case warren against Consett nil debet be no good plea to a action of debt on a  penalty S c ante S c post S c stram S c ld ray S c prac Reg S c bar this be a  writ of error on a judgement in the common plea in anaction of debt for a  penalty in not perform a agreement to receive and pay so much f or a transfer  of stock c the defendant plead nil debet to which plea the plaintiff demurrer  and have judgement for that nil debet be no good plea and that be now the only  question it be argue by reeve for the plaintiff in error that the plea be good  it be true it be not so in a action of debt on a bind because the debt be  immediate due but it be otherwise in a action for a penalty because the  plaintiff can not demand it as a debt or duty for it be not so without lie  some fact antecedent to his demand to entitle himself to this action and that  must be something dehors the deed to support the demand for there be a  difference between a bind for performance of article where the condition  appear in the very body of the bind and a obligation which have a defeasance  or condition in it not in the body of the obligation for in this last case a  man may have a action on the obligation without set forth any matter dehors to  entitle he thereunto and in such case nil debet be no good plea for the  obligation must be avoid by matter of as high a nature and the defendant be  estopped by the deed to say nothing be due but it be otherwise in the first  case for there the debt be not due prima fancy on the deed but for not do some  other collateral act the case follow be cite to show this to be the constant  difference videlicet that wherever the debt arise by matter collateral to the  lie it be a good plea because there arise no estoppel by the deed when matter  of fact and record be mix the party be not bind to plead nul tiel record in a  action of debt against modern report er p a sheriff or gaoler for a escape of  one in execution sand a though the plaintiff must declare on the judgement nil  debet be a good plea and so it be to a action of debt on the statute Edward  wonder for not set out tithe cro car b and so it be to a action of debt on  modern report a judgement against a executor upon suggest a devastavit Hutton  c because the devastavit be a matter en pais triable so say by holt chief  justice in the case of barrett v Andrews it be agree on the other side that  nil debet be a good plea where the action be find on a collateral matter and  not comprise in the deed and these be case of daily experience as in action of  debt for rend reserve on a lease by deed and in action of escape and in all  act find on act of parliament but the action in the principal case be entire  depend on the deed and absolute find on the obligation therein by which the  defendant bind himself in such a penalty which be a obligation to all intent  and purpose but where the lie arise on the deed itself there nil debet be no  good plea though matter of fact be aver and wherever a action of debt be bring  on a obligation for payment of money it must be aver that the debt be not pay  which be matter of fact and yet in such case nil debet be no good plea but  wherever the plaintiff declare on a fact collateral unto and not arise within  the deed there it be a good plea but it be a general rule that nil debet be no  good plea to any action find on a specialty or on a record and it will be of  very ill consequence if it shall and particular in this case for then the  plaintiff must not only prove that this deed be execute but he must also prove  the time of the open the book the register the contract the tender make by he  to transfer and the refusal of the defendant to accept c and to pay the money  and after all this hardship if nil debet shall be a good plea to a specialty  for so this obligation be the defendant may surprise the plaintiff by give a  release in evidence or by prove the obligor be not compos chin at the time of  make this obligation and such difficulty may make person defend their cause  where there be no colour of defence but only some hope that the plaintiff may  fail in prove some of those thing therefore the law will not admit of such  complicate issue but will always have the issue a single point if possible and  for that very reason will never permit a man to plead the general issue to a  specialty beside the vast difference this issue may make of cost at the trial  which probable may be swell from ten pound which may be competent cost upon  non be factum to a hundred pound upon such a complicate issue as nil debet  this plea contradict the deed and therefore ought not to be allow more than  nil to have in property in a action of modern report debt for rend reserve  upon a indenture which be never yet allow to which it be answer that though  there be some ingenuity to affirm that where the fact on which a action be  find be continue and appear in the deed itself there nil debet be no good plea  yet a bare affirmation without any one authority to support it will be of no  force the court take time to give judgement because the court of common plea  be unanimous in their judgement see post a