case incledon and other against burgess Michaelmas term James roll in trespass  the defendant justify for common of turbary under a prescription that there be  quarry time out of mind and that the occupier of such a house have a right to  dig stone there queen if on a replication traverse the prescription the  defendant may by way of estoppel rejoin a verdict in his favour on the same  prescription SC comb SC Carth SC holt SC salk trespass for break his close and  dig and carry away turf and stone the defendant plead that he be seize of a  tenement or message and have a right of common of turbary there and use to dig  stone to be use on his c the replication traverse the plaintiff prescription  the defendant rejoin that such a term one of the plaintiff bring a action of  trespass against the defendant wherein be plead the same prescription and  issue join upon it and try and find for the defendant the plaintiff demurrer  exception be take first to the prescription and plea because there they lie  their usage of it large than the prescription for in that it be to be employ  upon the message they there say they do use the stone upon the tenement beside  their prescription be void in law for they do not say there be ancient quarry  there second then it be urge that the verdict be no estoppel for estoppels be  to be take strict for they neither give nor take away any right no man be bind  by a estoppel but the party and their privy there be cite brook title estoppel  Henry a stranger shall not be prejudice by it as he shall not have any  advantage if this estoppel shall be good against both the plaintiff then one  of they will be hinder from ever try his right they be join with the other  privilege from any conclusion by that verdict to which that other be no party  he compare it to the case of remitter   Litt where be a gift to baron and feme  and the heir of their two body the husband alien in fee and then retake a  estate to he and his wife for their two life this be a remitter in deed to the  husband against his own alienation c e contra as to the exception to our usage  we say we do use it in et super messuagium et property pillage which be all  one we say they be quarry time out of mind and we say that time out of mind we  have use to dig stone there second then the verdict be a estoppel for accord  to Farrers case a in all a palm shower KB er p personal action where there be  once a bar by verdict and judgement it be a conclusion if this man have give  he a release will not that have be a bar in a quod to let pass the verdict  have be fatal shower KB b a verdict whereupon a attaint will lie do estop all  party and privy to say any thing contrary to the verdict otherwise where no  attaint lie upon this verdict a attaint will lie the nature of the action be  change by the issue for where the title be in question there may be aid prier  c so warranty be pleadable in trespass where the title be in issue in respect  of the issue it be pleadable in respect of the action it be not d bar in  detinue be pleadable to account e issue in a personal action when it tend to  the realty be as conclusive as in a real action the join of a stranger will  not avoid the estoppel f suppose they joint tenant yet one of they may  prejudice the other and he shall be bind unless he bring a action of a high  nature g husband be estopped notwithstanding the remitter then there be  exception take to the declaration it be for a trespass in Charles the second  time with a continuando to king James time and conclude contra peace domini  king nunc I e of king James time now this be as it be no contra peace at all h  and be not help by the statute of general demurrer for many thing be help by a  verdict which be not help by a general demurrer and the statute of Jeoffails  in the reign of Charles the second do in boundary help this after verdict  which show that before it be not good after a verdict much less after a  demurrer the court give judgement for the defendant on this point of the  contra peace and therefore deliver no opinion about the estoppel but only say  a estoppel upon a verdict go a great way issue in tail shall never falsify it  but if one man be estopped and he join another with he whether this shall  avoid the estoppel be a quaere but judgement be give for the defendant on the  exception to the declaration