case peck against hill to debt upon bind against a administrator the defendant  may plead that he give another bind in his own name in discharge of the first  bind S C Mod lev contra debt upon a bind bring against the defendant as  administrator who plead that he give another bind in his own name in discharge  of the first bind and upon issue join it be find for the defendant it be move  that judgement may not be enter hereupon because it be a bad plea modern but  north chief justice and Wyndham and Scroggs justice be of opinion that it be a  good plea because there be other security give than what the plaintiff have  before for upon the first bind he be only liable de good intestaloris but now  he may be charge in his own right which may be well say to be in full  satisfaction of the first obligation for where the condition be for payment of  money to the party himself there if he accept any collateral thing in  satisfaction it be good if a security be give by a stranger it may discharge a  former bind and this in effect be give by such and it be not like the case in  Hobart a hob a where a bind be give by the same party upon the very day a  former bind be Payable and adjudge not a good discharge for the obligee be in  no better condition than he be before Atkins justice doubt but incline that  one bind can be discharge by give another though the discharge be apply to the  condition of the bind and for this he cite cro Elizabeth which be a case  adjudge so in point and therefore this lea upon demurrer shall have be  overrule yet since issue be take upon it and a verdict for the defendant the  plea be help by the statute of Jeofails Henry c here be a direct affirmative  and negative but as to that north chief justice and Scroggs justice reply that  a immaterial issue no way arise from the matter be not help as a action of  debt upon a bind lie to be make in London and the defendant say that it be  make in Middlesex and this be try it be not aid by the statute but there must  be a repleader but because it be swear that the obligor who be the intestate  be alive four modern er p year after the time that the second bind be give and  for that reason it can not be give upon the account of the defendant be liable  as administrator but mast be intend a bind to secure a debt of his own  therefore a new trial be grant