case fowl against bridge Michaelmas term will mary roll a writ of error do not  abate by the death of one of the defendant but a cognizant fa ad to hear shall  go to his executor to know facias bring by the plaintiff on a judgement  recover by he and Mr nightingale since dead against bridge the defendant plead  that the plaintiff and nightingale recover and the defendant bring a writ of  error which be yet depend the plaintiff demurrer I urge for the plaintiff that  the writ be abate because of the death of one of the defendant but by holt  chief justice it be no abatement if both die for a to know facias may be sue  against the executor and they make party and so that be overrule a then I urge  that the to know facias be of a judgement on a suit per billam in cur our men  and their writ of error be of a judgement in a certain speech in person James  recently ring c that this be a variance which always quash the writ of error  as in the case of Dighton v Greenvil b this exception move and they dare not  depend on it but have bring a new writ of error so be the case of stride v  Osborn c error on judgement in the common plea direct to Herbert of a  judgement in person thou et associate you and the placita be in person  Bedingfield then after issue there be ail entry of beddingfields death and a  to go below of Herbert and hold ill though urge that the proceed till  judgement be placita for that all refer to placita at first though in two  reign here it be per billam in curian our men the book be plain in it  certiorari to remove a record in curian our men which be in cur predecessoris  hold ill dyer roll Abr be several case it shower KB be no objection to say  that it may be a supersedeas though no record be remove as in case of a  transcript out of Ireland it be not accord to march Rep that be on a  particular reason because of the peril of the sea and the writ there shall  have the same effect as another here but suppose a writ of error at Ireland on  another judgement they may proceed below because no writ of error in that  cause if judgement be by default and such writ as this bring and a reversal no  judgement can here be give upon such reversal because not the same cause it be  hard to imagine that a writ which can have no effect shall be a supersedeas  suppose a writ of error in the exchequer Chamber a by will c if there be two  or more plaintiff or defendant and one or more of they shall die and the cause  of action survive the action shall not abate but the death be suggest on the  roll the survive party may proceed b ante Carth Mod vent c ante comb holt  shower KB er p on a action here where it lie not as in suit by original appeal  of felony or the like that can never be a supersedeas it be true allowance of  a writ of error be a supersedeas but it must be in the same cause then for  their averment of identity that can help it because make against the record  and for these reason we have judgement for the plaintiff note as to abatement  by death the law seem plain that the death of one plaintiff in a writ of error  abate the writ as be the case of holland v Jackson Bridgm d the case of earl  of Rutland Yelv in case of error here in judgement in the common plea death of  the defendant do not abate the writ accord to the case of Bromley v Littleton  Yelv e error here on judgement in the common plea in dower the defendant in  error die the plaintiff sue two to know facias and two nihils return against  the executor and then proceed to examine error and hold that he may do so and  the executor be thereby make a party but to I it seem otherwise in case of the  exchequer Chamber for there accord to march the record remain here  notwithstanding error in the exchequer Chamber otherwise on error here in the  common plea beside no record that be remove into this court be ever remand the  exchequer have no record there but only a transcript there be only a authority  as it be by commission between those party f and so be burnet v fox Keble a  affidavit of death of one of the defendant in error in the exchequer Chamber  the court will do nothing in it but the executor sue a to know facias and have  judgement and execution and so be to burn v Humbston Keble the defendant in  error in the exchequer die a to know facias to executor be deny as for a delay  and the difference allow between this court and the exchequer for in one the  record be actual remove and in the shower KB other there be only a commission  and that be between the party and no other but in the case of bow v paulet  more pl g the defendant in error in the exchequer Chamber die after in nullo  be error plead and yet they proceed to reversal without a new writ de think  over quod in person we c and in that case in Hilary term car in the king bench  Keble restitution be grant upon motion on a execution sue after death of the  defendant in error because per curian no abatement but to know facias ought  and may have be to executor