case clerk and andrews case in chancery in what case a reextent shall issue on  the statute Henry c or the party be entitle to a new execution at commonlaw  ante SC Bulst   light a godb   Plowd dyer lev Leon side salk Sheph touch Com  dig a case be make and refer to Bromley baron and to winch Doderidge and  Hutton justice to certify their opinion the case be agree by the counsel on  both side to be thus Joseph main and John main be oblige joint and several in  a statutestaple of two thousand pound a extent be sue against they and return  that Joseph main be seize in fee of the manor of stuckely in the county of  buck which be extend to the annual value of forty pound and that he have not  any other land nec be invention c and that John main be seize in fee of  Radnage farm in Radnage in the county of buck to the annual value of six pound  which be so extend and his body take and that he have good to the value of  twentyeight pound and upon a liberate return the land of Joseph main be  deliver in extent and the good of John main and the writ return serve whereas  in truth there be never any such farm call Radnage croak throw farm but by  colour of that extent he enter into a farm which John main at the time of the  statute acknowledge have call little John and sell it to Andrews who be the  defendant in chancery who enter therein and evict the plaintiff who thereupon  pray a new extent the question be whether he shall have a new extent as at the  commonlaw against John main or a reextent upon the statute of Henry c a it be  strong urge and argue before they by sir Thomas Coventry attorneygeneral that  he shAld have a new extent against John main at the commonlaw for the land be  extend as the land of John main and he not have any such land it be mere void  and as no extent at all for it be mere void at the commonlaw and he shall have  a new extent but if he have extend land whereof the conusor be seize or have  by defeasible title as feoff upon condition or otherwise which have be  afterward evict there forasmuch as the extent be once good and he have receive  it and part of the profit thereof towards payment of his debt he can not have  any remedy by the commonlaw but be to have a reextent by the statute but when  the extent be utter void for the land of John and they be several oblige for  it be as no extent against John there shall be a new extent and in proof  thereof he rely upon the yearbook Edward vouch where land in value be deliver  which be not the plaintiff land he have a new extent and Elizabeth dyer where  a extent be return that the conusor be seize of such land and show not of what  estate and that he be dead it be a void extent and a new extent be award but  against this it be argue that there can not be a new extent as the case be for  although it may be where land be extend and apparent void in itself that there  shall be a new extent yet when two be oblige joint and several it be but one  debt and when their several land be extend and the good of one of they deliver  in part of the debt it be a void extent for the one but if he accept it upon  the liberate so as he have the land of the one well deliver in extent which he  shall hold until he be satisfy although the land of the other be evict or that  there never be any such land deliver in extent yet he shall never have a new  extent against the a see also the follow statute whereby further provision be  make respect execution James c James c James c car c car c car c will mary c  will mary c Ann c croak James er p other for have take satisfaction of the one  which the law intend when he take his land by the liberate he shall never  resort to have the land of the other and in proof thereof be cite the yearbook  Henry pl   Fulwoods case and   Blomfields case and exec that at the commonlaw  execution be sue and the land of the one take in extent and deliver upon the  liberate and accept he never shall have another extent against the other land  and if he have the land in extent if any part remain unevicted he never shall  have other extension by the statute for he hall not any remedy by the statute  but where all be evict so here when the land of one of they remain in extent  and he have they he shall never resort to any execution against the other and  for that purpose croak throw the case of Crawley v Lidiat a be cite where two  be oblige joint and several and be sue by several praecipes and condemned and  the land of the one take in execution by elegit and afterward the other take  in execution by a capias it be adjudge to be ill and discharge by hearing  complaint for have the moiety of the land of the one it be as satisfaction and  he can afterward take the body of the other winch and Hutton be clear of  opinion that as this case be he can have a new extent or reextent and if he  shall have it yet it can be general as here it be but upon a to know facias  baron Bromley and Doderidge doubt thereof because no land of John be upon the  matter extend but it be mere void against he but they agree that if any part  of John land have be well extend it have be otherwise for Doderidge say if it  shall not be so it will be very mischievous when the land of the one be not  extend by the negligence or voluntary act of the sheriff that all the charge  shall lie upon the other as they can not agree in opinion they advice the  party to compound and afterward by their mediation the matter be finish by  arbitrament