case pullen against purbeck if to a elegit the sheriff return that the  defendant be seize of two farm the one of forty pound ayear the other of sixty  pound ayear and that he have deliver to the plaintiff the say farm of sixty  pound ayear the execution be absolute void for the sheriff can deliver more  than a moiety of the defendant land a and therefore the plaintiff may in such  case sue out a fresh writ of execution S c vent S c salk S c Carth S c ld ray  a elegit be sue about eight year before and a return of a extent thereupon a  cro b   roll Abr c cro Elizabeth     Ent d say vide Inst a Edward pl this seem  to hold only where the penal bind be for do a collateral thing and not where  it be for payment of money but vide the case in dyer a that in case of a bind  for payment of money he may plead tender et uncore priest after imparlance  note to the former edition a but upon a elegit the sheriff be not bind to  deliver a moiety of each particular tenement and farm but only certain  tenement c make in value a moiety of the whole den lessee of tailor v the earl  of Abingdon dougl modern report er p file then thus that the defendant be  possess of chattel to such a value which he have take in execution that beside  the defendant be seize of a certain close call a of the yearly value of fifty  pound ayear and of a close call b of the value of five pound ayear and of a  three close of the value of fifty pound ayear and so find by the inquisition  and have no more land or tenement at the time of the judgement or at any time  since that be deliver to the plaintiff the say close of a and c to hold  tanquam libre tenement c all this be file on record the plaintiff never have  enter by virtue of it sue out this special to know facias suggest all this  matter to which the defendant demurrer this case be argue several time by  Cheatham for the defendant and Northey for the plaintiff this term b for the  plaintiff be quote hob that if execution be sue and execute by elegit of land  not extendible by virtue of it yet the execution shall not be thereby mere  void but if the party have any remedy it must be by hearing complaint roll Abr  and he say that though it may be say that such execution be void in some book  that be to be understand it may be avoid or voidable and that ought to be  before fill of the return and be quote Henry c and and Elizabeth where that  word be to be so understand in a Act of parliament and rely on hale opinion  side that such extent of more than a moiety be modern report unavoidable after  return file Inst that a extent once file can be set aside as it may before  fill a examination if the court see occasion Edward pl bro extent Fitzherbert  extent side roll Rep cro a new elegit be grant upon surmise of more land than  be extend but if that have not be surmise upon return of the first a second  elegit will have be mere void vide Henry that after elegit the party can have  a capias or become facias Fitzherbert extent to which it be answer by Northey  that a man judgement ought to be satisfy so a man shall have become facias in  infinitum till the debt be satisfy with this difference that the last must  always recite the former and what be levy by they that the defendant may not  be overcharge and as to elegits be take this difference first if there be any  error not apparent on the face of the return that may be rectify upon  examination before it be file otherwise the fill be conclusive but if the  error be apparent on the record that may be take advantage of at any time as  if office find a man have twenty acre when in truth he have but ten if that be  not avoid before fill the party be without redress if it do not appear on the  face of the return here we be proper this way for if we have bring a writ of  error it will be object that this be a error to our advantage and therefore  not assignable by we and by the rule of authority where one do less than his  authority of entire thing it shall be void for all and if be exceed his  authority it shall be so too and here it appear be exceed his authority by  extend more than a moiety and if we have enter here we shall be find  trespasser in a ejectment because the extent be void in itself and he quote I  side that if more than a moiety be extend it be mere void vent upon the  diversity abovementioned and be conclude by say that if we shall be estopped  to say against the record that the extent be good in trespass or ejectment  against we why may not we say with the record that it be have holt chief  justice if one have judgement for twenty pound and sue elegit and the sheriff  return that he have levy ten pound of his good and chattel and that he have no  land and afterward land come to he the plaintiff shall have a to know facias  to extend those land for it be the extend the land and not the sue the writ  that conclude and there if one sue a modern report elegit against one and  return be make that he have no land he may sue any new execution but if land  to ever so small a value be extend be be thereby conclude if office find a man  have twenty acre when in truth he have but ten and those ten be extend the  execution be good while it stand but he seem to be of opinion be may be  relieve by hearing complaint but if there be two judgement of one hundred  pound each and elegit on b see post a second argument modern report er p one  and inquisition find he have twenty acre and ten of they be extend and then a  elegit be sue upon the other and inquisition find he have twenty acre and  thereupon the other ten acre be extend no hearing complaint lie at which sir b  shower at the bar shake his head whereupon holt chief justice say on his word  it be true and they all agree that if it appear on the record to be void it  may be give in evidence and holt chief justice say it will be hard to avoid it  by hearing complaint for that will pull up all by the root this case be next  argue in another term by sir b shower for the defendant and Cheshire for the  plaintiff shower this sort of execution be not at commonlaw but create by the  statute of Westminster the second c as appear by the statute Inst sir William  Harberts case a the common process be only a become facias or a to lift up so  this statute give a man a liberty of choose to have all his good and chattel  except c and a moiety of land and tenement and when once he determine that  election and the effect thereof appear on record he shall never after betake  himself to a new remedy but if he have judgement upon this he may have any new  execution be please by capias become facias to lift up or elegit which the law  do not allow after election Br elegit after elegit one shall have no other  process Henry roll Abr roll Rep and a elegit be a judgement in its nature for  after he have make this choice it amount to a judgement that be shall have all  his good and chattel and center point terr though there be no form of word  import a award of the court yet the writ issue by virtue of the statute which  tantamounts as if the court have say super quo and therefore he can never be  admit to demand another execution general and here the judgement if any must  be general for the prayer be so and judgement must be accord to the prayer  second they shall not make their prayer to have execution as this be general  to have execution of the rest of their debt but it shall be pursuant to their  suggestion modern report to have a new extent of a moiety or a new elegit for  though they will have the extent void because more than a moiety yet the fault  of the extent can avoid the prayer of a elegit which have be make therefore he  shall have a new one for the subsequent act of the officer can alter the  plaintiff prayer and they there perhaps will award they one to do now well  what the officer have do ill before three this extent can be suppose void vide  roll Abr pl this very case in point that extent be not void but voidable by  hearing complaint vide cro per Popham if it appear that the plaintiff have  extent by former elegit which he accept he can have a new elegit and if he  take one it will be void but upon a surmise of more or less land upon the  return of the first be may have a new elegit and as to its be void or voidable  be quote hob roll Abr there be many case where extent shall be void as if a  stranger land be extend but the extent be of the defendant land and if there  be any wrong it be to he and not to the plaintiff   if conusee enter before  any return of execution he be a good tenant though the common way be to bring  ejectment yet if the plaintiff enter he have a good title against everybody  till debt be satisfy so they may enter and hold here after this return and if  we have bring a hearing complaint it will only avoid the surplusage quod holt  chief justice to say no for he say it will avoid all and make he account for  the mean profit in Dawson v Jefferson a a venire facias to try a issue the  jury find more than be put in issue and void only for surplusage and a new  venire facias shall not go for where a authority be exceed all shall not be  void but only the excess but where the sheriff have no authority at all it be  not so as where he extend land of a stranger and a new elegit they can have  for land only and they have all his good already and no suggestion that he  have any since he conclude that there a   a keb modern report er p be no  judicial opinion against he for I vent be only a say upon motion and that keb  be but the same case and that none will dispute but the defendant may have a  hearing complaint here which show the extent be not mere void Cheshire contra  the first execution be void for the elegit by the statute be a new authority  to the sheriff which modern report by rule of authority ought to be pursue  strict or else what be do upon it be void notwithstanding the favour the law  give to execution if the sheriff have extend all the defendant land that have  be mere void because he have exceed his authority and that he do by extend  anything more as well as by extend all vent office f sheriff Edward Br elegit  of two acre the sheriff may extend one or of two manor one if they be of equal  value but a void act be not capable of a to greater extent et minus a Act of  parliament introductive of a new law in the affirmative be negative of what be  not express therein blow hob so have the construction be make upon another  branch which empower the sheriff to take all the party good and chattel except  averia caruc and if he take they trespass will lie against he Inst elegit lie  not against a infant though there be no exception of infancy in the statute  because the privilege of infancy shall not be take away by affirmative word so  if trespass lie for take averia caruc because of the exception of the statute  this be a affirmative law c be the same as if there be a exception of a moiety  where there be any matter dehors which may avoid the extent that must be  complain of before return file or by hearing complaint because the fact may be  controvert but where it appear on record of the return file it be a felon de  see and needs no more to show it ill do as if judgement be that the sheriff  shall extend more than la moiety it will be ill as for the case of row v week  a there be no reason give for it and a man may be over cautious and bring  hearing complaint without necessity vide hetl light Rep to this purpose it be  object that we have accept this extent and have acquiesce for nine year I  answer that depend upon this whether the extent be void or voidable if only  voidable it be against I if void that must be absolute void or void or  voidable at election if void or voidable our acceptance make it good if  absolute void as I contend it be no act or acceptance of we can help it as  vide Inst a thing may be make good by confirmation if tenant in tail make a  lease not warrant by the statute it be void or voidable at the election of the  issue but this be not a imperfect conveyance of a interest but we say a void  execution of a modern report process of law which we can no more make good  than we can make a good one void if no land be extend upon a elegits it be  only in nature of a to know facias vide hob where above and if we be bind by  acceptance of more than a moiety they ought to be so too for it be absurd we  shall be tie and they lose and by this argument acceptance of the whole will  be good a deed indeed may be good against one and void against another good  against one self and void as to privy as deed of non compos be good against  himself and void against heir executor c but the reason of that be a  particular maxim in law that a person of full age shall not stultify himself  but that case be not like we which can better be compare to inferior  jurisdiction as in case of proceed in the Marshalsea where they have not  jurisdiction he may against his own suit say that they be void cro more  prohibition to stay the party own suit and yet there jurisdiction may be make  Vernon case b if jointure be make for life of husband remainder to another for  life remainder to wife for life for her jointure though he in remainder die  live husband and that after the husband life the wife enter it be not thereby  make a good jointure because at first create it be not a good jointure if a  person qualify to keep two chaplain retain three and one of they die before  any of they be advance to a benefice yet none of the other two be qualify for  a plurality because of the original ill retainer be not pursuant to the  authority of the statute c if a bishop make a lease for four life and one of  the life expire bishop die big successor shall avoid it though it have all the  qualification except a legal commence a Danv Abr b   c   modern report er p  mean but that exceed the authority give by statute it be void for all d the  dean put his seal to a lease without the consent of the major part of the  chapter but they assent to it after yet it be void e if after the statute of  Henry he in reversion release to alienee of wife without his consent the  release be void because it appear not of record if upon the statute of Acton  Burnell land be extend at too high a rate the conusee may pray that extender  may take they at that rate and pay he and thereupon the sheriff may deliver  the land to the extenders a but there the party modern report must make his  challenge at the first day of return because he have a election to except or  take the land b we can be estopped here because a void act can work a estoppel  Henry hard No record estops if the court have not jurisdiction and every  estoppel be reciprocal Inst estoppels must either bind both or neither so if  they be not bind if we shall bring a ejectment we can be bind now holt chief  justice upon the argument now say that what stick with he most be the  acceptance and length of time for the sheriff return that he have deliver the  land in execution which import a acceptance and now be come to avoid his  acceptance after so long time and where one come to disapprove a extent upon a  statutemerchant be must say that he have not accept so here why shall be not  come and show that more than a moiety be extend and if the sheriff will return  to set free parti where be refuse to accept a action will lie against he for a  false return and though it be a rule that thing Self facto void can be make  good by acceptance yet it be not without exception as if tenant in tail make a  lease to commence in going to be and die before the day and the lessee enter  the issue in tail may have trespass against he or be may by acceptance make it  good if tenant in tail make a lease to commence in going to be and afterward  make a feoff in fee and the lease commence the feoff may avoid it or make it  good by acceptance if a tenant in tail of a rend grant it in fee it be void by  his death but if the issue affirm it to be good and bring a formedon be may be  bar by warranty if the land of one purchaser be extend and the land of another  purchaser omit if he who land be extend bring hearing complaint be shall avoid  the whole and there be two writ in such case the one a hearing complaint the  other only for contribution and be say the case in Brownlow may be good or  have law as it be put for if there be two judgement and the defendant be seize  of twenty acre and a moiety of they be extend upon one and a extent go upon  the other and inquisition thereupon find he seize of twenty acre without any  notice of the former extent and hereupon the other moiety be extend this be  well though in truth a moiety of the remain moiety ought to be extend and if  the land of one purchaser only be extend the plaintiff have no remedy yet the  defendant have remedy by hearing complaint and will make the plaintiff modern  report account to he for all the mean profit if there be two bind joint and  several in a bind and one of they be sue first and judgement be against he and  the other be sue and judgement likewise against he the first be take in  execution and after elegit against the other whereupon his land be extend the  first shall be discharge upon hearing complaint Pratt sergeant in Trinity term  after argue for the defendant and hall sergeant for the plaintiff Pratt argue  that the extent be not mere void and that if it be void or voidable at  election it be only so at the election of the defendant and not of the  plaintiff and this be a just debt which the defendant must pay one time or  other he may think it a advantage to have more than a moiety of his land  extend for that the encumbrance may be the soon discharge and that this be  agreeable to the reason of the law in other case as in case of a infant who  want understanding to contract can by any act of his bind himself except for  necessary yet he may make a lease reserve rend which though void absolute yet  because possible it may be for his advantage he may allow of it when he come  of age or he may have trespass against lessee for entry or bring debt for the  rend and make it good d   e Davis Rep a bro Abr judgement b yearbook Edward pl  more modern report er p Edward a a b a where in trespass the lessee justify as  lessee of plaintiff who reply nonage in he at time of lease make and adjudge  he may have trespass or debt for the rend so of a sale of good by a infant he  may have trespass for the take or debt upon the contract and it be make a qure  if a infant sell a horse and take the money for he whether he shall have  trespass but if a infant make a feoff and livery it be not void but voidable  but if the livery be not by his own hand it be void so if a feme covert make a  lease it be void but if she join with her husband in a lease of her land it be  at her election after her husband death to affirm or avoid it because it may  be for her advantage so here it may by possibility be for the advantage of the  defendant to have more than a moiety extend therefore he ought to have the  election to affirm this extent or not and this rule hold even upon  construction upon act of parliament as by the statute de gift there be a  express disability upon the donee or issue from alienate to bar the issue and  a tenant in tail have no more power to make a lease to bind the land after his  death than the sheriff to extend more than a moiety by this statute yet if a  tenant in tail make such a lease his issue modern report may make it good if  he please because it may possible be for his advantage so to do and a  successor may make a lease good not warrant by the disable statute of queen  Elizabeth it be object that the sheriff have but a bare authority which he  must pursue strict otherwise his act be entire void and what be altogether  void can be make good by any subsequent agreement as in pennant case a a lease  for year with condition upon nonpayment of rend at a day certain to be void no  subsequent acceptance will make such a lease good which case I agree to be law  for there the lessor have make his election by demand the rend without which  the lease have not be void and since by his own act videlicet the demand he  have make the lease void there be no reason that after by another contrary act  he shall make it good another case be where a tenant in tail make lease  reserve rend and die without issue he in remainder can by acceptance make it  good which case I agree to be law but not like this for the rend reserve which  be the recompense can go to he in remainder for want of privity and so it can  be suppose for his advantage to have power to affirm the lease nor be the case  of a tenant at will more like for the lease be at will of both party and by  consequence must necessary determine upon either party cease to have a will of  continue it and in many case where one enter by colour of authority without  any right yet if it be for the good of he that have right he may make that  colourable right or act good as if one enter upon a infant he may charge he as  guardian or bring seize at his pleasure if a man receive my rend I may charge  he as seize or have account against he a so in a account for money receive to  the plaintiff use the defendant shall not be admit to say that he be a  wrongdoer and therefore that such a action will not lie against he so if one  enter into a office he shall be look upon as bailiff of the right owner if he  please for if he to who a wrong be do will take it as no wrong the wrongdoer  shall not have power to hinder himself from be charge as one have lawful title  or authority and his own acceptance be so bind that though it be all evict  after yet he have no remedy Inst and to fortify the acceptance he put the case  where a man take a lease of his own land it be good against he and he shall  pay rend modern report because of his acceptance by deed so here it appear  that he have accept of record hall sergeant contra divide the case into two  point first whether a elegit return and file here shall be a bar of a new  elegit second if it be not whether the to know facias to have a new execution  be good as to the first that the new elegit be void the sheriff have exceed  his authority for he say all authority whether judicial or ministerial or  private by one person to another must be pursue for when one have no right to  do a thing but by a derivative power he must show he have pursue his power and  especial if the thing to be do be entire and more be do than warrant by the  power all be void and here the sheriff have no power to extend more than a  moiety vide Edward a under the title of Harvey v Oswald more cro Elizabeth   a  bro Abr account modern report er p a if the court of common plea hold plea of  murder it be mere void Edward Kelway dyer b a citation in the admiralty for a  cause arise within the body of the county a suit in the Marshalsea where  neither party be of the hostel sir I Davis   case of Marshalsea march and as  to private authority he quote Inst c cro car leo   blow hard if commissioner  of excise act beyond their commission they cease to be officer pro tunc so the  sheriff here exceed the power give by writ what he have do be just as if he  have have no writ at all Edward Henry brown for elegit and other process after  elegit and the whole void because exceed authority cro Elizabeth elegit return  extent but he can not deliver they because they be in execution upon prior  extent and thereupon the party take a capias and on debate hold no supersedeas  ought to go because otherwise be can not have present fruit of his judgement  so in like manner here it appear we can have do benefit of the elegit for if  we enter upon this extent we be trespasser Edward side keb and he quote hob if  a plaintiff take a elegit and can have no fruit of it he may take any other  execution or have debt upon the judgement and the statute never mean to  defraud the plaintiff of a just debt and he insist on the diversity before  mention where upon the face of the return it appear that more than a moiety be  extend and where not which reconcile all the book I side Inst vent keb Litt  Rep modern report and as to the objection that the to know facias be general  to have execution when it shall be special to have a new writ of elegit  pursuant to the first election he say it be better as it be for if the court  shall be of opinion to give judgement for execution general they can not do it  if the writ be special as they may do as it be and that on the other hand they  may give a special judgement on this general writ for the writ recite the  whole matter and pray convenient remedy which the court will give secundum to  throw under means it be object that one shall not assign for error that which  be for his advantage and that be a true rule accord to Beechers case a sand  bendl one shall not say his declaration be have to save cost and the reason be  because then one will take advantage of his own wrong to the prejudice of  another but this be wrong of the sheriff and the error we assign be a ease to  the defendant to have but a moiety of his land extend the case in roll Abr p  be indeed the strong case against I there it do appear upon the return that  more than a moiety be extend and yet the book say the defendant can avoid it  but by hearing complaint but to that I answer first that it must be intend  that the plaintiff have enter by virtue of the extent for the book be the  plaintiff entry be no seize and it may be then after actual entry the  defendant be put to hearing complaint but here a entry can be suppose because  we say execution remain to be make second the writ of hearing complaint must  have be bring by the defendant but we be plaintiff and no such writ lie for we  three if it have appear to the court only by affidavit that more than a moiety  be extend it will be hard to relieve even upon hearing complaint because of  the danger of avoid a record by affidavit fourthly this case be not find in  any other book it be also object that the return of a delivery to we amount to  a acceptance and entry by we but I answer that every acceptance or  satisfaction imply two thing first good authority in he that give the  satisfaction second consent of he to who it be give in satisfaction to receive  it in satisfaction but here appear no acceptance by we and the sheriff do not  return that he deliver we the possession and he urge the case in dyer pl where  execution be sue by executor of conusee and the death of the conusor return  and that modern report be die seize of the manor of Brodley without show of  what estate and after liberate thereupon and a return of service thereof and  that the executor have accept thereof and hold that the first execution be  void and that a new extent shall go vide cro Elizabeth holt chief justice sure  delivery imply a acceptance and he say it have be very proper to come and  oppose the fill and he say that delivery in this be a   modern report er p as  complete a possession as be give upon a to have facias seisinam upon a  recovery to use for that possession be not actual but only such as vest the  right in the plaintiff and make the other continue in a wrongdoer whereupon he  may bring his ejectment and we ought to intend a actual entry if disturbance  appear not and the estate of tenant by elegit determine without more ado upon  levy of the money by effluxion of time if eviction or expulsion appear not and  at commonlaw if land of one purchaser only have be extend he may have avoid  the extent yet it be good against the plaintiff till avoid but be conclude  that he think the extent be void but doubt only upon the acceptance and he  agree if the extent be void and the plaintiff enter by virtue of it he will be  a trespasser and that the party can aver against the sheriff return at last it  be argue in Hilary term in the thirteenth year of William the three by Cowper  for the defendant and honeyed wine for the plaintiff upon the single point of  acceptance Cowper it be agree that prayer of a elegits and a entry thereof on  record be no bar of another execution because the bare take out the writ be  not the election for though elegit be take out and good take in execution upon  it and no land extend this do not conclude from take out a new execution and  this Hobart himself who will carry the matter very far do agree and this  appear by the statute of Henry c before which if land in execution have be  evict the plaintiff have no remedy but now that statute give to know facias to  have execution of the residue and he conclude from thence that if this to know  facias lie not upon the statute it will lie not at all before and since that  statute one may have several writ of elegits but they must be the same  continue execution for a mark can have two writ of elegits to execute one  first and then another but they must be one continue execution as a alias and  pluries upon nil return upon the first be may have a second which be a  continuance of the first Henry Br elegit a elegit may go upon modern report a  testatum into another county or upon a alias testatum into the same county but  there the plaintiff must come into the court and have a entry make c cro  Elizabeth one may have several elegits into several county but that still be  but one execution raze a petit Separalia short catalog but once elegit be  return execute if the party do not immediate come and except to it it be final  cro James roll Rep S that take extent of land upon a elegit be like take a  lease for year in satisfaction of your debt so that the extent be a  satisfaction in law Edward ass pl that there may be a reextent for the  plaintiff as for the defendant but hold it must be when he come at the return  of the writ and show reason before it be file so be Edward pl conusee after  return file pray the extenders shall take the land accord to the statute of  Acton Burnell but the court tell he he be too late for the sheriff have return  that he have accept the land Fitzherbert extent Edward land be extend twice  and the conusor can have no remedy because he do not come at the first day  more roll Abr cro Elizabeth he say be for he it be a sale of a term by virtue  of a second elegit after a former return and file and hold that the second be  only voidable at most but more say that if it appear that the land upon the  first elegit have be extend and accept and that after he take a new elegit and  extend other land it be utter void for upon return of the first on record the  plaintiff be out of court and Popham in cro say super quo the plaintiff come  videlicet at the return of the writ and the word such be remarkable in the  report of the case in more but it be object that in none of the case aforesaid  it appear on the very return that more than a moiety be extend sure it will  not be pretend this extent be so great a nullity as if no elegit have be sue  out at all or but a become facias for here be good in execution by it which  can not be but upon this writ for upon elegit the good be to be appraise and  deliver to the plaintiff himself upon a become facias they be to be sell and  the money to be give to the plaintiff and here the execution be regular award  and extent return and accept and acquiescence of nine year and if the extent  be void they be seize and the case in roll Abr be full that the plaintiff will  not be a seize in this case which prove that this be not a void extent Edward  pl Edward pl conusee of statute modern report modern report er p merchant take  a extent return of part of the conusors land and after pray a new extent but  per curian he be too late after acceptance Br elegiac verses pl one can to  execution of elegit after acceptance beside it must be intend the plaintiff be  satisfy by perception of the profit all this while for it can be intend he  receive they to the use of the defendant and if he be satisfy no matter bow  for if he have accept a lease for year in satisfaction it will be well if one  have judgement against two and one make satisfaction it be enough a strong he  can have it against one twice then it be for the advantage of the defendant  that but one moiety be only extendible and who to be able renunciare law pro  see introduce why then may not the defendant here have the liberty to make  this extent good rather than be put to his action for the mean profit against  the plaintiff which must be the consequence of the case though sixpence above  the value be extend if the whole extent be therefore void but it be object  that it do not appear the plaintiff ever enter or take the profit for the  actual possession be not in he by the extent but his only way to get it be by  ejectment which he can not maintain upon this return it be not accord to the  statute to this I answer that the plaintiffby the extent have the legal estate  in he and it will be a wrong in the defendant to continue in after and a  ejectment be not necessary but to gain a quiet possession against such wrong  which not appear shall not be presume but rather the contrary for the law will  intend everybody innocent till the contrary appear honeyed wine argue much as  other have do before he and upon the same principle per curian without the  solemnity of argument on the bench this clear be a void extent it appear on  the very return file that more than a moiety be extend and without all doubt  what be extend beyond a moiety be without authority and therefore void and  since that can be sever from the rest it spoil all and be the same thing as if  nothing at all have be extend and though the plaintiff do accept it yet he  have no mean to get actual possession or to defend his possession against the  owner of the land and so it be Self facto void and needs no judgement or  hearing complaint to avoid it because it be direct against the statute of  Westminster the second c by which a elegit be give and the right diversity be  where the inequality appear on modern report the return and where not so that  the to know facias recite this special matter be very proper and a award of  execution be grant per totan curian