case MENDYKE against stint refer to Frith v guppy lr c p in all action on the  case in the sheriff court if the declaration allege that the cause of action  arise within the jurisdiction of the court when in fact it do not and the  plaintiff neglect to plead to the jurisdiction the court will not grant  aProhibition after verdict and judgement give against he ante prohibition be  pray to the sheriff court of London the suggestion be that the plaintiff be  sue in that court in a action on the case and set forth the proceed at large  that there be a verdict against he there and aver that the contract upon which  he be sue there in fact be make in Middlesex and so the cause of action do not  arise within their modern jurisdiction and upon demurrer to the prohibition  Pemberton argue first that a prohibition do lie to any court as well temporal  as spiritual where such court exceed their bind for both those jurisdiction be  unite to the imperial crown it may be grant to the duchy court if they hold  plea of land not parcel of the duchy second though the jury have here find  that the defendant assumpsit modus elformd yet such find as to time and place  be not material nor be it any estoppel in a new action lie in another county  to aver that it be for the same thing it be true both time and place may be  make material by plead and so it have be in this case if the jury have find  the place precise for it will have be a estoppel the verdict therefore be  nothing and all they have do be in person non judge the case of squib v hold a  any a be cite as a authority in point where it be adjudge no escape in the  officer to let a man at liberty who be in execution upon a bind sue in a  inferior court the bind not be make within the jurisdiction thereof but  Maynard dolben goodfellow and simpson sergeant contra they agree that where it  appear by the plaintiff libel that the court have no jurisdiction there modern  er p a prohibition lie at any time but if what be in the declaration be lie  infrajurisdic tionem there the party must plead extra jurisdiction and if they  refuse to plead to the plea a prohibition will lie after sentence but here be  a action on the case bring of which the sheriff court can hold plea and which  be lie to be infra jurisdiction and not deny by the plaintiff in his plea and  therefore now after verdict and judgement he come too late for a prohibition  and upon this difference prohibition have be usual either grant or deny to the  spiritual court though the court have not cognizance of the cause yet the  proceed be not in person non judge for if it be allege to be within the  jurisdiction and the defendant take no exception to it and then sentence be  give against he he have thereby admit the jurisdiction so where a man sue for  a legacy in the prerogative court where the will be prove and sentence give  and a appeal to the delegate and sentence affirm and then a prohibition grant  but without notice upon the statute of Henry c for that the party live in  another diocese but the plaintiff have allow the jurisdiction in all the  former modern proceed though the prohibition be grant the court will not  compel the party to appear and plead but grant a consultation cro car smith v  the executor of Pondrel in Hilary term in the king bench in the case of spring  v Vernon and in Michaelmas term in car b r Buxtons case and in Hilary term the  car in the same court in the case of Cox v saint Albon prohibition be deny  after the jurisdiction admit by plead the chief justice Wyndham and Atkins  justice upon the first argument incline that a prohibition ought to be grant  because the admittance of the party can give a jurisdiction where original  there be none but afterward they be all of opinion that the prohibition shall  not go but say that the plaintiff in the inferior court ought to have be  nonsuit if it appear upon the evidence that the cause of action do arise extra  jurisdiction and the chief justice and Wyndham justice be of opinion that  after the defendant have admit the jurisdiction by plead to the action  especial if verdict and judgement pass the court will not examine whether the  cause of action do arise out of the jurisdiction or not but Atkins and Scroggs  justice say nothing to this last point but that many time a advantage give by  the law be lose by come too late and instance that a visne may be change in  time but not if thenart come too late so if the time of the promise be lie  above six year from the time of the action bring if the statute of limitation  be not plead the defendant can take afterward advantage of it modern whereupon  a prohibition be deny and judgement be give for the defendant in this case  these thing be agree by the court first that if any matter appear in the  declaration which show that the cause of action do not arise infra  jurisdiction there a prohibition may be grant at any time second if the  subject matter in the declaration be not proper for the judgement and  determination of such court there also a prohibition may be grant at any time  thirdl if the defendant who intend to plead to the jurisdiction be prevent by  any artifice as by give a short day or by the attorney refuse to plead it c or  if his plea be not accept or be overrule in all these case a prohibition  likewise will lie at any time