case Stapleton versus Sherrard eoden die Eq can ab pl Ch Rep S c bill to  discover who be tenant of the freehold in order to bring a formedon will not  lie entry of remainderman within five year after a fine levy by tenant in tail  will not save his right for the fine be a discontinuance he ought to make his  claim by action the bill set forth that the plaintiff be entitle to certain  land as remainderman in tail and pray a discovery who be the tenant of the  freehold that he may know against who to bring his formedon to this the  defendant plead a fine and nonclaim in bar and likewise demurrer Vernon  chancery case the Lord keeper incline that the demurrer be good for that one  shall not have a bill here in any case to discover a tenant to the prcipe for  there be way to know it without though the case of Bickerton and Bickerton be  cite where such a demurrer be disallow but the matter in the principal case go  off upon the plea which be allow to be good for though after the fine levy the  plaintiff have make his entry yet that will not do the fine be levy by tenant  in tail which make a discontinuance of the estate and therefore the plaintiff  must make his claim by action vide stat Henry VII cap afterward the matter of  this demurrer come on to be argue again on the that of February follow the  demurrer be allow to be good there be a case of Stapleton v Stapleton of this  date in the Reg book where plea and demurrer allow Reg lib b fol upon  exception to the master report touch the insufficiency of a answer tenant for  ninetynine year remainder to trustee to support contingent remainder remainder  over with several other remainder over in tail tenant for ninetynine year with  the first remainderman levy a fine and on that a recovery be suffer and a  settlement make on marriage but with notice afterward the second remainderman  in tail bring a bill for discovery of the deed of settlement in order to know  whether there have be a good tenant to the prcipe make to this bill the  defendant demurrer but the demurrer be overrule they then by their answer  insist on the fine which it be say at least cause a discontinuance of the  estate and so within the reason of the case of Stapleton v Sherrard the  principal case or at least within the reason of the case of bounce v Phillips  post vol but the court seem to give no great regard to the authority of these  case neither can they imagine here be indeed any discontinuance or divest of  estate the freehold remain untouched and the fine be levy by tenant in tail in  remainder who do not appear to have commit any seize wherefore the defendant  be order to set forth the deed in their answer per Talbot Lord Chan in dorm v  sir John fortescue ux hill term lin inn hall note it be insist that the  plaintiff remedy if any be at law say per Lord Chan without a discovery of the  deed it be impossible for he to make any thing of it at law vide however  Sherborne clarke post