boil and scarborough mich banc sup hill rot error to reverse a judgement in  debt upon a promise a action of debt be bring by boil against Scarborough  wherein the plaintiff do declare that the defendant in consideration that the  plaintiff will forbear to sue forth a ne exeat kingdom against the defendant  son who do owe unto the plaintiff five hundred pound do assume and promise  unto the plaintiff a certain sum of money express in the declaration upon non  assumpsit plead and a verdict and a judgement give for the plaintiff the  defendant bring a writ of error and it be assign for error that there appear  no consideration to ground the promise upon so no ground of action for he do  not show that he have do any thing in prosecute the writ of ne exeat kingdom  and Rosyer and Langdales case in this court be cite and hob bedwell and cotton  case and there be no such writ in the register as a ne exeat kingdom and  therefore there can be no forbearance to sue out such a writ but there be a  writ to give security not to go out of the realm to the public prejudice of  the king and his people and here be no such matter express but only that his  son owe he nat short catalog be agree and it be far object by wile who argue  against the judgement that though the consideration shall be good yet the  replication be not good and sufficient to tie the second writ to the first for  it be not say that the second writ be pro One eaden causan and so it be  incertain Br trespass h and there may be several promise make in one day and  if the replication be good yet the rejoinder be not good h for he only admit  that he be a knight be the same person which be sue by the name of esquire hob  Stukelyes case and here be a judgement by a nothing to say and no warrant of  attorney for it be in Latin and so it be nul it be since the late Act make for  the proceed in law to be in style report English latch on the other side pray  that judgement may be affirm and say that here be a good consideration to  style report er p ground the promise upon for there be a writ of ne exeat  kingdom and any one may move for it and it be a benefit to the party that the  plaintiff will forbear to sue it forth and he have cause enough here to move  for this writ in order to recover his debt and although it be in the  discretion of the king whether he will grant it or not yet it be for his  honour to grant it and the register and Brit make mention of this writ Instit  there be a caution use to be take of party licence to go beyond sea that they  shall pay their debt that the replication be good for it be not necessary to  say that the second original sue forth be for the same cause that the former  be because it be in a action upon the case set forth at large which show  verbatim that it be for the same cause and so it be plain in it self that it  be say that he sue out the second original pro causan preceding which be a  sufficient averment if there need any and the variance in the damage be no  argument that there be another cause of action for when the second original be  sue forth the daminages be increase by the increase of the time be a whole  year afterward for the rejoinder it be to be consider whether the party be  estopped that if not whether the matter set forth be good for the first he  hold that h e be estopped by his come in former gratis as a esquire and behig  not bring in in custody for dyer there he shall not plead another name but  here this be not allege as it ought to be for he ought to have conclude  without hoc that he be a esquire but he have affirm himself to be a esquire by  say of preceding c and he ought to have allege this special videlicet that  Richard boil knight which be sue by the name of Richard boil esquire and the  book e f be against the other book and the law be otherways and the old book  of entry and other precedent which be against I they pass sub silence and the  law general be against these precedent rastal brief h say that he be vestop  Edward f he so come in and so be Br title defence h h and many other book and  the book of h urge on the other side be against they and though he shall not  be estopped yet we can take advantage of the first original for it be but  abateable by the misnomer and be not abate and there be a flaw in the  rejoinder for he ought to have traverse that he be not a esquire and that the  that of march be after the original sue forth and it be incertain as to the  time when he be a knight Plowd by Morgan h and the warrant of attorney be good  though they be in Latin and if they be in EDglish they will be erroneous and  the nonentity of they be not material for the constant practice be not to  enter the warrant of attorney before the issue Trin James Morley and Morley in  this court here be not the entr of the warrant it self but only a entry that  he be attorney by warrant and so he pray the affirmance of the iudament roll  chief justice if on e bring a writ of and it be abate and b fiber another writ  for the same debt can you increase the damage accrue between the first and the  second writ it can be for the second be but the revive of the first writ and  not a new writ but here be diverse point considerable and fit to be speak unto  a ne exeat kingdom be a writ usual sue forth although that original it be only  use in case of state business therefore the forbearance to sue it forth be a  good consideration the court advice to take a new plea to try the matter  postea