case coombs against the hundred OF Bradley if a servant have money in his  possession to the use of his master be rob thereof the servant may maintain a  action against the hundred and declare that he be rob of his own money S c  comb S c holt S c Mod S c salk the case upon the plead be thus a action be  bring upon the statute of Winton for that upon the threeandtwentieth day of  February will mary certain malefactor to the plaintiff unknown do assault he  at Hampnot in the hundred of Bradley in the county of Gloucester and rob he of  S d of his own money whereof he immediate give notice at Northleach within the  say hundred and near the place where he be rob and that none of the thief be  take upon not guilty plead a special verdict be find at the assize the jury  find the assault robbery and take from the plaintiff S d and a mare which  return and that S of the say money be the proper money of Andrew Barker his  master who be not present when the robbery be commit but that the plaintiff  have the same in his possession for the use of his say master and that the  robber be stranger to he and so make a general conclusion the single question  be whether the servant be rob of his master money he be not present may bring  the action against the hundred and declare de denarius nest not common with  others be take away sir Francis winnington hold that the action be well bring  though it appear both by the affidavit and the verdict that it be the money of  the master for it be the usual course in former time for the servant alone to  bring the action and the master seldom or never appear in it the statute of  Edward c be make for the general preservation and quiet of traveller whether  master or servant and therefore either of they may bring the action this be  the opinion of Doderidge and Jones who be learned judge in the case of drop v  their report by Mr latch latch a nay in some case it have be rule that the  master ought not to bring modern er p the action because the servant be the  person modern rob be enjoin by the statute of Elizabeth c to make oath that he  do not know any of the robber cro Elizabeth Leon b a bailiff or receiver of  rend be rob and be declare de denarius Self to express grief and it be hold  good Leon c because he be Accountable to his master which be this very case  wherever the party have a property he may bring the action against the  wrongdoer and this be the reason why a common carrier may sue for good take  from he though not his own but there be a case Brownl d which come yet more  near to this it be a action bring by a servant who be rob of good part of  which belong to his master and the rest to himself and he declare in his own  name against the hundred and have a verdict as to his own and the matter be  find special as to the good of his master yet he have judgement which must be  upon the special find and for these reason and upon these authority he pray  judgement for the plaintiff e contra it be argue that the master ought to  bring the action because it be his money which be lose but for the servant to  declare de denarius nest be not true for he have no property in the money  neither be he answerable for its be take from he this be not like the case of  a common carrier for he have a reward and a recompense for carry the good of  other man and therefore be responsible for they by law if lose or take from he  which a servant be not if a sheriff levy good by virtue of a become facias  which good be afterward take from he though they be not his owl yet he may  maintain all action of trover sand a and the reason be because by the seizure  he have a property in they by law but a servant have no manner of property in  the money or good of his master and therefore if rob whether his master be  present or absent for that make no alteration in the case the master who have  the property must bring the action thus it be adjudge in the case of Raimund v  the hundred of WokingCro car b the servant make the oath and the master bring  the action and resolve so it ought to be and upon a writ of error bring in the  king bench that judgement be affirm so it be like wise in that very case of  drop v their latch c cite on the other side videlicet the servant lodge in a  inn and his master good be lose who bring the action and though it modern be  say by Doderidge and Jones that the servant may have a appeal of robbery yet  it seem to be only a sudden opinion of those judge for the law be otherwise  videlicet that the servant can bring all appeal and in the same case report by  Popham justice Poph d Jones justice be of another opinion videlicet that if  the servant be rob the master shall bring the action in green caseCro  Elizabeth Leon e the servant be rob and the master bring the action and have  recover a verdict but because the oath be make by he and not by the servant  who be rob the judgement be stay for he may know some of the robber though his  master do not in Tracey v veal cro James f a man by   letter get money out of  the servant hand and the master bring a action on the case for the deceit and  in the same term in the case of beedle v morris cro Elizabeth g the servant be  rob in a inn the master bring the action and have judgement which be affirm  afterward in the exchequer Chamber   Ent h so where the master be present when  his servant be rob yet the master bring the action against the hundred Yelv I  and likewise where a postboy be rob in the presence of the owner of the good  and be bring the action style a these and many more case may be bring to prove  that it have be the constant opinion that the master ought to bring the action  where the servant have be rob then as to the possession it be not at all  material to support the action bring by the servant for it be the property  only which be to be consider and for this purpose a late case be cite which be  between Pinkney and the inhabitant of the easthundred in Rutland sand b the  plaintiff bring a action upon the statute of Winton and declare for the take  from he of twentynine pound de money not common with others and likewise for  other good take out of his possession and upon a demurrer to the declaration  it be hold that the action be not well bring for modern er p the good take out  of his possession the plaintiff do not show the particular of the good nor  that they be his own good and that be the reason of the judgement as to the  good sand c and therefore as to they a to let go back financial loss be enter  and he have judgement for his money which show that the bare possession  without a property be not regard Adjournatur afterward the plaintiff have  judgement by the opinion of the whole court and that in this case either the  master or the servant may maintain the action michaelmas term the six of  William and mary in the king and queen bench sir John holt Knt chief justice  sir William Gregory Knt sir Giles eyres Knt sir Samuel eyres Knt justice sir  Edward ware Knt attorneygeneral sir Thomas Trevor Knt solicitor general