case Loveday against young in debt on bind against the defendant as executor  he may plead in abatement that he be administrator and not executor without  traverse that he administer as executor but this plea can be plead by a  executor de son tort debt on a bind against the defendant as executrix of the  last will of John young decease the defendant before imparlance plead in  abatement that she be administratrix and not executrix and that she ought to  have be name so in the bill et hoc to make ready be verify unde petit judgment  quod billa empty the plaintiff demurrer because she have not traverse that she  have not administer as executor that   light see also the yearbooks Edward pl  Edward pl bro Abr property z mich term Elizabeth Inst the statute Edward c    yearbook Edward pl a the argument of holt Treby finch pollexfen and sawyer be  brief notice in Skinner but there be a very full report of the whole case copy  from the ms of Samuel Pepys Esq in vol state trial to shower KB er p Mr powys  for the defendant urge that the plea be good enough because such traverse be  not necessary for the administration subsequent purge the tort so Thompson  precedent a this plead in abatement Rastalls entry b be in point that it may  be plead in abatement and need not show the letter of administration in  Robinson be case c it be plead in abatement the case of Courtney v Phelps d  nothing be traversable but that which be direct and positive affirm in the  declaration but this be only the style of the defendant drive he by the  declaration a traverse in shower KB this case perhaps will have be ill for  then it will be conclude that she be executrix of the last will whereas she be  executrix de son tort only and no will in the case and therefore we ought to  leave the matter at large whereon the plaintiff may reply that she be  executrix and traverse the die intestate as it be in Rastals entry e or else  the plaintiff may reply that she be executrix de son tort as in the case of  Stubbs v Rightway f and Obalstons case g against the precedent in Thompson h  and so in the case of burnet v paget I case against the executor for the  promise of the testator who plead in abatement that the party die intestate  and that letter of administration be commit to he the defendant et hoc c unde  ex quo non nomina c petit jud de billa in which case Mr girdler be for the  plaintiff a traverse in the case will be nought because it will tie up the  plaintiff to prove the defendant executor of the last will whereas possible he  be executor de son tort and so be it adjudge in Trinity term in the court of  king bench in the eighteenth year of Charles the second in the case of baker v  pope which be in a private report of Mr Christopher bare Pemberton for the  plaintiff debt against a executor the defendant plead in abatement letter of  administration with a without hoc that he be executor c and per curian the  traverse be ill for he ought to have rely on the letter of administration only  without say more Williamson v Norwich a hob b r rot executor de son tort after  action commence against he take out letter of administration he may retain and  plead it but he shall not abate the writ per curian it seem such a traverse  will be nought but doubtless it be good without it judgement be give for the  plaintiff