case l put against roster a recovery in trespass be a good plea in bar to a  action of trover for the same take S c Mod S C raym S C Pollexf S C skin S c  show trespass for take of his cattle the defendant justify for a henot and  upon a demurrer have judgement the plaintiff afterward bring a action of  trover and conversion for the same cattle the defendant plead the former  judgement in trespass in bar to this action of trover and the plaintiff  demurrer modern Maynard sergeant argue that the plea be not good because  trespass and trover be distinct action and one may be where the other be not  as if a infant give good to one a action of trover do lie to recover they but  trespass will not so if good be deliver to another and he refuse to deliver  they upon demand trover but not trespass will lie and therefore these be  different action a recovery in one shall be no bar to the other Aformedon  bring in the descender and judgement thereon be not pleadable in bar to a  formedon in the remainder there be a great difference between a bar to the  action and to the right as where a administrator sue not know that he be make  executor and judgement against he and he afterward prove the will and bring a  action as executor the former judgement have against he as administrator shall  not be a bar to this new action because it be not a bar to the right for by  misconceive his action the former abate Mr holt argue that these be action of  the same nature and therefore a judgement in one be a pillage plea in bar to  the other trespass or trover lie for take or carry away the good of another  and when he have make his election which to bring a recovery there shall be a  perpetual bar to the other in a appeal of mayhem the defendant plead a former  recovery in a action of assault and battery and hold good though one be of a  high nature than the other the court be of opinion that a action of trover do  lie where a trespass do not and if the plaintiff have mistake his action that  shall be no bar to he as to the case put of the mayhem that do not agree with  this because there can be no mayhem without a assault but there may be a  trover without a trespass and though the appeal of mayhem be of a high nature  than the assault because it do suppose quodfelonic mayhemiavit yet the  plaintiff can only recover damage in both if a man bring trespass for the take  of a horse and be bar in that action yet if he can get the horse in his  possession the defendant in the trespass can have do remedy because  notwithstanding such recovery the property be still in the plaintiff the  defendant in this case have justify the take of the cattle for a henot and by  the demurrer the justification be modern confess to be true in fact now by the  take for a henot the property of the good be alter and wherever the property  be determine in trespass a action of trover will never lie for the same but it  be a good plea in bar and so it be adjudge here a it be say that the report of  this case in this book be apparent wrong b Rep and see the note at the end of  the same case Mod a modern er p