brewer vers turner queen whether one defendant may bring error of a judgement  against two reeve move to quash the writ of error because the judgement be  against two defendant and so describe in the writ of error but then it be lie  to be only ad strange report er p grave damnum of one of they now the person  who be name under the ad grave damnum be they and only they who bring the writ  of error so that the case be no more than that one defendant bring a writ of  error of a judgement against two whereas all ought to join   ruddock case  strange contra the first answer I will give to this objection be that the  ground and foundation of quash writ of error be for some variance appear  between they and the record of which there be none in this case the three  requisite in a writ of error be to denote the court where the party between  who and the subject matter of the suit all which be true describe in this writ  of error and then the say it be ad grave damnum of one only when it appear to  be a judgement against two can never be construe to be a variance for if it be  to the damage of both it must be to the damage of each and so the record  answer the description whether therefore when there be no variance the court  will quash this writ of error or not rather put the party to demurrer to our  assignment of error that I must submit to the court but wave that I take the  writ of error to be well enough as it now stand the fact be that one of the  defendant die before bring the writ of error but as that do not appear in the  cause I admit the case must be take to be that one defendant alone bring a  writ of error of a judgement against himself and another and this I apprehend  to be well enough it will not be deny but that as this judgement be joint if  there be error in it as to one defendant only yet the whole must strange be  reverse roll Abr e cro James Sti and this may be do at the instance of that  defendant only who can say it be erroneous Edward a be express that if  judgement in trespass be give against three one of who be dead the other shall  not have a writ of error of that judgement but only the executor of the party  decease and yet the cost be joint the judgement must be reverse in toto bro  joinder in action in trespass against two who be condemned in a erroneous  judgement it be say they may join or sever in a writ of error at their  election there be but one precedent which come up to this case and that be in  Hearns pleader in the book but the right page be and it be thus because in the  record and proceed of a fine between W b now decease and I v plaintiff and I l  deforceant error have intervene to the great damage of W b son and heir of the  say W b so that the heir alone bring a writ of error of a judgement against  his ancestor and another and assign that for error which vacates the fine in  toto and if one plaintiff who voluntary join himself with another may when he  please desert he a strong may defendant sever in their writ of error for they  be not join together at their own election but at the will of the plaintiff  and agreeable to this entry be cro Elizabeth if the defendant may not sever in  their writ of error the inconvenience will be great that the plaintiff may if  he please join I with a defendant who be under his own power and will never  consent to bring a writ of error and then I shall be remediless be the  judgement never so erroneous for as to what may be say that summons and  severance lie that be only after a writ of error bring if two bring a writ of  error and upon the to know facias quare execution non one only appear there  summons and severance lie Yelv and upon that the judgement be that one alone  shall prosecute that writ which be bring joint by they both but if it be not  bring by both there can be no summons and severance and therefore if one  refuse to join the other ought to be at liberty to bring it alone and there  will be no inconvenience to the plaintiff for his judgement can but be reverse  and if it be erroneous what matter be it to he whether it be reverse at the  instance of all the defendant or of one of they only curian if it have any  where appear that the other defendant be dead there be no doubt but this  defendant alone without the executor of the other may bring a writ of error  but as nothing of that appear and the judgement be joint it shall seem as if  all must be mention under the ad grave damnum strange and to this purpose be  the case of Pennoir v brace tempore W Mod salk Mod ld raym S c a the writ of  error be quash unless cause next term hachet v Herne Carth burr v Attwood ld  raym Bous v etherington ib salk SC Cooper v ginger post elkins v pain ld raym  Ratcliff v Burton Cas tempt hard vavasour v Vaux will S p et vide in Knox v  Costello burr Laroche v Wassboroug b term Rep strange report er p n b hill Geo  the chief justice be in court I stir it again and they all hold the writ of  error bad so it be quash and I draw a new one