Arden against darcy notam a good case of attornament which be decree in the  time of baron manwood betwixt Arden and darcy and it be this one Arden be  seize in fee of diverse land in the county of c and make a lease for year and  after make a feoff with word of grant of those land to a and b to the use of  the feoff and his wife for their life the remainder to Arden his son in tail  and after the feoff say to the lessee that he have convey his land which the  lessee hold in lease to the use aforesaid lane er p and the lessee say I like  it well and after be pay his rend to the feoff general and it be decree in the  exchequer Chamber that this be no attornament because the attornament ought to  be to the feoff and it appear not that the lessee have notice of the name of  the feoff and therefore it can be say to amount to a attornament but  notwithstanding that decree Arden the same to who the remainder be limit have  his action depend in the king bench to try the point again as he say to I also  this term a point concern the say decree be in question upon another bill  exhibit in the exchequer Chamber by sir Edward darcy against Arden and the  case be as follow sir Edward darcy exhibit his bill here in the nature of a to  know facias against Arden to show cause wherefore the say Edward darcy shall  not have execution of a decree make in the time of baron manwood and the  defendant show that darcy in his first suit suppose by his bill that he have a  grant of the land then and now in question from queen Elizabeth render rend as  it appear by the letter patent and in facto there be no refit reserve upon the  patent and that the defendant give answer to the say bill and admit the  jurisdiction of the court and after a decree be make against the defendant and  the defendant now have show this special matter demurrer upon this bill in  respect that by his pretence the court have not jurisdiction to hold plea in  the first suit and here it be show that the lane first decree be make upon a  matter in law not proper examinable by English bill and that in facto the law  be therein mistake and therefore the defendant pray that the decree may be  reexamined Tanfield chief baron it be usual in the office of plead that if a  action be bring as a debtor of our lord the king this be good although that de  facto no suggestion be make thereof if it be not show on the other side and  therefore a writ of error for this falsity shall not cause the judgement to be  reverse as it be resolve in a case in which I be of council and so here as it  seem Altham baron here we be in equity wherein we be not tie to so strict a  course as if it be in the office of plead brock of the Inner temple for the  defendant in a court of equity it be in the discretion of the court to deny  execution of a decree if good cause be show and in e foe judgement be give  against a marry wife by the name of a feme sole and reverse although she do  not show in the first suit that she be marry and in e judgement be give in the  king bench in a suit and by writ of error be reverse although the defendant  have admit the jurisdiction of the court and the chief baron and all the court  incline that Arden may exhibit a bill to reverse this decree make against he  and may show what point in law the judge mistake in the decree or otherwise we  shall not do as law and justice require for it be not expedient to be examine  by way of bar to this bill in the nature of a to know facias and after Arden  accord to the decree of the court and their direction do exhibit his bill in  the nature of a writ of error comprise how the first decree be erroneous make  and pray that the say decree may be reverse and in his bill be show the point  in law which be decree and that upon diverse long conveyance appear to be thus  and so it be agree by council on both party that Arden the father be seize of  the manor of Cudworth in the county of c and be also seize of the manor of  Parkhal in the same county and of Blackclose c which be parcel of the manor of  Cudworth but lie near unto Parkhal and always use and occupy with it and  repute parcel thereof but in truth it be parcel of Cudworth and that Arden the  father make a conveyance of the manor of Parkhal and of all the land thereunto  belong and repute as parcel thereof or occupy with it as part or parcel  thereof and of all other his land in England except the manor of Cudworth to  the use of Arden his son that now be plaintiff here and if Blackclose will  pass to the son by this conveyance or if by intendment it shall be except by  the exception make it be the question here and be decree in the time of baron  manwood that it be except by the exception but all the baron now think it to  be a strong case that Blackclose be not except by the exception of the manor  of Cudworth and so the first decree be upon a mistake out of the law and  Tanfield chief baron say that the point be no other but that I feoff you of  Blackacre parcel of the manor of d except my manor of d this noth not except  the king by express term queer if in this case there be any land occupy with  Parkhal which be not parcel of Cudworth nor of Parkhal for if so then it seem  that Blackclose will be within the exception in regard that the word and land  occupy therewith videlicet Parkhal be well satisfy Harris sergeant say that  the case be to be resemble to the point in carter and Ringsteeds case concern  lane er p the manor of hatred where a man be seize of a manor within which the  manor of d do lie and be parcel thereof and he by his will devise the manor of  d except the manor of hatred where the manor passes by the devise and be not  except Snig and Altham baron agree that this prove the case in equity but by  the chief baron Tanfield because this be a rare case that we shall reverse or  undo a decree make by our predecessor in the very point decree by they it be  good to be advice and therefore they direct Arden to find precedent if he can  by search make for they in the say case and therefore the attorney general who  be of council for darcy have demurrer upon the bill which be lane exhibit by  Arden and that be be not present day be give until another term to hear  council on both part at which day the attorney say that be conceive it a  strange case and without precedent that a court shall impeach and reverse the  decree give in the same court and that if it shall be suffer the subject will  be vex and trouble without any end or quiet and this stand with the gravity of  every court to maintain their own judgement and therefore several statute be  make to reverse judgement upon erroneous proceed and judge of other court  constitute to examine they which prove that before the statute aforesaid and  without aid of they the judge will not reverse their own judgement and so here  Harris to the contrary it be not without precedent that in a court of equity  one and the same decree in the same court have be reverse by decree of the  same court upon some consideration have of the erroneous misprision of law and  it be no dishonour to a court of justice so to do for matter in law but  otherwise it be for matter of fact for then that betray a ignorance in the  judge which will be a dishonour to the court but for law man be not angel and  for that point there may be error to prove that the court of equity may do so  he vouch the book of h foe Martin Dockwraies case which be our very case rule  in the chancery and so he say that in this court James a decree make in the  time of baron manwood be reverse upon the like reason and Tanfield chief baron  say to sergeant Harris that if it appear by your precedent that if the same  matter in law which be decree be reverse in the same point in law then this  prove for you but if it be for matter of fact otherwise it be and therefore we  will see your precedent