case ash versus rogle and the dean and chapter of saint Paul Lord chancellor  master of the roll eoden die Eq can ab pl S c bill bring by a remainderman in  fee of a copyhold expectant on a estate tail which be spend to be relieve  against a erroneous common recovery in the lord court pray that the lord may  be decree to suffer plaintiff to bring a plaint in the lord court in nature of  a writ of error to reverse this recovery or that this court will relieve on  the merit the defendant demurrer and the demurrer be allow the bill be bring  by a remainderman after a estate tail spend to be relieve against a erroneous  recovery of a copyhold estate in a court baron suffer above Vernon chancery  case er p thirty year ago and the relief seek be that the dean and chapter who  be lord of the manor Vernon chancery case may be decree to suffer the  plaintiff to bring a plaint in the nature of a writ of error or false  judgement in their court baron or else that he may be relieve upon the merit  of the cause by the decree of this court the estate have be enjoy under the  recovery ever since though the estate tail be spend many year ago the  defendant rogle who claim the estate under the recovery demurrer for that it  will be of dangerous consequence to all person who claim under recovery of  copyhold estate to draw the same in question in this manner for that through  the ignorance of steward of copyhold court it frequent happen that all the  legal requisite to a common recovery of freehold land be not observe in  recovery of copyhold estate and yet the bar of copyhold estate by recovery in  such court have obtain in many manor it will shake many of they if upon nicety  in form they shall be impeach and insist there be no precedent that any relief  in such case be ever give in this court and that it be better to suffer a  particular mischief in this case than by relieve it to make a precedent of  general inconvenience to owner of such estate the dean and chapter answer the  bill and submit to do as the court shall direct this demurrer be first argue  by learned sergeant at law and counsel on both side solemnly before the master  of the roll who allow the demurrer and afterward be reargued before the Lord  chancellor he be of the same opinion and confirm the master of the roll order  both of they several declare it will be of dangerous consequence and contrary  to equity to give any relief in such a case and that there be no precedent of  such a bill r l and yet the error assign by the bill in the recovery be such  as will have be gross error in a recovery in a freehold estate and the Lord  chancellor say if there have be a error in any adversary proceed Vernon  chancery case in the lord court this court will have order the Lord to proceed  and examine it you may try the commonlaw court whether they will grant you a  mandamus you shall have no aid from this court there be nothing of this latter  clause in the register book Reg lib a fol vide freeman v freeman pre Ch king  clarke v ware ibidem but equity will restrain the operation of a fine to such  land as do real belong to the conusor though more parcel of land be comprise  in the fine Brereton v gamul atk so where a fine and nonclaim be levy by one  who get possession under a forge deed equity will relieve against the fine  Cartwright v Pulteney atk so baker v Pritchard ibidem and the person so obtain  the estate decree a trustee and to reconvey Barnesly v Powel ves so Wilkinson  v Brayfield post vol so where a fine levy pursuant to a decree of this court  for a particular purpose the court will not permit it to be take advantage of  for let in other debt and encumbrance Baden v earl of Pembroke post vol but a  fine can be reverse but by writ of error only vide cruise on fine note from  this decree of dismission there be a appeal to the house of lord and there the  decree be affirm for that common recovery not be adversary suit but common  assurance equity ought rather to supply defect than to assist in the annul  they show parliament can Eq can ab pl vide remark of Wilson Ch just Martin v  Strachan will