case denham against stevenson in debt by a administrator upon a bind against a  heir he need not show how the defendant be heirSC salk SC holt debt by a  administrator against the heir upon a bind of his ancestor and declare who  administration all men bonor c by such a peculiar debt is owed modus  undertaking to be without say that he have ordinary jurisdiction or that it do  of right belong to he to commit administration and demurrer to the declaration  first it be except that he have not show how the defendant be heir and for the  necessity of so do be quote the case of carver v HaselrigHob a but per curian  the diversity be that where he sue as heir there because he be presume  conusant of his pedigree he ought to show it but not where he be sue see roe  on the demise of thorn v lad and other Bl Rep a because stranger shall not be  compel to show what lie not in their knowledge second exception he make title  by virtue of administration commit by a peculiar without allege any right in  the peculiar to commit administration and that be substance and traversable  for de common jure here in England it belong to the ordinary see side vent cro  James and the case of Gidlei v William in the king bench will note to former  edition b it be urge on the other side that at most it be but matter of form  the omission whereof be not to be object upon a general demurrer and upon  issue the plaintiff will not be put to prove that the peculiar have right to  grant administration modern holt chief justice it can be say to be only form  for it be the commit of administration by one have legal authority which vest  the cause of action in the plaintiff and by law the ordinary be to commit  administration in all case of peculiar you must show title and right to grant  administration and the least averment that can do it be to say that de jure it  do belong to he to grant administration for the court can take notice of  peculiar but may of bishop and profert in cur litter administer be not enough  see whether c c for they only certify what be on the face of they videlicet  that administration be commit to the plaintiff by such a one but that do not  import he have any right to grant it modern er p Powell justice may not the  defendant have come and traverse his have right to commit if you have allege  it in the case of Chiverton v trudgeon cro James d it be doubt whether the  right of a archdeacon who be take notice of by we as eye bishop ought not to  be show but all the matter be whether as it be here say debt is owed modus  commiss to be that shall be take only in respect to the legal form of the  instrument or to the peculiar right of commit administration and I rather  believe the first for debt is owed modus seem to I not to be enough to  traverse they may indeed have traverse the administration commit and give in  evidence that he have no right to commit administration and no rule be  givenThis case be argue a second time and judgement give for the plaintiff by  holt chief justice gold and powys justice that the declaration be good and  that the debt is owed modus be a sufficient averment Powell justice be of a  contrary opinion SC salk a writ of error be afterward bring in the  exchequerchamber where the judgement of the court of king bench be affirm by  the whole court SC salk e