case price against davies where a fine be acknowledge before commissioner it  may be assign for error that the cognisor die before the writ of covenant SC  comb ante Owen side dyer cro James burr a writ of error to reverse a fine need  not show how he be relate to the cognisor cro James show Mod Mod and see the  case of kellow v Rowdon post see Elizabeth c S and will c error to reverse a  fine take by commission the error assign be that the cognisor die before the  return of the writ of covenant but this point be not argue it be say SC comb  and that for this reason the fine be reverse and by the case of Cockman v  Farrer t Jones it seem that where the fine be acknowledge before commissioner  it may be aver that the cognizor die before the writ of covenant or by roll  Abr that he die after the acknowledgement and before the certificate thereof  but by wright v mayor of Wickham cro Elizabeth that where a fine be  acknowledge in court these fact can be allege for error for that in the first  case they be consistent with the record but in the second they be not cruise  on fine a because Allibon justice be of opinion that the plaintiff in the  error have not well entitle himself by the writ for it be bring by he ut  kinsman et haeres scilicet thread c but do not show how he be of kindred sir  William William the solicitor general reply to this objection that if a  descent be from twenty ancestor it be not necessary to say that he be son and  heir of such a one who be son and heir of such a one and so to the twenty  ancestor agreeable to this be all the precedent in formedons it be only say  that law to climb down Adjournatur this point of the case be not notice in the  report SC comb the right to bring a writ of error always descend to the person  who be entitle to the land Henningham v Windham Leon and therefore if after  reversal it appear that a plaintiff in error have no immediate title to the  land as if there be a remainderman before he the court will reverse their  former judgement of reversal Mod but a complete title need not be set forth in  the writ for it be only require of a plaintiff in error to show the connection  and privity between the person against who the fine be levy and the person who  bring the writ of error Sheepshanks v Lucas I burr b modern er p