Barnardiston king b THURSTOUT and holdfast how far a ejectment will not lie in  westminsterhall of land in a county palatine lady Lawley cause several  declaration in ejectment to be deliver to the tenant of lady Falconbridge in  the county palatine of Chester and now before judgement have be move for  against the tenant in possession Mr Kettleby move in behalf of lady  Falconbridge that the proceed may be stay on a affidavit that the tenant be  all inhabitant within the county palatine he say if they shall enter into the  common rule they will be prevent from plead any matter to the jurisdiction of  the court because defendant be thereby bind to insist only on the merit and  therefore he do not know any other way in these feign suit than to move to  stay the proceed Mr fazakerly oppose the motion and say he apprehend this  court have jurisdiction in ejectment for land Iying in a county palatine where  the party be not resiant within the county palatine he allow that in all real  action where the proceed be by summons on the land the court at Westminster  have no jurisdiction because it manifest appear the court within the county  palatine can do the party justice but he submit it where the proceed must be  against the person those court have not jurisdiction where the party be not  resiant therein and therefore he say in ejectment where feign name be make use  of and there can be no such person inhabit in the county palatine or any where  else this court must have a concurrent jurisdiction unless it be lie down for  law that the court at Westminster have no jurisdiction where it appear the  land lie within a county palatine but if that be so there be no occasion for a  affidavit to stay the proceed this matter may as well be take advantage of in  arrest of judgement or upon a writ of error but that this can be do appear  express by the case of Davis and stringer Carthew Mod where it be determine  that it must be plead that the party live within the jurisdiction he say too  that it be determine about ten year ago in the case of Acton and tanner upon a  writ of error in the exchequer Chamber that trespass quare enclosed space to  break in pieces of land in a county palatine will lie in this court and beside  this very action of ejectment be hold to lie in the exchequer in the earl of  derby case for the manor of Latham in the county palatine of Lancaster which  be settle after several argument and it be certain that if this court can give  judgement they can award execution for which reason it be the constant  practice to award writ of elegit into a county palatine on judgement give in  this court the court think this a matter of too great consequence to be  determine on a motion they say a fine or recovery suffer of land in a county  palatine be void as also every judgement in a real action they do not think  that the case of the enclosed space to break in pieces come up to this case  because there damage only be re Barnardiston king b cover whereas in ejectment  the very land itself Barnardiston king b er p be and though it have be the  practice to bring ejectment in the court of exchequer yet perhaps there may be  a difference between the practice of the two court though they say at present  they can not see upon what foundation the practice in the court of exchequer  be maintain however that this matter may come on in a more solemn manner they  say the tenant in possession may appear and plead what they think proper