case Colebrook against Diggs Tuesday June if a plaintiff in debt on bind for  the payment of money obtain judgement in the king bench and the judgement be  affirm on error in the exchequerchamber the defendant on bring a writ of error  to the house of lord must give fresh bail accord to James c or the plaintiff  may take out execution S c stram error in the exchequerchamber upon a  judgement give in the court of king bench for sixteen hundred pound in a  action of debt on bind condition for payment of money only and there the  judgement be affirm a writ of error be afterward bring in the house of peer  the plaintiff in the original action be about to take out execution against  the defendant for not enter bail accord to the statute James c S perpetuate by  car c S and see car c perpetuate by car c a which enact that no execution  shall be stay by any writ of error or supersedeas thereupon in any action of  debt upon a single bind or upon any obligation with condition for payment of  money only or for rend or upon any contract in the court of record at  Westminster or in the county palatine or in the court of great session unless  such person in who name such writ of error be bring with two surety such as  the court wherein the judgement be give shall allow of shall first be bind  unto the party for who judgement be give by recognizance in double the sum  recover to prosecute the writ of error with effect and also to pay if the  judgement be affirm all debt damage and modern report er p cost adjudge upon  the former judgement and all cost and damage to be award for delay of  execution Mr reeve for the defendant insist that have already enter into such  a recognizance in the court of king bench before the writ of error be allow he  be not oblige by this statute to give a new recognizance of bail have already  pursue the statute by give bail in that court where the judgement be give and  it will be very hard for he to be bind in two recognizance for one and the  same matter this case differ from the case of Tilly v Richardson salk pl S c  ld raym S c Mod a for there the original judgement be obtain in the court of  common plea and bail give there on remove the record into this court and when  a now writ of error be bring on the judgement in this court new bail be give  because no recognizance be before enter into in this court for this court can  take no notice of the recognizance give in the court of common plea but if any  new bail ought to be give it ought to be in the exchequerchamber where the  judgement be affirm on the other side it be insist by Whitaker sergeant b that  this matter be so plain that it be never controvert upon a writ of error in  parliament the plaintiff in error must allege the judgement in the court of  king bench to be erroneous as well as the judgement in the exchequerchamber  for after a affirmance in the exchequerchamber this court award the execution  for that court remit the cause with the proceed and this writ be bring in  delay of execution of the judgement but the first recognizance do not extend  to the cost sustain in the house of peer but only to the cost for delay the  execution by the first writ of error so that if a new recognizance shall not  be give the cost upon the writ of error in parliament if the judgement shall  be affirm will be lose modern report it be true the statute enact that bail  shall be give in the same court where the judgement be give but this be only  explanatory and intend that it shall be give where the judgement be of record  the court after a affirmance in the exchequerchamber we award execution which  we ought not to delay without take new security for the damage and cost this  Act be a remedial law and be to be extend by equity it be consider as a  judgement and record in this court after it be affirm in the exchequerchamber  for the writ of error returnable in parliament be always direct to the chief  justice of this court and be carry up the record and there be no manner of  inconveniency by enter into two recognizance for both be the same in respect  to the plaintiff in error because by the late statute he have a proper remedy  if the plaintiff in the original action take out execution for more than be  due but it will be very inconvenient for he to be delay by a writ of error and  to have no sufficient security to make satisfaction for his loss there be a  case luck case Hobart a where a executor be oblige to give bail in the  chamberlain of London court and likewise bail for the same thing in the  spiritual court and so double bail and this be warrant only by a particular  custom in London which be not to be favour so much as a general statute make  for the advancement of justice so the party be rule to put in new bail in the  court of king bench else execution award