case Wakeman against Blackwell if a common recover be plead that a be seize in  fee a bring ecipe be bring Uadtuvc to hold unconstrained tenementi or without  show how they have the freehold it be bad S C Mod hob Lutw piggot more Noy    show Mod ld ray   Litt b note quare hinder the defendant plead a recovery in  this manner videlicet that John Wakeman grandfather to the plaintiff be seize  in fee of the manor to which c and that a bring ecipe be bring against one  Prinne and Philpots adlune to hold unconstrained lenementi c who appear and  vouch John Wakeman c and that this recovery be to the use of I S under who the  defendant claim stride for the defendant it be not necessary that the tenant  in a common recovery shall have a freehold at the time of the purchase of the  writ if be have a freehold at the time of the return it suffice Edward pl  Edward pl ass of Nov Diss Edward pl in these authority the person against who  the bring ecipe be bring come in by right after the purchase and before the  return of the writ but in Edward pl there be a example where the tenant to the  prmcipe come in by rot but there be this difference if be come to the land by  his own act be it by right or by wrong there be make the writ good otherwise  if he come to it by act of law Edward pl a formedon Henry pl the reason why  you shall not abate the plaintiff writ by your own act be because you can give  he a better the demandant here be estopped to say that there be not a tenant  to the praecipe in this recovery for the writ be but shareable if bring  against one that be not tenant and as long as it stand not abate but be plead  to c it shall conclude all that be party and privy and all claim under they  Edward Fitzherbert Abr title law here be in our case a modern estoppel with a  recompense Wakeman the grandfather who be the first vouchee in this recovery  may have counterpleaded the lie and extort the warranty but have vouch over he  have pass that advantage and be conclude be make a party by voucher this  modern er p be a common recovery the court will do all they can to make it  good a fine be levy by dedimuspotestatem by husband and wife the commissioner  do not return the examination of the wife and that be the discriminate  difference upon which depend whether the wife shall be bind by the fine or not  Edward a light sect Edward a the court must needs in this case intend that  Prinne and Philpots come in by conveyance because Wakeman come in upon the  voucher which he will not have do if there have not be a lie he cite Lincoln  college case a   ander a griffin v Stanhope b cro James b and Duncomb v  Wingfield c hob roll Rep winch Ent c Pemberton answer that tunc to hold be a  sufficient averment in the plead of recovery which be favour in law but be not  good alone when in the same sentence matter be set forth that be inconsistent  with it and plain contradictory as in this case and of that opinion be the  court the case of Duncomb v Wingfield they say be upon a special verdict where  many thing may be intend which shall not be so in plead and in Lincoln college  case the writ be say to be bring against one Edward chamberlain in one part of  the record and the mother be say to be tenant in another part of the record  and by the other party but here in the same sentence unofialu there be a flat  contradiction a in S C Mod it be say that the court incline that it be not  well plead but deliver no judgement a