case Buxton against home if a sheriff permit a voluntary escape a action of  debt lie against he or the plaintiff may have a to know facias quare  performance non against the prisoner SC post SC holt debt on a judgement the  defendant plead that he be take in execution and voluntary permit to escape  and the plaintiff consent to it a the plaintiff reply that he do not consent  et hoc petit quod to seek after per native land the defendant demurrer the  plaintiff join I do offer to argue it for the defendant but have begin and  open the record as before be stop by dolbin justice that it be a plain settle  point and to that the rest concur that the sheriff can take he again but  against the party plaintiff it be no bar and holt chief justice say a action  of debt do lie though perhaps not a to know facias quaere if any difference  between debt and to know facias quoad hoc so they all give rule for judgement  for the plaintiff without hear any argument which be intend as follow the  plaintiff ought to sue the sheriff and not the party the plaintiff be at no  loss for he have his remedy against the sheriff the debt be as it be transfer  the sheriff be answerable in debt and he be now become debtor ex fault c and  there be no reason why he shall have two remedy and by this error of the  sheriff he have better his remedy he trust the sheriff with the custody of he  and there shower KB be no reason if he be once discharge why he shall be  liable without a new contract this be neither a negligent nor a permissive  escape but a voluntary one the book make a great difference between voluntary  and permissive escape suppose he recover in his action against we yet he may  have debt against the sheriff upon the escape who be answerable and so be the  case of Offley v pain d in action on the case by the sheriff against the  prisoner for a escape he plead that the original plaintiff have sue recover  and receive satisfaction and that acknowledge upon record there be both reason  and authority for I and neither against I as I hope to evince in the case of  linacre v road e Linacres body be take in execution on a statute the sheriff  voluntary let he at large and afterward the conusee sue execution of his land  and a hearing complaint bring by the conusor and argue strong that the  execution be entire and all discharge but resolve per curian that execution  may be sue of land and good but not of his body and agree in argue that case  by the counsel of the other side that if b be take in execution and voluntary  permit to escape that b be full discharge though it be by act of the party for  the plaintiff have have a full execution in the Henry bro title escape in the  king bench per all men if a man who body be in execution escape the plaintiff  have no remedy but against the gaoler in bro novel case Edward sect debt on  escape against a sheriff he plead that a former sheriff a see Heyden v Heyden  salk pope v hook comb jacky v butler ld raym high v Davisson dougl and the  case of skip v Harwood in chancery cite by Lord Mansfield in the case of fox v  Hanbury a by will c if a prisoner in execution in the Marshalsea or fleet  escape by any mean the plaintiff may retake he by can sa or sue out any other  execution against he as if never in custody see also Ann c c Leon hob Bac Abr  Com dig d Leon e Leon pl shower KB er p have the party in execution and  Willing permit he to escape that afterward he retake he and imprison he and  then the defendant be make sheriff and permit he to escape and hold a good  plea for be once permit to escape the second imprisonment be not in execution  for the party and so be bro escape in Ridgeways case   count on a escape fresh  pursuit plead resolve that if he be take on a fresh pursuit he shall be in  execution for the party though out of big view but if permit to escape by  consent of the sheriff he shall be for ever discharge and have the benefit of  it and the reason they give for it be good because in the first case he shall  not take advantage of his own wrong but here he shall because of the consent  in the case of savage v Beckham more escape by the sheriff the defendant plead  that the gaoler lead he extra circuit gaolae et ultra ripan Sabrinae and  shower KB hold ill because do not positive and direct say that he voluntary  permit he to escape and then the bar have be good there the sheriff can never  retake he and he can never be in execution for the plaintiff if retake and  consequent it be a full execution as to his body and consequent his body be  discharge whereas it be otherwise on a negligent escape the case of mason v  Clayton f be on a escape against the will or t sheriff and so it be in roll  Abr the case of Tremilian v Robert in roll Abr be on motion in arrest of  judgement and the reason of that and alanson case be find on a true reason  videlicet that the party shall not take advantage of big own wrong for there  the party be guilty of no ill and no reason the sheriff can not retake he he  do what he lawful may and for any thing he know to the contrary it may be by  order of the plaintiff so that the reason fail here in Kelway it be a doubt if  a escape against the will of the gaoler if there can be a new execution but no  question then but they take it if with the will of the gaoler it will not in  the case of the sheriff of Essex g it be hold he can never be in execution  again though the party will yield it to he and the plaintiff will allow it  because be let to go abroad voluntary by the gaoler the execution be utter  discharge which be accord to the case in brook h as to the case of Ridley v  mazil I that be contra will of the sheriff as to the case of vintner v Allen  king that be because not say voluntary and so be the reason give by the judge  in that book execution of the body lie not at commonlaw but be give by the  statute as the best and most forcible remedy the body stand as a satisfaction  while the party be alive when the plaintiff take he in execution he choose  this as big best remedy he can not but foresee that the sheriff may set he at  large it be his own folly to choose a execution that falls the plaintiff be  not a perfect stranger to the sheriff for he have trust the sheriff by sue a  capias ad to give satisfaction he may have sue another execution as to the  sheriff be a poor man that be never to be presume for the law have provide  otherwise c as to a combination possible no man sure will combine against  himself as to the sheriff die shower KB the party may have die and so that be  all one Philips v stone Leon pl debt upon a obligation per viscount plea that  it be give while in custody upon retake after a escape hold express that if  escape with the permission of the gaoler the execution be entire go and  extinguish and the party at who suit he be take shall never resort to he that  escape but shall hold himself to the gaoler for his remedy but if he escape of  big own wrong the gaoler may retake he till the plaintiff have make big  election whether he will sue he or the party in the declaration the plaintiff  say that he have no execution on the judgement which be false these short note  I have prepare and in truth when I demurrer I know not of the judgement in the  case of Alanson v buller l in the time of Charles the second which be true law  and settle that a escape against the will of the sheriff either plaintiff or  sheriff may retake on escape with consent of the gaoler the party have only  remedy to take not the sheriff if with consent of the plaintiff then neither  plaintiff nor sheriff can retake he though debt be unsatisfy f cro car g hob h  see ante p I kell king carter l side shower KB er p