case barton against lever and Brownlow who be recoverors for sir Richard  Shuttleworth easter term Elizabeth roll if tenant in tail levy a erroneous  fine and the conusee suffer a common recovery in which the tenant in tail come  in as a common vouchee the recovery shall bar the tenant in tail and his issue  of a writ of error to reverse the fine and the recoveror may plead the  recovery in bar of the writ of error post Poph more roll ab Pigot on recov Bl  Rep dougl in a variance hetween a writ of entry and its return word of  uncertain relation shall he construe ut res to greater extent to be strong  queen m to pass away I by Rep cruise on recov Pigot on recov roll ab error the  case be that r Barton tenant in tail levy a erroneous fine in Elizabeth and  afterward upon the io march Elizabeth which be the first week in lend a writ  of entry be bring against the conusee returnable die Lunce quartan see timana  quadragesima neighbor future et in die Lunce quartan soldiers quadragesimce of  the same lend the conusee appear and vouch r Barton who enter into the  warranty and vouch over and so a recovery be suffer r b die the issue in tail  bring error to r everse the fine this recovery be plead in bar and it be  thereupon demurrer Atkinson argue for the defendant that it be a good bar to  the writ of error The first question be whether this entry into warranty and  so a voucher over and so a recovery have be a bar to the issue in tail to have  a writ of error of the fine and he hold that it be for by enter into warranty  general a man shall lose all right and all action which he have to the land  all rend all condition and every other benefit which he may have thereto and  for that purpose Edward voucher and Edward voucher that rend be lion by a  general entry into warranty so Edward pl Edward pl that condition be go so  Edward that his action be go although he will save it by protestation and  assize pl that a baron by his entry into warranty with his feme shall lose his  own action Henry by a partition betwixt coparceners the writ of error be go  and although it be say that this writ of error be but only a examination of  the record which be not go by the entry into warranty that be not so for by  his entry into the warranty his title to have restitution be go and if he  shall reverse that fine he be to have restitution so by consequence the land  be demand which be go by this entry into warranty and voucher only second  whether this recovery be good or but voidable or mere void which rest only  whether these word neighbor future shall refer to the lend after follow for if  so here be a recovery suffer before the return of the writ and he hold that it  shall refer to die Lunce in quartan soldiers in the same lend and shall not  refer to quadragesimce although it be croak Elizabeth last mention for  reference to standard shall not he ad neighbor anteceden in all case and in  proof thereof vouch Edward and Henry bold case be cite to that purpose a  Hutton contra to the first he conceive it be not any bar because by the fine  he have neither law in re nee ad remember and then this intend recompense can  go to this title in tail which he have not and to this writ of error the issue  in tail be entitle and be not to he bar by any act of his ancestor and  therefore Elizabeth dyer tenant in tail release error and after be bar in a  writ of error it shall not bind the issue in tail f n b f tenant in tail bring  a attaint and be nonsuit yet the issue shall have the attaint and here he have  not any right to the land by the fine levy with proclamation wherefore he can  have any recompense in value to bar it and therefore Elizabeth it be adjudge  in Lord Norris v Braybroch that where tenant in tail be remainder over in tail  to Lionel Norris see Elizabeth c croak Elizabeth er p the tenant in tail  suffer a erroneous recovery and die without issue Lionel in remainder be  attaint of treason and all his land right action to land be give by parliament  to the queen and afterward he be restore in blood this title to have a writ of  error be not thereby give to the queen for it be not a action nor right to the  land but a cause to examine the record b wherefore c as to the second he  conceive that of necessity future ought to refer to quadragesima and not to  quartan soldiers and therefore there be a apparent fault in the writ and it be  mere void for it be suffer by they who have not any day in court for they come  in and suffer this recovery a year before the writ be returnable for the writ  hear testae in prima see plimana quadragesinue and it be returnable die Lunce  quartan soldiers quadragesimce proxime future which word of necessity ought to  refer to quadragesimce and not to die Lunce nor to quartan soldiers for the  rule be ad neighbor anteceden fiat reference to standard and in proof thereof  rely upon Edward Edward b r Elizabeth and Elizabeth wherefore this recovery be  erroneous for this apparent fault in the record and so no bar of the writ of  error but afterward the whole court resolve for the defendant in both point  for to the first when tenant in tail levy a erroneous fine he have yet a right  in the land which by his entry into the warranty and receive thereby a intend  recompense in value be bar for although tenant in tail can by deed release  error to bar the issue in tail for as he be entitle to the land so he be to  the writ of error which tenant in tail can releqse or extinguish no more than  he can give the land yet as by fine or recovery he may bar the tail itself so  he may bar the writ of error and here when he enter into the warranty and  vouch over and have recompense he be in by his warranty of all estate and the  recompense in value be a sufficient bar for all estate and right and as that  shall he a bar for the land itself so shall it bar his action also and give  away all this right to the land and to the second matter they hold that this  recovery be not void nor erroneous for these word neighbor future shall not he  refer to quadragesima but to die Lunce quartan soldiers for these word  neighbor future be write in a short hand be indifferent croak Elizabeth to  which they shall he refer and if it he construe neighbor going to be then it  agree well with quartan see ptimana and if it he proximo going to be then it  agree well with die Lunce so in these two sense it may be construe that the  recovery shall be good but if it he proxime futurce then that refer to  quadragesimoe and the recovery be void for that it be a judgement upon the  voucher and a recovery in value before the writ be return which can he we must  then construe it in such a manner ut res to greater extent to be strong how to  pass away and accord to both their intendment and accord to what seem most  likely for it be not to he suppose that either the plaintiff or court intend  that the writ which be sue for his benefit shall he make returnable a year  after the precedent also have be there view whereof diverse of they be in this  manner whereunto regard ought to be have that they he not construe to he void  and erroneous when by any construction they may be make good wherefore for  these reason in mich and Elizabeth they all deliver their opinion absolute for  the defendant Popham say he will have the auditor and student to observe these  point agree by the court first that a recovery have after a erroneous fine  shall bar the issue in tail from have a writ of error to reverse that fine  second that a recovery although erroneous shall bar also a writ of error of  the fine until it he reverse three that a recovery which be void be not anybar  fourthly that the recovery here be not void nor erroneous because the writ  shall he intend returnable the same lend wherefore c but there be never any  judgement enter in this case because the party be move to compound b   a Leon  more hob cro car hawk croak Elizabeth er p