burrow Sheepshanks et wife versus lucas Tuesday d November judgement in error  for the reversal of a common recovery Yelv lev post vin pl p g Rotlo error  from c b to reverse a common recovery the wife of Sheepshanks claim to be  entitle in common with other to a remainder in fee under the will of one  Broadbent after the death of one Thomas Pierson tenant in tail who be vouch in  this recovery her husband and she bring this writ of error and the error  assign be the death of the vouchee before judgement conclude with a averment  in nullo be erratum is plead which confess the error assign to be true in fact  sergeant pool for the plaintiff in error without doubt a person entitle to a  remainder after a estatetail may have a writ of error to reverse a common  recovery suffer by the tenant in tail   b the marquis of Winchester case be  express to this purpose and give the reason of it at large Pigott of common  recovery if the vouchee die before judgement it be error Ro Abr title error  letter a pl Ro Abr title error letter king pl Ro Rep holland et all v lee  Bridgmans Rep SC holland et all v Jackson et all palmer darcy v Jackson SC  dyer a we claim under a devise by the will of one Broadbent in remainder after  a estatetail give to Pierson win v win h g p b r be in point to this case it  be a writ of error by a remainderman in tail and the very same error be assign  as be here there indeed the fact of the vouchees die before judgement be deny  and it be upon trial of the issue find that she be alive at the beginning of  the term but die before the return of the summons ad warrantizandum and the  relation of law which be in that case insist upon be not permit to prevail and  the entry of her appearance at the say return which be there burrow er p enter  on the record be hold not to be contrary to the allegation of her death before  such return because such her appearance be only enter as by attorney who  authority cease by her death so that the error there assign be not a  assignment contrary to the record burrow Mr Luke Robinson contra for the  defendant in error common recovery be now consider as common assurance and be  therefore to be favour and support Even another warrant of attorney shall be  presume though one already appear upon the record saint objection No one can  maintain a writ of error upon a judgement but one who be either party or privy  but this plaintiff in error be neither party or privy to nor injure by the  judgement here complain of it do not appear that Broadbent under who will she  claim the reversion be ever seize in fee of the estate and therefore it do not  appear how he have a right to devise the estate in the manner he have do they  ought to have show in their writ of error that he be seize in fee which the  defendant may have reverse if it have be so allege d objection No to know  facias or warning have be give to the heir who may be a infant or may have  many thing to plead Bernard Lucas the recoveror be the only defendant who be  only nominal but have no real interest d objection it appear upon this record  that Bernard Lucas have judgement to recover against Thomas Cowper but Thomas  Pierson be no party at all to the writ therefore Thomas Pierson who only come  in as vouchee have nothing to do with a judgement against another man  consequent pierson death before judgement be no error it can be only a  irregularity and no judgement be give at all against Thomas Pierson the  recovery be against Thomas Cowper who be indeed to have recovery over in value  against Thomas Pierson c but this recovery over in value against Pierson be  not the judgement upon which this writ of error be bring this writ of error do  not tally with the judgement of which it complain that objection this error be  not well assign for it be a error in fact and therefore ought to conclude to  the country which this do not Yelverton king v gosper and shire when a man  assign error in fact he ought to put himself en paiis and the plea of in nullo  be erratum confess nothing but what be well plead and that case be word for  word the same with this as to the conclusion of the assignment of error and  there be a hoe a preparation be verify as well as here be burrow serj pool in  reply saint it be enough if we suggest matter sufficient to show that we be  privy to and affect by the erroneous judgement it be sufficient for we to show  the devise of the remainder to we without any necessity of show that the  devisor be seize in fee and the precedent be so Wynn v Wynn be so sir John  Dinely Goodyeres case be so darcy v Jackson palmer be so determine that the  title needs not to be set out as in a proceed to recover land and all the  entry be so dly the to know facias be bring against the proper person which be  the recoveror dly Pierson appear by his warrant and vouch and there be  judgement over in value against he thly there never be nor proper can be such  a conclusion to the country here be a new matter of fact introduce which the  other party perhaps will not controvert we can conclude to the country till  the other party deny it as to the case in Yelvertonif it be as cite yet it can  never be support the assignment of a error in fact always conclude with a  averment Lord Mansfield be clear for the plaintiff in error on all the point  saint the writ of error needs not to set forth a complete title it be only  require of the plaintiff in error to show the connection and privity between  the person against who the recovery be have and the person who bring the writ  of error this be not like a proceed to try the right of the land or to recover  the land itself the precedent be so and none be produce to the contrary d  objection No authority or reason be produce for a to know facias to the heir d  objection have no weight in it and the case of Wynn v Wynn l in point against  it SC will burrow er p that objection the conclusion with a averment be right  and give a opportunity to try the fact by the country if the defendant in  error choose it which be all that be requisite burrow so much as to the form  and as to the meritsit be extreme clear that a remainderman ought to have this  chance to the benefit of the entail videlicet to see that all the proper and  requisite form shall be go through before he be bar of it it be plain that  judgement ought not to be give against any man after he be dead and there can  have be no judgement against the tenant to the praecipe in a common recovery  without a judgement likewise over in value against the vouchee they be all  enter at one and the same time and be part of the same proceed Mr just denison  concur first this general allegation be sufficient sure in the writ he needs  not show a complete title nay even in a formedon I do not know that the title  needs to be complete and full set out in the writ and Wynn v Wynn be a  authority on this head dly a to know facias to the heir be not necessary nor  any warning to he the recoveror have the legal right and must be take by the  court to have the real interest dly the death of the vouchee before judgement  be error in a common recovery and may be assign for such Wynn v Wynn be in  point as to this thly the case in Yelv be so far true and can mean no more  than that it ought to be put in a method of be try by a jury and here the  plaintiff in error have do so he say he be ready to verify it so that the  defendant in error may have put it in issue if he have please but he have  choose to plead in nullo be erratum which confess the fact and put the matter  of law upon the judgement of the court as to the meritsthe remainderman have a  right both in law and justice to reverse the recovery if it be erroneous  suffer Mr just foster and Mr just Wilmot declare their clear concurrence in  opinion with Lord Mansfield and Mr just denison per cur clear and unanimous  judgement reserve