clxxxv lewen and MODYS case in a replevin bring by lewen doctor of the civil  law against mody who make conusans as bailiff to one fowke and show that  Elizabeth the morrow of the purification a fine be levy between Lovelace and  Rutland plaintiff and the say fowke and other deforceants by which fine the  say deforceants acknowledge the say manor to be the right of the say Lovelace  and Rutland come Ceo c and the say Lovelace and Rutland by the same fine grant  and render to the say fowke a rend of per annum in fee out of the say manor  and for the rend arrear c and the plaintiff in bar of the conusans show that  the say fowke be seize of the say rend grant the same to one Horden c upon  which grant they be at issue and the jury find that the say fowke be seize of  the say rend by indenture recite that whereas a fine be levy between fowke and  other plaintiff and Lovelace and Rutland deforceants as the rest ut above  grant To give back predict to Horden and further find that no other fine  Leonard be levy between the party aforesaid but the say fine and that the  party to the fine be seize of the manor at the time of the fine levy and of no  other land and if this rend so describe by the say indenture shall pass or not  be the question and it be to be observe that the indenture of grant between  fowke and Horden recite a fine of the manor of Coleshall inter alian where the  jury have find that the fine be levy of the say manor only and it be argue by  Shuttleworth that the say rend do not pass to Horden by the say indenture for  the rend describe by the indenture be Leonard er p not the rend which be grant  by the fine and if I let land for year to a and afterward a grant the land  which b hold of I the grant be void as e grant land be give to husband and  wife for their life and the lessor grant the reversion of the land which the  husband hold for life nothing passes walmesley contrary the variance in the  fine shall not avoid the grant for the indenture of the rend agree with the  fine in the term in the year of the reign and in the name of the party to the  fine in the quantity of the rend and in the land charge the only difference be  in the phrase of law deforceant for plaintiff and it be grant that that be but  a matter of circumstance and not of substance snag sergeant contrary and first  be take exception to the verdict for this that a special verdict be give upon  a special absq hoc and the Lord Anderson interrupt he that it be a clear case  that such a verdict upon such a issue may be find and so it be adjudge in the  case between vavasour and doleman Fenner argue as walmesley the grant agree  with the fine in the point of great importance and one falsity shall not  prejudice it where there be so many verity which may induce the court to judge  that the rend grant by the indenture be the rend create b the fine and in a  fine the substance be not who be deforceant who be plaintiff but who be party  to the fine and that some of the party to the fine be seize of the land of  which the fine be levy and if the indenture have be whereas such a rend be  grant by a fine levy between a and b without show who be plaintiff and who  deforceant it have be good enough and although that in this case the plaintiff  and deforceant as misset down yet the same shall not make the grant void for  utile per inutile non to make faulty so if I recite the original grant be make  to I by indenture tripartite between a of the first part b of the second part  and my self of the three part whereas the indenture it self be between my self  of the first part the same be not material c for such a small mistake shall  not avoid the rant so if I by my deed recite that whereas I be possess of  certain land for term of year of the demise of sir Christopher Hatton knight  treasurer of England whereas in truth be be chancellor that mistake of the  dignity shall not prejudice the grant and it be Leonard agree by all the  justice if the say fine have be plead at it be recite in the indenture mistake  the plaintiff and deforceant he who have so plead it have fail of his record  but in the case at bar the recite who be plaintiff who defendant be matter of  surplusage and therefore it shall not hurt the party as Elizabeth dyer a seize  of a house in d which he purchase of though cotton he make a feoff thereof by  these word a house in d late Richard cotton and notwithstanding this variance  it be good enough for the variance be in a thing which be matter of surplusage  and so much the rather because the say a have not another house in d c pasch  Elizabeth in the common plead