Carthew coan versus howl all Pas James two b r rot discuss metropolitan  railway v Wilson lr c p postea where a infant be executor alone he can sue per  attornatum shower Rep SC salk SC Mod SC comb SC salk replevin in c b against a  b and c they all per t S attorn suum when defend vim in an unjust manner c and  make conusance as bailiff to I n damagefeasant and at the trial the plaintiff  be nonsuit and the defendant have judgement de return habend thereupon a writ  of error be bring and the error assign be for that a one of the defendant be a  infant and yet have appear and plead by attorney Carthew er p to which it be  answer that this be not erroneous because judgement be give for the infant  which be for his benefit and also in this case the defendant make conusance in  auter law and all three of they make but one bailiff this like the case where  a infant and one of full age be make executor in such case the infant with the  other executor may sue roll Abr cro sand Danv p raym Mod vent lev keb style  per attornatum because this in the right of another Adjournatur at another day  it be argue that a infant can never appear per attornatum nor in not common  with others mask svan but always per guardianum or prochein any neither can a  infant be a attorney for another h and if he be make executor he ought to sue  per cro Bulst style guardianum as may appear by the case cite in the margin  all which be against the opinion in sand it be grant on the other side that if  the infant in this case and the other be mere defendant his appearance by  attorney have be error but it be insist that this be in replevin the avowants  be in nature of plaintiff and this for three reason they be call actor which  be a term in the civil law and signify plaintiff they shall have judgement de  return habend and damage as plaintiff the plaintiff may plead in abatement of  the avowry therefore this in nature of a action beside as to this point there  be no difference between executor and bailiff for both act in the right of  another and it have be adjudge that where a sand infant Carthew executor be  plaintiff he may sue with other executor per attornatum and by the same reason  the bailiff in this case may sue per attornatum though one of they be a infant  holt chief justice where a infant be executor alone he can sue per attornatum  for if he do he shall be amerce pro falsely warcry but where he be join with  other of full age this otherwise because those of full age have authority to  dispose all their asset without the assent of the infant and this be the  reason of the difference between a infant plaintiff and defendant in sand and  this a good rule that where any matter may be plead in Edward b roll Abr p h  dam p abatement it shall never be assign for error and in this case the  plaintiff in replevin may have plead infancy in abatement of the cognizance at  another day videlicet in Michaelmas term W m this case be argue seriatim by  the bench and they all agree that the judgement shall be affirm but upon  different reason three of the judge be for the affirmance because the  defendant be in auter law and they all make but as one bailiff and that the  disability of the servant shall not prejudice the master and they agree that  the case of roll Abr cro Danv executor be the same in reason with the present  case they agree likewise that there be a difference where the infant be  plaintiff and where he be defendant and that a avowant be in nature of a  plaintiff and so be the bailiff who make conusance c and in the Inst cro Inst  it be doubt whether a avowant be such a defendant as be within the statute for  payment of cost because he be esteem to be a plaintiff and that where a infant  be sole executor be can sue per attornatum to which holt chief justice agree  but if such a infant executor recover per attornatum his appearance be no  error but this otherwise where he be condemned in the action and one of the  judge be of opinion that this matter may be assign for cro rue v long roll Abr  Danv error though it be pleadable in abatement of the conusance but holt chief  justice hold that this appearance of the infant be irregular for Carthew er p  he ought to plead per guardianum and the join the other defendant with he  signify nothing so as to charge the infant for if the judgement pass against  he it shall be for the damage de good not common with others and he shall be  amerce therefore where he be join or where he be single there be no manner of  Carthew difference in reason for in both case the loss be the same if  judgement be against he the case of several executor where one be a infant be  find upon another reason videlicet upon necessity for this absolute necessary  that all who be appoint executor by the will shall be make party to the action  and where there be several executor the act of one shall conclude his  companion and therefore the general appearance per attornatum be good for all  of they and he deny that the reason be because they be in auter law and that  in this case the infant be not compellable to be join with the other for he  may have be sever so the reason be not the same and be lie down this to be a  general rule videlicet that a man shall never assign that for error which he  may plead in abatement for it shall be account his folly to neglect the time  of take that exception therefore if a feme covert bring a action in her own  name per attornatum and the defendant plead in bar to the action he shall  never afterward assign the coverture for error therefore since the plaintiff  in this case be estopped by his own admission to assign the infancy for error  he hold that the judgement ought to be affirm