case silly against dally in a avowry whenever title be make under a particular  estate the commencement of it and the original whence derive must be set forth  in plead S c salk S c comb S c Carth S c holt S c ld ray S c brown p c cro car  Yelv Lutw Mod replevin the defendant make conusance as bailiff to I t for that  long before I t grandfather of the present I t be possess for five hundred  year commence from the thirty of July of a certain message and fourteen acre  call Treleage in the parish of saint brago and also of another message and  fortyfour acre call trevanion in the modern report same parish of which last  mention tenement the place where be parcel and that be so possess on the first  of August he lease for four hundred and ninetynine year three quarter of a  year two month and three week to a b reserve sixteen pound per annum that the  grandfather be possess of this reversion of a term make his will and make I t  father of the present I t and jane his wife executor joint and residuary  legatee that jane die and John survive that I die and make the present I t his  executor as bailiff to who he make conusance for the sixteen pound rend arrear  the plaintiff demurrer because it be not say how the grandfather be seize or  who make that long lease and the estate not set out of which the lease be  derive for whensoever the defendant in a avowry set out a title in a  particular estate he must show from who the estate be derive I Inst b cro  savage v Hawkins Yelv Witham v Barker cro Skevill v Avery per curium it be  true that if the lessor bring debt for rend against the lessee or assignee he  need only say quod cum to send different ways without show his estate but a  avowry be different from a count in this as well as in other case a for if you  declare in debt for rend there one plea go to the whole declaration as nothing  debet do but no general plea go to the whole avowry if in this case you have  set forth a seize in fee in some one who make the lease to I t it have be very  proper to have traverse the seize in fee but instead of a seize you have  allege a possession and there never be see such a traverse as without hoc  possessionat to be beside wheresoever you set forth a particular estate you  must show the original from whence it be derive if you have the seize in fee  it be sufficient to allege that general because that give he a good title  against all man except the disseizee but now particular estate be not frame by  the law but by contract and therefore you must show what that contract be and  how it come to be make if it be carve out of a estate that be able to support  it and therefore because the original estate be not set out from whence this  particular estate be derive the avowry be ill a by the statute Geo ch S  defendant in replevin may avow or make cognizance general that the plaintiff  in replevin or other tenant of the land and tenement whereon the distress be  make enjoy the same under a grant or demise at such a certain rend during the  time wherein the rend distrain for incur which rend be then and still remain  due or that the place where the distress be take be parcel of such certain  tenement hold of such tenure c for which tenement the rend c be at the time of  the distress and still remain due without further set forth the grant tenure  demise or title of such landlord c modern report er p and judgement for the  plaintiff b in this case be cite the case of Harris v Parker vent which be  debt for rend on a demise by the plaintiff to the defendant the defendant  plead that the plaintiff nothing to have in property the plaintiff reply that  he be possess of a lease of fortyone year make to he by the Lord W who have  full power to modern report demise and though the judgement be reverse for a  fault in the declaration yet the replication be hold good without set forth a  title which holt chief justice say be true and that in that case it be not  necessary to set out a title for nothing to have in property be the issue for  if the defendant plead nothing to have in property the plaintiff may reply  quod satis to have in property videlicet in fee or any other estate on the  trial whereof he may give any other estate in evidence the allege any  particular estate be only form the issue be whether he have anything in the  premise it be also say by holt chief justice that the case of Witham v Barker  a be a hard case