case anonymous there must be a particular Act show by which the plaintiff be  interrupt otherwise the breach of a condition for a quiet enjoyment be not  well assign vent above p this be a action upon a bind with a condition recite  that whereas the obligor have purchase a copyhold tenement from the dean and  chapter of if therefore during the continuance of his right estate and  interest therein he shall permit the obligee to have and enjoy a moiety of all  the profit of the say tenement then c after oyer the defendant plead the  condition perform to which the plaintiff reply quod to stretch pillage unde  pillage obligor be seize by grant for the term of his life to be in possession  Johnson army dimission ei fact per pillage oblige quod obligor do not permit  he to have and enjoy the moiety of the profit accord to the condition send  ipse To take back tot return handle pillage pro year limit ad Fest consecrated  michaelis the defendant demurrer to the replication because duplex caret form  and sergeant Pengelly insist that the replication be have first because it do  not appear that the tenement mention in the replication be the same tenement  which be recite in the condition in the condition there be no notice take what  estate or interest the obligor have purchase but only say that the obligor  have purchase a copyhold tenement then when he say to stretch unde pillage  obligor be seize for life non constat that it be the same tenement which be  mention comens in the condition second there be no good allegation of the  demise to Johnson for he allege that Johnson be in possession army dimissions  and the army be not traversable three the breach be double for he say that the  obligor comens er p do not permit he to enjoy the moiety of the profit accord  to the word of the condition and then he show that he receive all the rend for  such a year which will be another breach to which it be answer by sergeant  Brainthwaite and resolve by the court that the replication here be good for  the recital quod to stretch unde he be seize for life be only a inducement to  the subsequent matter and not traversable for the defendant be conclude by the  condition from save that he have not such tenement and if he have plead nul  tiel tenement it will have be a have plea then it be immaterial to say it be  grant to he for life for it have be sufficient to have say quod to stretch  pillage to be dismiss to such a one and that the defendant have receive all  the rend as to the breach it be well assign if it have be double that must be  show particular for cause of demurrer and in what point the duplicity consist  and it shall not be hold have upon a general demurrer but here the assignment  of the breach be not double for when he say that the defendant do not permit  he to enjoy the moiety of the rend accord to the word of the condition this  will not have be sufficient without show some act do which amount to a  disturbance and therefore it be necessary for he to go further and show that  the defendant receive all the rend without which the breach will not have be  complete and so it be resolve in frances case     b a where it be agree that  there must be a particular act show by which the plaintiff be interrupt  otherwise the breach will not be well assign for these reason judgement be  give for the plaintiff