Semayne's case in a action on the case by Peter Semayne plaintiff and Richard  Gresham defendant the case be such the plaintiff and one George Berisford be  joint tenant of a house in black friar in London for year George Berisford  acknowledge a recognizance in the nature of a statute staple to the plaintiff  and be possess of diverse good in the say house die by which the defendant be  possess of the house by survivorship in which the good continue and remain the  plaintiff sue process of extent upon the statute to the sheriff of London the  sheriff return the conusor dead uponwhich the plaintiff have another Writ to  extend all the land which he have at the time of the statute acknowledge or  any time after and all his good which he have at the day of his death which  Writ the plaintiff deliver to the sheriff of London and tell they that diverse  good which be the say George Berisford's good at the time of his death be in  the say house and thereupon the sheriff by virtue of the say Writ charge a  jury to make enquiry accord to the say writ and the sheriff and jury  to go to  and house prediction doorway house predict area free from obstacles existen et  good prediction in prediction house tunc existen and they offer to enter the  say house to extend the say good accord to the say Writ and the defendant  praemissor non ignorant intend to disturb the execution doorway proed house  tunc area free from obstacles existen to limp contra Vicecom jurator pillage  by which they can not enter and extend the say good nor the sheriff seize they  by which he lose the benefit and profit of his Writ and in this case these  point be resolve that the house of every one be to he as his castle and  fortress as well for defence against injury and violence as for his repose and  although the life of man be precious and favour in law so that although a man  kill another in his defence or kill one per infortuntun without any intent yet  it be felony and in such case he shall forfeit his good and chattel for the  great regard which the law have of a man life but if thief come to a man house  to rob he or murder and the owner or his servant kill any of the thief in  defence of himself and his house it be no felony and he shall lose nothing and  therewith agree Edward Coron ass pl so it be hold in Henry every one may  assemble his friend or neighbour to defend his house against violence but he  can assemble they to go with he to the market or elsewhere to keep he from  violence and the reason of all the same be because house to sew whoever it be  be to look at refugium it be resolve that when any house be recover by any  real action or by ejection strong the sheriff may break the house to deliver  possession to the demande or plaintiff for the word of the Writ be to have  facias seisinam or possession c and after judgement it be not the house in  right and judgement of law of the tenant or defendant in all case when the  king be party the sheriff if the door be not open may break the party house  either to arrest he or to do execution of the king process if otherwise he can  enter but before he break it he ought to signify the cause of his come and to  make request to open door and that appear by the statute of Westminster c  which be but a affirmance of the commonlaw as it hereafter appear for the law  without default in the owner abhor destruction or break of any house which be  for the habitation and safety of a man by which great damage and inconvenience  may follow to the party when no default be in he for perhaps he do not know of  the process which if he have notice of it be presume that he will obey it and  that appear in Edward execute where it be say that the king officer who come  to do execution c may open the door which be shut and break they if he may not  have the key which prove that he ought first to demand they Edward I hurt r so  as he be in danger of death I fly and thereupon hue and cry be make I get into  the house of t those who pursue he if the house be keep and defend with force  which prove that first request ought to be make may lawful break the house of  t for it be at the king suit ass p the king bailiff may distrain for issue in  a sanctuary ass p by force of a capias upon indictment of trespass the sheriff  may break his house to arrest the party but in such case if he break the house  when he may enter without break it that be on request or if he may open the  door without break he be a trespasser ass upon issue join on a traverse of a  office in chancery venire facias be award returnable in the king bench without  mention non to let go near largely freedom yet for as much as the king be  party the Writ of itself be non to let go near largely freedom Edward that for  felony or suspicion of felony the king officer may break the house to  apprehend the felon and that for two reason for the commonwealth for it be for  the commonwealth to apprehend felon in every felony the king have interest and  where the king have interest there the Writ be non to let go near largely  freedom and so the liberty orprivilege of the house do not hold against the  king in all case when the door be open the sheriff may enter the house and do  execution at the suit of any subject either of the body or of the good and so  may the lord in such case enter the house to distrain for his rend or service  Henry a Edward Distr Edward avow the lord may distrain in the house although  he hold land in which he may distrain vide as but the great question in this  case be if by force of a capias or fieri facias at the suit of the party the  sheriff after request make to open the door and denial make may break the  defendant house to do execution if the door be not open and it be object that  the sheriff have well do it for diverse cause because it be by process of law  and it be say that it will be grant that a house be not a liberty for if a  fieri fac or a capias be award to the sheriff at the suit of a common person  and that he make a mandate to the bailiff of a liberty who have return of writ  that no one devoted to responsum in this case another Writ shall issue with  non to let go near largely freedom yet it will be say on the other side that  he shall not break the defendant house as he shall do of another liberty as in  the county of Suffolk there be two liberty one of S Edmund bury and the other  of S Etheldred of Ely put case a capias come at the suit of a to the sheriff  of Suffolk to arrest the body of b the sheriff make a mandate to the bailiff  of the liberty of S Etheldred who make no answer in this case the plaintiff  shall have a Writ of non to let go by force at which he may arrest the  defendant within the liberty of bury although that no fault be in he admit it  be a liberty the defendant himself shall not take advantage of a liberty as if  the bailiff of a liberty be defendant in any action and process of capias or  fieri torch come to the sheriff against he the sheriff shall execute the  process against he for a liberty be always for the benefit of a stranger to  the action for necessity the sheriff shall break the defendant house after a  denial as be aforesaid for at the commonlaw a man shall not have any execution  for debt but only of the defendant good put case then the defendant will keep  all his good in his house and so the defendant by his own act shall prevent  not only the plaintiff of his just and true debt but it shall be also a great  imputation to the law that there shall be so great defect in it that in such  case the plaintiff by such shift without any default in he shall be bar of his  execution and the book in Edward execute be cite to prove it where it be say  that it be not lawful for any one to disturb the execution of the king officer  who come to execute the king process for if a man may stand out in such manner  a man shall never have execution but there it appear as have be say that there  ought to be request make before the sheriff break the house it be say that the  sheriff be a officer of great authority in who the law repose great trust and  confidence and be of sufficiency to answer all wrong which shall be do and  they have custodiam comitatus and therefore it shall not be presume that they  will abuse the house of any one by colour of do their office in execution of  the king writ against the duty of their office and their oath also but it be  resolve that it be not lawful for the sheriff upon request make and denial at  the suit of a common person to break the defendant house sure to execute any  process at the suit of any subject for thereof will follow great inconvenience  that man in the night as in the day shall have their house which be their  castle break by force of which great damage and mischief may follow for by  colour thereof upon a feign suit the house of any man at any time may be break  when the defendant may be arrest elsewhere and so man shall not be in safety  or rest in quiet in their own house and although the sheriff be a officer of  great authority and trust yet it appear by experience that the king writ be  execute by bailiff person of little or no valve and it be not to be presume  that all the substance a man have be in his house nor that a man will lose his  liberty which be so inestimable if he have sufficient to satisfy his debt and  all the say book which prove that when the process touch the king that the  sheriff may break the house imply that at the suit of the party the house may  not be break otherwise the addition at the suit of the king shall be vain and  frivolous and with this resolution agree the book in e and the express  difference there appear between the case of felony which as have be say  concern the commonwealth and the suit of any other subject which be for the  particular interest of the party as there it be say in Elizabeth a by  Littleton and all his companion it be resolve that the sheriff can break the  defendant house by force of a fieri facias but he shall be a trespasser by the  break and yet the execution which he then do in the house be good and it be  say that the say book of Edward be but a notam and not any judicial judgement  and it do not appear at who suit the case be intend but it be a observation or  collection as it seem of the reporter and if it be of a quo minus or other  action in which the king be party or be to have benefit the book be good law  it be resolve that the house of any one be not a castle or privilege but for  himself and shall not extend to protect any person who fly to his house or the  good of any other which be bring and convey into his house to prevent a lawful  execution and to escape the ordinary process of law for the privilege of his  house extend only to he and his family and to his own proper good or to those  which be lawful and without fraud or covin there and therefore in such case  after denial upon request make the sheriff may break the house and that be  prove by the statute of west c by which it be declare that the sheriff may  break a house or castle to make replevin when the good of another which he  have distrain be by he convey to his house or castle to prevent the owner to  have a replevin of his good which Act be but a affirmance of the commonlaw in  such point but it appear there that before the sheriff in such case break the  house that he be to require the good to be deliver to he for the word of the  statute be after that the castle shall be solemn demand by the sheriff c it be  resolve admit that the sheriff after denial make may break the house as the  plaintiff Council pretend he may then it follow that he have not do his duty  for it do not appear that he make any request to open the door of the house  also the defendant as this case be have do that which he may well do by the  law sure to shut the door of his own house last the general allegation  praemissor non ignorant be not sufficient in this case where the notice of the  premise be so material but in this cause it ought have be certain and direct  allege for without notice of the process of the law and of the come of the  sheriff with the jury to execute it the shut of the door of his own house be  lawful and judgement be give against the plaintiff