case cowper and mile against ginger on a writ of error be quash because not  bring by all the party to the judgement the defendant shall have cost if  judgement be give against two person and a writ of error in which the record  be right describe be bring by one of they only yet the record be thereby  remove although the writ be quash S c ante S c post S c stram a writ of error  be bring by mile upon a judgement give in the court of common plea against  Cowper and mile which writ of error be quash because Cowper do not join in it  ginger the defendant in error thereupon move for cost as if the judgement have  be affirm see Ann c S that upon quash any writ of error for variance from the  original record or other defect the defendant in such error shall recover  against the plaintiff or plaintiff issue out such writ his cost as he shall  have have if the judgement have be affirm and to be recover in the same  manner  See also will c S a but modern report mile and Cowper bring another  writ of error it lie on a judgement in the king bench for any error in the  record as want of a original c or concern matter of fact as nonage death of  the party for error in fact be not the fault of the court therefore it may be  determine by the judge when the record be before they note to the former  edition b de think over quod in person thou to sit back modern report er p and  it be object that the defendant in error be not entitle to cost unless that  writ be likewise quash but it be argue that a writ of error in person v obis  will not lie in this case because the record be not remove by the first writ  of error for the difference be where the first writ of error abate or be  discontinue there the record be remove and error in person v obis will lie but  where there be a variance in the style of the court or the party be not  sufficient describe there the writ of error must be quash and in such case the  record be not remove because it vary from the writ and consequent the record  be not remove a writ of error in person thou will not lie now in this case the  record be full describe in the writ and there be no manner of variance between  the one and the other and the case be no more than if a action shall be bring  by one where it ought to be bring by two there the action must abate and the  quash the first writ of error be in nature of a abatement because the record  be sufficient describe in the writ it abate or be quash because it be bring by  one when it shall be bring by two therefore the writ of error be nought the  record be not remove and if so error in person thou do not lie neither be  there anything inconsistent in the record but ad damnum Self when it shall be  ad damnum Self now the first writ of error be quash for matter appear on the  record itself and it be never a good writ and if so the record be never remove  for the first writ ought to be bring by both because both enter into the  recognizance but it be bring by one alone he have no right to examine the  error alone therefore he ought to have join the other in the writ and if he  have be unwilling to proceed he shall be summon and sever Mod ld ray a Pratt  chief justice say that if a stranger shall bring a writ of error in this court  of a judgement in the common plea the record be not thereby remove which he  compare to the present case where the writ of error be modern report bring by  one when two ought to join and they be all of opinion that the defendant in  error shall have cost though that writ be quash as if the judgement have be  affirm as to the writ of error in person thou they order to search precedent  afterward three of the judge be of opinion that error in person thou do lie  and they ground their opinion upon the case of walker v Stokoe Mod Carth b  which be thus judgement in trespass against five defendant and a writ of error  be intend to be bring the attorney leave a note with the cursitor to make it  out between the plaintiff in error and five more name they note that one of  the defendant be dead and the cursitor make the writ against four without  mention he who be dead the question be whether this be amendable and adjudge  that it be not because all the party to the judgement ought to join in a writ  of error it be true this be a plain mistake of the cursitor who instruction be  right but yet it shall not be amend because this writ of error be bring to  reverse a judgement but the statute for amendment of writ be make for the  support of judgement so that writ of error be quash and the court now say that  after that writ be quash the plaintiff in error bring a writ of error in  person thou residen wherein the first writ of error be misrecited it be of a  plea in curian our men whereas the suit be in the reign of the king and queen  and the writ of error be in the king time only for the record be misrecited  and for that misrecital the writ of error in person thou be quash see the case  of Ratcliff v Burton Trinity term Geo case tempt Hardres in point a modern  report er p