case helier against WHYTIER Michaelmas term Elizabeth roll in replevin if the  defendant make conusance under a grant from a and the plaintiff plead a prior  grant from a he must traverse the last grant ante post S c   SC more Owen vent  cro James yely Bulst cro car Lut Com dig replevin the defendant make conusance  as bailiff of Herhert master of the request for damage pheasant for that one  Richard arch let the land where in I Edward to one Jo arch for eighty year  that John arch Elizabeth grant it to jane arch and that she in Elizabeth grant  it to sadler who in Elizabeth convey it to dr Herhert his master the plaintiff  confess the lease and grant to jane arch and further allege that she take to  husband one Tarr who in Elizabeth grant it to the plaintiff and traverse the  grant to sadler and thereupon the plaintiff demurrer Tanfield and foster for  the defendant move that the plea be ill for he by his first grant plead have  confess and avoid the grant allege to the defendant and therefore he need not  traverse it for where the plaintiff convey to himself title before the  defendant title there a traverse be not requisite but otherwise it be where he  convey a aftertitle for there he ought to traverse otherwise his title be not  good and in proof thereof rely upon Henry pl Edward Br confess Godfrey contra  here ought of necessity to be a traverse to the grant allege by the defendant  for that be neither confess or avoid by the allegation of the first grant for  a confess and avoid be to confess it and show it to he by a defeaseable title  as Henry psalm where a feoff be plead by the defendant the plaintiff say that  the feoff seize he and feoff the defendant c and therefore cite partridge case  dyer and it may be that here after the grant to the plaintiff in Elizabeth  that jane arch have title and grant it to the defendant and of that opinion be  gawdy and Clench for this last reason allege croak Elizabeth especial as the  plea be that jane arch be possess Elizabeth and grant it to sadler but Popham  and Fenner contra for Popham say there will he a difference when a feoff be  plead and when a grant of a particular estate for in the first case if the  other well entitle himself by a elder feoff he ought to traverse but not in  the last case because a man may come to a feesimple by diverse mean videlicet  by seize and tort or by lawful mean but he can come to a particular estate but  by lawful mean therefore when one entitle himself to a a the necessity of  attornmentis now take away by Ann c b ante croak Elizabeth er p particular  estate by a elder grant he shall not traverse the last grant but shall compel  the other to show by what title he claim it after the eigne grant but he agree  to the case Elizabeth dyer where he entitle himself by a mere stranger there  he ought to traverse c and after upon another day with the assent of Clench  absent gawdy it be adjudge for the defendant