bowyer versus rivet the case be thus sir William bowyer James recover against  sir Thomas rivet in a action of debt sir William make his wife his executrix  and die the wife Popham er p make bowyer her executor and die then sir Thomas  rivet die bowyer bring a to know facias to have execution upon the judgement  against sir Thomas rivet the young as heir apparent to the land to he descend  from sir Thomas rivet who plead riens per descent from sir Thomas rivet and it  be find that he have two acre and a half of land by descent and it be pray by  goldsmith that judgement may be give against sir Thomas rivet general for he  say that this Popham false plea shall charge he and his own land and cite  Plowden where in debt against a heir upon his false plea his own land shall  become liable to the debt and   lib b sir William Herbert case where the case  be upon a to know fiacias against the heir as it be in this case but on the  other part it be argue by Richardson the king sergeant bank and all the  justice that execution shall be award in no other manner against the heir than  it shall be against his ancestor or other purchaser to wit of a moiety of that  which he have by descent for as much as in this case be can be to this purpose  charge as heir but he ought to be charge as tertenant and as a purchaser and a  purchaser shall never hurt himself but his false plea and bank argue that the  heir in this case be charge as a purchaser and the false plea of a purchaser  shall never charge himself e Fitzherbert execution and e and that in this case  he be charge as tertenant appear by three reason debt will not lie against a  heir but where be be bind as heir but in this case execution be to be sue  against he as another tertenant dyer e and in h execution and   lib b that in  judgement upon debt or recognizance the heir be charge and execution shall be  sue against he as tertenant there be not any lie as heir for the judgement do  not mention the heir and therefore be can be charge unless be be express bind  and in the record of the recovery it do not appear that the first lie shall  bind the heir for he declare that he bind himself and not that he bind himself  and his heir if the heir be bind in the obligation so that he be once bind as  heir yet the judgement determine the specialty so that now he be not bind and  in the judgement the heir be not mention as in h if a abbot contract to the  use of the house without conseat of the covent this shall bind if he die but  if he take a obligation of the abbot and then he die this shall not bind the  house for the contract be determine by the obligation and this be the reason  that in the time of e in a recovery upon debt the obligation be cancel here be  can be charge as heir for it appear by the record that his father be live for  it be bring against he as heir apparent which he can be but during the life of  his father and as to the objection that in this case he shall have his age and  therefore shall be charge as heir non sequitur for if execution be sue against  the heir of a purchaser he shall have his age and yet be be not heir neither  can be charge as heir to the conusor but because it be a rule in law that the  heir which have by descent shall not answer where his inheritance may be  charge during his nonage Whitlock to the same intent because the heir be not  charge here as heir but as tertenant whereby his false plea shall not hurt he  with which Jones also agree and say that he here consider three thing that the  lie of the ancestor bind the heir how the heir shall behave himself in plead  our point in question for the first there be two thing requisite to bind one  as heir a lie express for if one bind himself and not his heir this shall not  bind his heir in any case a descent of inheritance for without this he shall  not be bind by the act of his ancestor and he be bind no long than asset  descend for if he alien before the writ purchase the lie be go he ought to  behave himself true and plead true and confess the asset descend to he when  debt be bring against he as heir otherwise his own land shall be charge with  the debt as it be in pepi case in blow Com but where it be say in pepi case  that upon a nothing to say Popham or non sum shape c if the judgement pass  upon they that it shall be general I be not of that opinion for the common  experience of the court be that such a general judgement shall not be give  against the heir unless it be upon Popham er p a false plea plead with which  agree lawson case dyer and Henninghams case dyer where the judgement pass by  nothing to say so that the say in blow a that what way soever the heir be  condemned in debt if be do not confess the asset c that it shall be his proper  debt be now take for law and I also hold that if the heir plead false and  there be find more asset that yet it be in the election of the plaintiff to  charge he and to take execution of the asset only or to take a elegit of all  his land and he be not bind to take a elegit of all the land in this case for  otherwise inconvenience may arise if the heir have a hundred acre by descent  and two by purchase if upon the false plea of the heir the plaintiff can have  any other execution but a elegit of the moiety of his land then he by this be  prejudice for otherwise be may have all the asset in execution and so the heir  by this way shall take advantage of his false plea he hold as Whitlock before  and for the same reason Doderidge justice how the heir shall be bind by the  act of his father be worthy of consideration upon which prima fancy the book  seem to disagree but be well consider accord with excellent harmony I have  consider this case it be move at read term and because my note be not here I  will speak more brief and will consider how a heir shall be charge upon the  obligation of his father and as to that in debt against a heir be be charge as  heir so that at this day it be take as his proper debt whereby the writ be in  the debet and to hold off but in the to hold off only against executor but in  former time from the that of e till h if a executor have asset the heir be not  Chargeable but in h the law change in this point for now it be account his own  debt and debt will lie against his executor as it be say in blow Com and so  against the heir of the heir to many generation albeit of this Plowden make a  doubt and his plea that he have nothing at the day of the writ purchase nor  ever after be good for if be alien the asset be be discharge of the debt in  regard he be not to wait the action of the obligee the heir shall be charge  upon the recognizance not as heir but as tertenant for be be not bind in the  recognizance but only the conusor grant that the debt shall be levy of all his  land and tenement but not against his heir and here he be not mere as  tertenant for he shall not have contribution against other tertenants but only  against those who be heir as himself be but to all other intent be be  tertenant and so charge as e and h be that upon a judgement as our case be the  heir shall be charge as tertenant and not otherwise the book which have be  cite videlicet e execution be express in the point the break year of  Fitzherbert be obscure report but by compare of case it will appear to be our  case express that albeit a heir shall be charge upon the obligation of his  ancestor where he be particular bind yet upon his false plea no execution  shall be but upon the asset so it seem to I that in the principal case the  judgement shall be special and it seem to be a very plain case crew chief  justice agree and in his argument he affirm what Jones say that a general  judgement shall not be give against the heir if he do not plead false that he  have no asset and not upon nothing to say and so judgement be give that the  plaintiff shall have execution of the moiety of the land descend to the  defendant and so note the diversity of debt against the heir and to know  facias against the heir Popham hill car in the king bench enter hill James rot