case williams against williams judgement in dower against a infant by default  be not erroneous for in a writ of dower the parole shall not demurrer ante  post more roll Abr   light a cro James Noy Bl Com the case be now again argue  and only upon the error assign the first error be that the recovery be against  he by default in dower and that he at the time of the recovery be and yet be  within age for which vide yearbook Henry and Edward pl sauver default brook  Abr dyer the second error be that he be not terretenant at the time of the  action bring nor ever since as to which although it he say that he lose  nothing in the land and then he can have a writ of error yet here he lose  damage and to excuse himself from they it be reasonable that he shall have  this writ of error in the yearbook Edward pl it be hold that he who plead non  tenure may have a writ of error for although he have not therein freehold yet  he may have in reversion what he may lose by the judgement but it be otherwise  of he who disclaim wherefore c croak Elizabeth er p gawdy justice as to the  first hold it to he error for a reco ery against a infant by default differ  not from a offer prcipe in Anderson case dyer it be rule after long argument  that a recovery against a infant by default in another prcipe be erroneous  Popham and Fenner contra for Fenuer say that a writ of dower be favour and it  be not reasonable that the demandant shall be prejudice by the tenant that  infancy for if thereby the demandant shall be delay woman shall never recover  their dower to have the fruit and benefit thereof for the tenancy may be in a  infant who never will appear but suffer the judgement to pass against he by  default and have it afterward reverse for this cause and Popham say there be  not any difference betwixt a writ of dower and another prcpie for a recovery  against a infant by default be good in both case for it will be mischievous if  the demandant who have right shall be delay of her right because the tenant be  a infant and will not appear for if that shall he suffer all land where to  another have right of action will he put in a infant against who there can not  he have a good recovery and it be not as mischievous on the other side for if  a infant bav right lose it he may have his writ of right gawdy say although it  be a great mischief yet it be to be suffer rather than have the law to be  change unless it be by croak Elizabeth parliament as at the commonlaw Le  parole demurrera for the nonage of the demandant which be mischievous unto he  and therefore the statute of Gloucester c be make to redress it and so of  other c Clench agree with gawdy for it will he dangerous to compel infant to  appear and plead who know not their own title especial if they have the land  by descent but if it may appear that a infant have the land by purchase that  privilege satchel dventure will not then he allow he because the tenancy may  purposely of covin he put into he to delay the demandant wherefore c Fenner as  to the second error hold that he may well assign it for error to discharge  himself of the damage but the other justice do not speak thereto Sed  adjournatur