case lever against hosier recovery suffer of land in a liberty passes land in  a distinct Vill within that liberly S C Mod S C keb this be a special verdict  in ejectment the case upon the plead be thus sir Samuel Jones be tenant in  tail of land in Shrewsbury and cotton be within the liberty of Shrewsbury  staffers a common recovery of all his land lie within the liberty of  Shrewsbury and whether the land in cotton which be a distinct will though  within the liberty shall pass be the question Jones sergeant argue that they  shall not pass for though land will pass so by a fine because it be the  agreement of the party yet in a recovery it be otherwise because more  certainty be require therein but in fine no such certainty be require and  therefore a fine de property in Goldenlane have be hold good though neither  will parish or hamlet be mention b Wakefield v Hodgeso n cro Elizabeth see  also the case of mark v buller cro James b modern but there be a will call  Walton in the parish of street and a fine be levy of land in street the land  ill Walton do not pass unless Walton have be all hamlet of street and the fine  have be levy of land in the parish of street c see the case of Addison votway  Mod post c and the reason of this difference be because in fine there be  covenant which though they be real in respect of the land yet it be but a  personal action in which the land be not demand ex straight but in a recovery  great preciseness be require that be a praecipe quod To give back where the  land itself be demand and the defendant must make answer to it cro James    dorm case the word liberty proper signify a right privilege or franchise but  improper the extent of a place hill can rot b r Waldrons case and the case of  baker v Johnson a Hutton and see ante a liberty in judgement of law be  incorporeal and therefore it be absurd to say that land which be corporeal  shall be therein contain they be not permanent have their existence by the  king letter patent and may be destroy by Act of parliament they may also be  extinguish abridge or increase and a venire facias of a b raze Ent b liberty  or franchise be not good it be a equivocal word and of no signification that  be plain and therefore be not to be use in real writ raze Entr there be no  bring ecipe in the register to recover land within a liberty neither be there  any authority in all the lawbo oks for such a recovery and therefore if such a  thing shall be allow many inconvenience will follow for a good tenant to the  praecipe will be want and the intent of the party can not supply that but  Barton sergeant say that this recovery will pass the land in cotton for as to  that purpose there be no difference between a fine and a recovery they be both  become common assurance and be to be guide by the agreement of the party cro  car it be true a fine may be good of land in a hamlet net modern er p  well known or parish Henry pl cro Elizabeth Jones l cro James monk v butler  yet in a c godb contra c to know facias to have execution of such fine the  will must be therein mention bro brief the demand must be of land in a will  hamlet or at far in a parish cro James modern the whole court be of that  opinion absent Ellis who be also of the same opinion at the argument and  accord in Michaelmas term follow judgement be give that by this recovery the  land in cotton do well pass and north chief justice deny the case of baker v  Johnson to be law where it be say a common recovery of land in a lieu eonus be  not good and say that it have be long dispute whether a fine of land in a lieu  well known be good and in king James time the law be settle in that point that  it be good and by the same reason a recovery shall be good for they be both  amicable suit and common assurance and as they grow more in practice the judge  have extend they far a common recovery be hold good of a advowson and no  reason be to be draw from the v isne or the execution of the writ of seize  because it be not in the case of adversary proceed but by agreement of the  party where it be to be presume each know the other meaning indeed the  cursitors be to blame to make the writ of entry thus and ought not to be  suffer in such practice where a fine be levy to two the fee be always fix in  the heir of one of they but if it be to they and their heir yet it be good  though incertain but a liberty be in the nature of a lieu well known and may  be make certain by averment the jury in this case have find cotton to be a v  ill in the liberty of Shrewsbury and so it be not incorporeal