case doctor barrow against Andrew grey of the Inner temple easter term  Elizabeth roll a enter into a recognizance to b and then make a feoff of the  land to c who promise to pay b if he will assign the recognizance this be a  good consideration to maintain assumpsit roll ab roll ab and   light    assumpsit and declare whereas one Halshed be seize in fee of certain land in  the county of Hertford and be bind in a reconusance of l to the plaintiff and  feoff the defendant of his land that the defendant in consideration that the  plaintiff shall assign unto he his reconusance assume to pay the plaintiff l  before such a day and allege in fact that he assign over the reconusance c the  defendant plead non assumpsit and a special verdict find that at the time of  the reconusance make Halshed be seize of the land sell to the defendant and  also of a close call Walkley and feoff one hide of the close call Walkley and  the plaintiff release to hide all his right interest and demand in the land  call Walkley and afterward Halshed feoff the defendant and the defendant  assume ett above c and that the plaintiff assign the reconusance to the  defendant et si upon all this matter the assignment of this reconusance he a  sufficient consideration theyfound for the plaintiff croak Elizabeth  Bisi and c and it be now move by snagg and grey himself that this verdict be  find for the defendant first that a consideration to assign a reconusance over  be illegal and maintenance and therefore it be no good consideration because  against law second that by this release of all his right and demand in the  land to hide who have part of the land Chargeable with the reconusance the  entire recoutisance be discharge and then it can not he assign over and that  the assignment over be void and be not any consideration and that a release of  all the right in the land be a discharge of the reconusance although it be  make before execution sue and in proof hereof a precedent be show in the  common plea hide v Morley a where a hearing complaint be bring to avoid the  execution of statute because the conusee by deed show in court have release  unto he be then tenant of the land and purchaser all his right interest and  demand in the land and it be adjudge to be a good cause of discharge but all  the court resolve for the plaintiff in both point and as to the first they  hold that the assignment of a debt or reconusance to a stranger be a illegal  and void consideration but to assign it to the terretenant by way of discharge  of his land be clear lawful and as to the second that this release to hide of  all his right and demand in the land be notany discharge of the reconusance  for at the time of the release make he have no right nor cause of demand in  the land for the land be not that debtor but the person and the land be only  charge in respect to the person and here at the time of release be before the  execution sue he have not any right nor demand in the laud wherefore it be not  any discharge of the reconusance Popham say that he have confer with the  justice of the common plea concern they judgement cite and they do not  rememher any such judgement but be of opinion that such a release be not any  discharge of the execution wherefore it be adjudge for the plaintiff vide ass  Edward pl a mich term Elizabeth ante croak Elizabeth er p