case cleve against veer ante page if a executor sue out a extent upon a  statute staple acknowledge to his testator and die before the return of the  writ and the administrator de good non sue out a liberate both the extent and  liberate be void ante Jones roll ab roll ab cro Elizabeth ld ray Bl Rep this  case be now move again absent Brampston Jones and Berkley argue that this  extent make after the death of the conusee be mere void for by the conusees  death as Berkley say the writ of extent be abate in facto and that the sheriff  have not any authority to extend the land for the writ be that he shall extend  and seize into the king hand ut ei to set free and when be be dead there be  not any warrant to deliver they to his executor or administrator for it be  particular ut ei to set free and be be not to deliver it to any other and  compare it to the case Edward pl Edward pl and dyer that if a conusee of a  statute merchant procure a certificate upon the statute and thereupon the  capias returnable in the common plea or king Beneb and the capias be return  non be invention the conusee die before another execution be award the  executor croak car er p may not have execution but be direct to bring a new  certificate and a new capias out of the chancery second Berkley hold that if  the extent have be well return yet the administrator come paramount the  executor can have the benefit thereof as Henry pl croak car Jones be of the  same opinion and cite the case of Beamond v long a in this court also Berkley  say that as the verdict be find the plaintiff ought not to have judgement for  it be a ejectment of the capital message sive thirst manor de b and one  hundred and twenty acre of land one hundred of pasture c in b which  declaration be not good for the message because it be in the disjunctive but  it be good for the land and there be no title find for the defendant for the  land for the verdict find that the say Edward Dobbs the lessor and the conusor  be seize in tail of the manor of b at the time of the recognizance and that  this manor be deliver in extent but be do not say that the land in the  declaration be parcel of the say manor and so it be not find that this land be  deliver in extent and then the defendant have no title but Jones agree with I  that this be not material for be in a special verdict it be intend otherwise  there will be no cause of a special verdict b so for the matter Jones and  Berkley agree that judgement shall be give for the plaintiff but I argue to  the contrary because this extent upon the statute be in nature of a statute  staple where all the proceed be in chancery and not like to execution upon  statute merchant where the beginning be upon a certificate make in the  chancery and a capias be award returnable in the common plea or king bench for  there peradventure as the case be Edward and dyer where the conusee die before  execution the executor shall not proceed in the execution upon non be  invention return without a new writ out of the chancery because it be their  warrant to proceed in the common plea but a extent upon a statute staple and  the proceed thereupon be all in the chancery and then although the conusee die  betwixt the writ of extent and the return thereof yet be buta preparation unto  the execution upon his cognizance what land be extendable and the value of  they and to seize they into the king hand ut ei to set free none have answer  to it and it be return there it be in vain to have a new inquisition it be all  of record in the same court second although the conusee die before the return  of the writ there be a good inquisition it be well enough and although it be a  inquisition after the death of the conusee yet it be good enough for the  sheriff do that which the writ enjoin he videlicet to inquire what land the  recognizor have at the time of the recognizance acknowledge or after of what  annual value and to seize they into the king hand ut ei to set free that be  only to show the king intent and the seizure into the king hand make not any  title to the king nor put the possession in he but be only matter of form as  it be in Edward although a inquisition be after the death of the conusee yet  it be as good as if ithad be in his life for the sheriff may not take notice  of the croak car death of the conusee but he ought to return how he serve the  writ and if be return that the conusee be dead he shall be amerce as Henry pl  and Henry pl be and there be a difference betwixt a judicial writ after  judgement to do execution and a writ original for the writ judicial to make  execution shall not abate nor be shareable by the death of he who sue it as it  be the common course if a capias ad to give satisfaction or a become facias  upon judgement issue the sheriff shall execute it although the party who sue  it die before the return of the writ and although the death be before or after  the execution if it be after the testae of the writ it be well enough as where  a capias ad to give satisfaction be sue and the party take before or after the  death of he who sue it and before the day of the return or if a become facias  be award and the money levy by the sheriff and the plaintiff die before the  day of the return of the writ yet the executor or his a ante b see for this  point goodall case   a croak car er p administrator shall have the benefit and  be to have the money and it be no return for the sheriff to say that the  plaintiff be dead and therefore be do not execute it and for the second point  I argue because it be not a suit by way of action as a to know facias or debt  which I agree the administrator shall not have upon a judgement obtain by the  executor because be come paramount the executor a yet this be no suit but the  pray of a liberate upon the show of the letter of administration the  administrator may well have it and be be the party who have the privity to  demand it for the benefit of the intestate and if the executor have have the  extent well execute and the liberate thereupon well deliver and be in  possession thereof and die intestate the administrator of the first man in who  right the extent be sue shall have it as Jones agree afterward in his argument  so where it be only to demand delivery be may do it well enough but  notwithstanding these reason Jones and Berkley appoint Brampton chief justice  be in the court of ware that judgement shall be enter for the plaintiff for  Jones say that Brampston deliver to he his opinion for the plaintiff because  the extent take after the death of the conusee although it be return in the  chancery at the day of the return of the writ be mere void and so the  defendant have not any title thereby wherefore judgement be enter accord for  the plaintiff