baker and BLAKAMORES case in trespass the defendant plead that I S be seize in  fee give the land unto baker and the heir of his body and convey the land by  descent to four daughter and Blakamore the defen lant as servant to one of the  daughter do justify the plaintiff do reply that the say I S be seize in fee  and give the same to Godbolt baker and the heir male of his body and convey  the land by descent to himself as heir male without hoc that I S be seize in  fee henden sergeant do demurrer in law upon the replication and take exception  to the traverse for that here he traverse the seize of I S whereas he ought to  have traverse the gift in tail make by I S for the be seize be but a  inducement not traverseable and therefore he ought to have traverse the gift  in tail for then he have traverse the seize for he can not give the land in  tail if that he be not seize thereof in fee l e there in formedon the tenant  will have traverse the seize of the donor but the book be rule that the  traverse ought to be of the gift in tail and that include the seize bridgment  for the plaintiff and say that the sergeant be of opinion contrary to the book  when he say positive that you ought to traverse the gift in tail and not the  seize of the donor the case short be a be seize in fee make a gift in tail to  b and that descend to four daughter c and the plaintiff reply that a be seize  in fee and give the land to b and to his heir male and the plaintiff claim the  entail as heir male and the defendant under the generali tail without hoc that  a be seize in fee h by Englefield if in trespass the defendant plead the feoff  of a stranger and the plaintiff say that he be seize Godbolt er p in fee and  make a lease for year to the say stranger who feoff the defendant he need  notAo traverse without hoe that he be seize in fee c part the seize in fee be  traversable Br travers ace dodderidge justice the seize in this case be  traverseable lie chief justice take away the seize and then no giftand  therefore the seize here be traverseable Haughton and chamberlain justice  agree the court resolve that either the seisi in fee or the gift in tail be  traverseable dodderidge justice if you both convey from one and the same  person then you must traverse the conveyance it be a rule c part there the  book be cite which warrant the traverse of either quod notam it be adjudge for  the plaintiff tiunit JAcom in the king bench