breton and coal in trespass c the defendant plead that one creswick be outlaw  and that there be a inquisition upon the outlawry upon which it be return that  the land of creswick be of the annual value of and that upon this a to lift up  facias de exititibus terrae be grant out of the exchequer direct to the  sheriff of Gloucestershire and that the defendant be with the sheriff and the  beast of the plaintiff be upon the land he say to the sheriff execute your  writ and that by force of such writ he take the beast of the plaintiff be  levant and couchant upon the land upon which the plaintiff demurrer and after  diverse exception to the plead which be overrule the point in question be if  upon such a writ of to lift up facias to answer to the king de exit terrae the  beast of a stranger levant and couchant may be take and sell and per Northey  the beast of a stranger be not issue for the intent of the law where issue be  return upon a man be that be by this mean shall be compel to appear now the  take of the beast of another never can enforce the defendant to appear and  though issue be return yet it be in supposal of law a real distress which be  sometime give and the return of so much in issue be that the value of the land  be so much and the land be charge for so Skinner er p much and the sheriff  also by his return be bind to levy so much so that the issue of the land be  the natural product of the land sure the pasturage and herbage of the land  without manure for the king may not plough and sow the land but it be say on  the other side that in this case the land be the debtor and the beast be not  take but in respect of their be upon the land as in the case of a distress for  rend the beast of a stranger may be take by the same reason and if the herbage  be the only issue or profit which holt chief justice say be all one of the  land and Skinner the owner put in beast by way of agistment if the beast of a  stranger may not be take the king shall be answer of nothing and holt chief  justice say that this be a charge upon the land for the value return and  therefore if there be tenant for life the reversion in fee and issue be  forfeit by the tenant for life this shall bind the reversion and he say that  though the statute of Westminster cap do not extend to this case yet issue be  define by that statute and what be issue in one case be issue in all and he a  agree to the reason of the land be debtor as in the case of a distress for  rend and justice rookbi be of the same opinion but in respect of the  consequence of the case curian advisare vult afterward term hill will the  court be of opinion that the beast of the plaintiff be find upon the land may  be take by the to lift up facias first because there be a express authority  and command to the sheriff to levy the annual value of the land and the beast  be levant and couchant be the issue of the land and that the statute of west  cap be a explanatory statute and it be there say that all the beast upon the  land be issue in all respects nobilia upon the land be issue and it do not  restrain they to the beast of the owner of the land Inst second because the  land be the debtor to the king and if there be not such remedy the pernancy  upon the outlawry will be nothing and if the beast of a stranger shall be  exempt the king will be defeat and he who take the whole profit by agistment  will likewise defeat the king for he have no remedy against the party by seize  the land and therefore he have no remedy but by to lift up facias if a man  outlaw have alien and the feoff have put in his beast no doubt but his beast  be issue and he take the land in the same plight as the feoff have it for  though the feoff be good yet it do not determine the pernancy h and if the  beast of the feoff be issue so will the beast of a stranger Hardr and Raymond  Windsor and Seywell and the reason of the difference in those case be that  till inquisition nothing be in the king and they can be understand to be the  good of the person outlaw in the inquisition Skinner because the person outlaw  can have good personal and chattel real be not in the king before the  inquisition and to intend they to be the good of the outlaw be the same as to  command the issue of the party to be levy of the good of the king and the  plaintiff may in this case be the alienee of the outlaw and then he shall be  liable as well as the feoff but suppose a right in the plaintiff precedent to  the outlawry if it be not find in the inquisition he can plead it in trespass  but ought to come into the exchequer and plead it there by a to point out de  law and have it allow before that he can plead it for where the issue be  forfeit the whole inheritance be charge for the land be the debtor as if a  officer forfeit issue for the neglect of his duty this charge the whole office  and no to lift up facias issue but where the land be debtor and in all case  where the land be debtor the beast of a stranger be as liable as of the owner  as in the common case of rend and if it be so in the case of a subject why  shall there be any difference make in the case of the king the party either  have a interest or no interest if he have a interest it be under the outlaw if  he have no interest why do he put in his beast the case of Stafford and  Bateman roll S Abr be the only case which seem to contradict this but that  must be a mistake of the printer for that the beast may be take and not sell  be a contradiction and therefore the plea be adjudge good in substance