case lushington on the demise of Godfrey against dose a defendant in ejectment  who bring a writ of error must give bail to pay the plaintiff his cost but  need not enter into a recognizance himself SC barn the plaintiff have  judgement in ejectment and the defendant three tenant in possession and one  owner of the inheritance bring a writ of error and become bind with two surety  in a recognizance to the plaintiff to pay he his cost and damage modern er p  if judgement be affirm but do not give their own recognizance as the statute  car c direct in the case of dower and ejectment upon which it be move that the  plaintiff below may be at liberty to take out execution on his judgement for  that the writ of modern error without such recognizance enter into accord to  that statute be no supersedeas wright sergeant show cause against the motion  and cite the case of barn v Bulmer Carth a that the plaintiff in error need  not give his own recognizance but that bail be sufficient and also cite lev  Mod SC to show that where the judgement will not make he liable there neither  will his recognizance as if the defendant in error shall die before the writ  of enquiry execute this will be a discharge as to the cost and damage  notwithstanding the recognizance and that it will be very inconvenient if  plaintiff in error in ejectment who for the most part be tenant in the country  shall be oblige to come up from remote part of the kingdom as they must do in  order to give their recognizance in court draper sergeant in support of the  motion urge the statute itself which say express that no judgement after  verdict shall be stay in any writ of dower or ejectment unless the plaintiff  in error be bind and say nothing about bail in this case for that be mention  in a different clause relate to personal action only will chief justice the  statute James c first oblige the plaintiff in error to give bail but that be  only in action of debt be extend by the Act of car now in question to all  personal action whatever dower and ejectment be mix action therefore they be  put in a distinct and separate clause and have no relation to what the former  part of the statute direct concern bail so that consider the bare word of the  statute the plaintiff in error own recognizance be necessary and give bail be  not sufficient but I believe it be not foresee by the legislature that upon  all recognizance on writ of error the party must come up to town and be bind  though the ejectment be of never such a trivial value for our commission under  the statute will mary c for take bail in the country do not extend to writ of  error and this will be very inconvenient where the person life a great  distance off the other reason seem likewise material that bail be a better  security at least in most case than the plaintiff owl recognizance if not in  this particular instance so that the intent of the statute be satisfy though  not the express word I think we ought to adhere to the practice in this case  which be that the plaintiff in error be only to give bail and the court be all  of this opinion the motion be deny