case addison against sir John otway land lie in the parish of dale but out of  the will of dale shall pass by a fine and recovery describe they as lie in  dale general although the covenant describe they as lie in the parish of dale  S C Freem S C Mod S C keb S C vent ante Allen         light hob cro James  comens Mod Mod burr Cowp tenant in tail of land in the parish of Rippon and  KirbyMarlestone in the town of a b and c the tenant in tail make a deed of  bargain and sale to I S to the intent to make I S tenant to the praecipe in  order to the suffer of a common recovery of so many acre in the parish of  Rippon and KirbyMarlestone now in those parish there be two town call Rippon  and KirbyMarlestone and the recovery be suffer of land in Rippon and  KirbyMarlestone general all this be find by special verdict and further that  the intention of the party be that the land in question shall pass by the say  recovery and that the land in question be in the parish of Rippon and  KirbyMarlestone but not within the township and that the bargainer have no  land at all within the say township the question be whether the land in  question shall pass by this recovery or not shaftoe they will pass the law  make many strain construction to support common recovery and abate of the  exactness that be require in adversary suit as in dorm case a roll   a in ear  v snow b Plowd viner Abr b in sir Hoyle Finchs case c     Ent Leon c and in  Ferrer v Carson d cro James d in the case of stork v fox e cro James roll Abr  e where two will Walton and street be in the parish of street and a man have  land in both levy a fine of his land in street his land in Walton will not  pass but there the conusor have land in the town of street to satisfy the  grant but in modern our case it be otherwise he cite also roll Abr grant and  the case of baker v Johnson Hutton the deed of bargain and sale and the  recovery make up in our case but one assurance and construction be to be make  of both together as in Cromwell case f   jenk andr more Savil   Litt f the  intention of the party be to rule in fine and recovery and the intention of  the party in our case appear in the deed and be find by the verdict roll Abr  winch per Hobart cro car sir George Symond case betwixt which last case and we  all the difference be that that case be of a fine and we of a common recovery  betwixt which conveyance as to our purpose there be no difference at all he  cite Jones v wait in Trinity term car in this court and a case of thin v  I`hynne car in the king bench where hide be chief justice north chief justice  the law have always stick at new nicety that have be start in case of fine and  common recovery and have gotton over almost all of they I have not yet see a  case that warrant the case at bar in all point nor do I remember a authority  express against it and it seem to be within the reason of many former  resolution but we must be cautious how we make a further step modern er p  Wyndham justice I think the land in question will pass well enough and that  the deed of bargain and sale which lead the use of the recovery do sufficient  explain the meaning of the word Rippon and KirbyMarlestone in the recovery I  do not so much regard the jury have find what the party intention be as I do  the deed itself in which he express his own intention himself and upon that I  ground my opinion atkins justice agree with Wyndham indeed when a place be  name in legal proceed we doprimd fancy intend it of a will if nothing appear  to the contrary slabitur presumption while to make good in opposite direction  in this case the evidence of the thing itself be to the contrary the reason  why prima fancy we intend it of a will be because as to civil purpose the  kingdom be divide into will we do not intend it of a parish because the  division of the modern kingdom into parish be a ecclesiastical distribution to  spiritual purpose but the law in many case take notice of parish in civil  affair and custom have by degree introduce it we may allow of it in a recovery  as well as in a fine Scroggs accordant if a infant levy a fine when be become  of full age he shall be bind by the deed that lead the use of the fine as well  as by the fine itself because the law look upon both as one assurance so the  court be of opinion that the land do pass it be then suggest that judgement  ought not to be give notwithstanding for that the plaintiff be dead a by car c  the death of either party between verdict and judgement shall not be allege  for error so as judgement be enter within two term after the verdict if the  judgement be sign though not enter on the roll or if the death happen after  the commencement of the assize though before trial it be within the remedy of  the statute side salk a but they say they will not stay judgement for that as  this case be for between the lessor of the plaintiff and the defendant there  be another cause depend and try at the same assize when this issue be try and  by agreement between the party the verdict in that cause be not draw up but  agree that it shall ensue the determination of this verdict and the title to  go accord now the submission to this rule be a implicit agreement not to take  advantage of such occurrence as the death of the plaintiff in a ejectment who  we know to be no wise concern in point of interest and many time but a  imaginary person it be say also to have judgement that there live in the  county where the land in question be a man of the same name with he that be  make plaintiff this the court say be sufficient and that be there any of that  name in a thing nature they will intend that he be the plaintiff per curian we  take notice judicial that the lessor of the plaintiff be the person interest  and therefore we punish the plaintiff if he release the action or release the  damage accord judgement be give