case sir thomas FYNCH against lamb Michaelmas term car roll to non assumpsit  infra sex aged on a promise to pay l at a a replication that the plaintiff  within the time sue a original on which the defendant be outlaw that the  outlawry be declare void and that within a year after he bring another action  for l in a different county be good notwithstanding the variance if it be aver  for the same cause ante Mod side Com dig Bac Abr error of a judgement in the  common plea in a assumpsit suppose that the defendant James at bury in Suffolk  promise to pay c after verdict and judgement upon non assumpsit plead and find  for the plaintiff the defendant bring error and upon diminution allege the  original be certify to be in Hilary term car upon which the plaintiff in the  writ of error plead the statute of James of limitation and that this action be  upon a promise in James and not bring within six year after the promise nor  within three year after the statute be not maintainable the defendant plead  that be car which be within three year of the statute bring a writ original of  assumpsit suppose to be make in ken against the defendant now plaintiff in the  writ of error wherein he be outlaw but in car the outlawry in the common plea  be declare void and he discharge and that within a year after he bring this  action and suppose the promise to be make at bury to his damage of six hundred  pound and that in the former action the assumpsit be allege to be make in ken  to his damage of five hundred pound and he aver that it be one and the same  promise and cause of action upon this plea the plaintiff in the writ of error  demurrer Twisden show the cause to be for that this new action vary in the  county from the assumpsit and in the damage allege and so can be intend one  and the same cause of action nor to be a new suit begin for the same matter  croak car also I conceive that forasmuch as this outlawry be not reverse by  error but avoid by plea the first original be not determine but he may have  proceed thereupon and then to begin a new original and in another county be  not accord to the James c nor within the intent of the statute but Richardson  Jones and Berkley hold that this variance of the county and croak car er p  damage be not material to the action be transitory and aver to be for one and  the same cause and although the outlawry be not reverse by a writ of error but  avow by plea it be all on within the intent of the statute for the statute be  not where the outlawry be reverse by error but where the outlawry be reverse  so it be by any mean therefore upon their three opinion a rule be give that  judgement shall be affirm