non to be able to lead to exception the same rei pron. interrog. peti  disintegration it be impertinent and contrary in it self for the law to allow  of a plea in bar of such matter as be to be defeat by the same suit for it be  include otherwise a man shall never come to the end and effect of his suit but  be cut off in the way and therefore if tenant entail of a manor whereunto a  villeine be regardant discontinue and die and the right of the entail descend  to the villeine himself who bring a formedon and the discontinue plead  villeinage this be no plea because the divest of the manor which be the  intention of the suit do include this plea because it determine the villeinage  so if tenant in ancient demesne be seize by the lord whereby the signiory be  suspend and the disseisee bring his assize in the court of the lord frank fee  be no plea because the suit be bring to undo the seize and so to revive the  signiory in ancient demesne so if a man be attaint and execute and the heir  bring a writ of error upon the attainder and the corruption of blood by the  same attainder be plead to interrupt his convey in the same writ of error this  be no plea for then he be without remedy ever to reverse the attainder so if  tenant entail discontinue for life render a rend and the issue bring a  formedon and the warranty of his ancestor with asset be plead against he and  the asset be lie to be no other but his reversion with the rend this be no  plea because the formedon which be bring to undo this discontinuance do  inclusive undo this new reversion in fee with the rend thereunto annex but  whether this rule may take place where the matter of plea be not to be avoid  in the same suit but in a other suit be doubtful and I rather take h p m D^t  maxim h h Edward the law to be that this rule do extend to such case for other  wise the party be at a mischief in respect the exception and bar may be plead  cross either of they in the contrary suit and so the party altogether prevent  and intercept to come by his right so if a man be attaint by two several  attainder and there be error in they both there be no reason but that there  shall be a remedy open for the heir to reverse those attainder be erroneous as  well if they be twenty as one and therefore if in a writ of error bring by the  heir of one of they the attainder shall be a plea peremptory so again if in  error bring of that other the former shall be a plea these be to exclude he  utter of his right and therefore it shall be a good replication to say that he  have a writ of error depend of that also and so the court shall proceed but no  judgement shall be give till both plead be discuss and if either plea be find  without error there shall be no reversal either of the one or of the other and  if he discontinue either writ then shall it be no long a plea and so of  several outlawry in a personal action and this seem to I more reasonable than  that general a outlawry or a attainder shall be no plea in a writ of error  bring upon a diverse outlawry or a attainder as h and h seem to hold for that  be a remedy too large for the mischief for there be no reason but if any of  the outlawry or attainder be indeed without error but it shall be a peremptory  plea to the person in a writ of error as well as in any other action but if a  man levy a fine S^t conusance de droit come Ceo and ill and de son do suffer a  recovery of the same land and there be error in they both he can bring error  first of the fine because by the recovery his title of error be discharge and  release in law inclusivi but he must begin with the error upon the recovery  which he may do because a fine execute bar no title that accrue de prisne  temps after the fine levy and so restore himself to his title of error upon  the fine but so it be not in the former case of the attainder for a writ of  error to a former attainder be not give away by a second except it be by  express word of a act of parliament but only it remain a plea to his person  while he life and to the conveyance of his heir after his death but if a man  levy a fine where he have nothing in the land which inure by way of conclusion  only and be executory against all purchase and new title which shall grow to  the conusor afterward and he purchase the land and suffer a recovery to the  conusee and in both fine and recovery there be error this fine be Janus  twofaced and will look forward and bar he of his writ of error bring of the  recovery and therefore it will come to the reason of the first case of the  attainder that he must reply that he have a writ also depend of the same fine  and so demand judgement to return to our first purpose like law be it if  tenant entail of two acre make two several discontinuances to several person  for life render a rend and bring a formedon of both and in the formedon bring  of white acre the reversion and rend reserve upon black acre be plead and so  contrary I take it to be a good replication that he have a formedon also upon  that depend whereunto the tenant have plead the dissent of the reversion of  white acre and so neither shall be a bar and yet there be no doubt but if in a  formedon the warranty of tenant entail with asset be plead it be no  replication for the issue to say that a precipe depend bring by I S to evict  the asset but the former case stand upon the particular reason before mention