case REDSHAW against hester in debt on bind against a heir if the defendant  plead riens per dissent a replication that he have land and tenement by  dissent before the exhibit of the bill unde debt is owed prediction  satisfeciss to be able c conclude with a verification be good within the  statute will mary c SC comb SC Carth SC salk debt upon bind against a heir who  plead riens per dissent the plaintiff reply that he have land and tenement by  descent before the exhibit the bill unde pillage the plaintiff de debt is owed  pillage satisfeciss to be able and then put himself upon the judgement of the  court and upon demurrer exception be take to this replication first because it  be double for he ought to have conclude to the country second the replication  be neither good at commonlaw or by the new statute will mary c it be not good  at commonlaw for the plaintiff do not show that the defendant have land by  descent at the of the bill file the value of the land be not material before  this statute for if a heir be sue for a thousand pound and plead riens per  dissent and it be find that but one acre come to he by descent the judgement  must be that the aforesaid modern plaintiff recover his debt aforesaid so that  he shall be charge to pay the whole debt though nothing shall be put in  execution but that single acre but now the statute will mary c have make the  quantum of the land material for it provide that the heir may plead riens per  dissent at the time of the bill file and that the plaintiff may reply that he  have land and tenement from his father before the original writ bring and if  upon issue join it be find for the plaintiff the jury shall inquire of the  value of the land descend and if sell before the action bring execution shall  be take out against the heir to the value of the land so sell by he as if it  have be his proper debt now this replication be not agreeable to the statute  because the plaintiff have make the value of the land part of his plea for he  say that the defendant have such land unde debt is owed pillage satisfeciss to  be able and put himself upon the judgement of the court but the replication  direct by the statute be that the defendant have land and tenement by descent  before the original writ bring which shall have be try by a jury who upon find  the land descend be ex duty to inquire into the value the plaintiff have  allege that the land thus descend be to the value of the debt now if the jury  shall find that they be not half of that value this will falsify his plea and  yet if such plead shall be allow he will recover even upon a plea that be  false for the new statute provide that he shall recover to the value of the  land sell e contra the inconvenience which be at commonlaw and which be now  remedy by this statute be as follow first in point of lime for if the heir  have alien before process issue against he this plea of riens per dissent have  be good and the plaintiff can not have recover his debt but this be now  prevent for if the heir sell any land which by law be liable to the debt of  his ancestor before any action bring against he yet he shall be answerable to  the value of the land so sell second if before the action bring he have sell  all the land descend to he except one acre and upon riens per dissent modern  plead it have be find that such acre descend though the judgement be quod  recupere debt is owed yet at commonlaw he can only extend that acre but now he  shall have execution to the value of the land sell so that though his plea may  be falsify by the find of the jury yet the plaintiff shall now recover pro  tanto and so the replication be good both by the commonlaw and the statute the  court upon debate hold that the replication be good and as it ought to be and  that if the unde debt is owed prediction satisfeciss to be able have be leave  out it may have be a good cause of objection for the statute do not give  occasion to alter any more of the form of the replication common in such case  but only as to the time concern the asset by dissent and that the conclusion  which before the statute be to the country must now be with a averment because  the defendant may have a opportunity to answer the new matter allege in the  replication S c Carth and thereupon judgement be give for the plaintiff S c  comb for though a jury may find that what descend to the heir be not  sufficient to satisfy the debt and so falsify the value allege in the  replication yet the plaintiff shall recover to the value of the land sell be  it what it will S c salk a modern er p