubt in Law if the Sheriff as Plaintiff may Execute a Writ upon himself and therefore the general Course is to direct the Writ to the Coroners to avoid such Doubt And see Co. Lib. 5. fo 38. Tey's Case where A. and B. his Wife levied a Fine of divers Mannors Lands and Tenements to I. S. and I. D. in several Towns in the County of E. in