BARCOCK against Tompson pasch bane sup mich rot where a hearing complaint lie  for the bail upon a erroneous judgement against the principal in a hearing  complaint the case be this a action of debt be bring against the principal and  a judgement upon a nothing to say obtain but no capias ad to give satisfaction  issue forth against he afterward to know facias be take out against the bail  and nichils thereupon return and thereupon judgement be give against the bail  who thereupon bring his hearing complaint the question be whether the hearing  complaint do lie or not in regard that the to know facias issue forth against  the bail before any capias ad to give satisfaction be take forth upon the  judgement upon the nothing to say against the principal green of council with  the defendant hold that the hearing complaint do not lie because that the  party have other remedy to relieve himself and therefore the hearing complaint  lie not for that be give only where the other party have no other remedy e f  brook Audfta Quer and beside here be two nichils return against the party  which do amount to a to know to make and so the party be warn and therefore he  come now too late to have his hearing complaint for here be as much as a  judgement by default after ail appearance and here be no release and there be  a judgement execute and in force and not reverse by the principal green and Le  grice case pasch sir Francis more report wile for the plaintiff hold that the  hearing complaint do style report well lie because that no to know facias  ought to have issue against the bail before a capias ad to give satisfaction  take forth against the principal and a hearing complaint be in the nature of a  suit in chancery and the party come soon enough here to be relieve though the  to know facias be return for the return thereof shall not bar he from his  hearing complaint although it be now too late for he to reverse the judgement  by a writ of error and the book e and kelw be in the very point and the party  by the return of the nichils be not in court and in more report in Hobbs and  Todcasters case Elizabeth it be adjudge that a hearing complaint do lie roll  chief justice when one be bail in the common plea he be bind to bring in the  body of the principal or to pay the debt and Pomeroys case be that until a  capias be return against the principal the bail can forfeit his recognizance  for the nonappearance of the principal for the fill of the capias be not  sufficienb but it must be return and this be the ancient course there and the  law so hold to be but by usage of late time and out of indulgence show to the  bail it have be hold sufficient for the bail to bring in the principal after  the return of the capias and now at this day out of great indulgence afford  unto the bail it be well enough if the bail bring in the principal at any time  before the return of the second to know facias but after it be return then it  be too late for he to bring he in and that be the reason that in such case a  writ of error lie not for the bail to reverse the judgement against the  principal if a to know facias be bring against the bail and he plead that the  style report er p principal die before the return of the capias against he it  be adjudge to be a good plea for the bail to discharge himself but to plead be  die after the return be not good and it be a good plea for the bail in a to  know facias bring against he to say that no capias be return against the  principal and here be a good discharge in law against the bail but the  question here be whether the return of the two nichils be not a bar to he now  and that he have not thereby lose his advantage to bring his hearing complaint  because by the return thereof the party be suppose to have notice and  therefore a writ of error clear lie not to reverse this judgement though it be  upon a nothing to say and as to that in as much as the party have no other  remedy to help himself and it be apparent that he be damnified by a undue  judgement it be reason he shall bring his hearing complaint barn and Corbets  case the bail can say the principal have pay the money if he have not a  acquittance or matter of record to prove it and in sir John Hounsons case upon  two nichils return adjudge that the party may have his hearing complaint and  therefore the plaintiff ought to have his judgement jerman justice dissent but  Nicholas justice absent ask agree with roll and say that for want of the  return of the capias the judgement be erroneous and the to know facias may be  return behind the party back therefore it can not be say to be all one as if  the party have appear for if he have appear the case will have be otherwise so  j d mean be give for the plaintiff nisi c