Carthew lacy versus williams to go into mich will b r rot salk comb SC common  recovery suffer by the tenant in tail good I show Mod cro James Lutw Lutw lev  salk error of a judgement in c b upon a special verdict in ejectment in which  the case appear to be as follow sacred scripture William Lacy Esq be tenant in  special tail of the land in somersetshire Carthew er p be the land now in  question videlicet to he and the heir male of his body upon the body of Susan  his wife beget remainder to himself and the heir male of the body of his  father remainder to his own right heir William Lacy have issue by his wife  Susan one daughter name Sarah the lessor of the plaintiff and no more and be  thus seize and intend to make provision for the say Sarah a writ of entry be  bring in the post by George keat returnable in Michaelmasterm videlicet in  quindenam consecrated Martini and this be against mile Corbett who appear as  of that term and vouch to warranty the say William Lacy the tenant in tail and  thereupon a summone ad warrantizandum issue returnable octab Hillarii follow  which be the first return of that term when William Lacy appear by warrant of  attorney and vouch to warranty the common vouchee and the recovery be perfect  and enter on record in common form but it be find that the lease and release  which William Lacy make to mile Corbet to make he tenant to the freehold be  not execute till long after Michaelmasterm in which the writ of entry be bring  against he videlicet about the beginning of January next follow so that the  general question be whether this be a good recovery or not the use whereof be  declare by the say William Lacy to his daughter Sarah and her heir and be  afterward die without any other issue and Lacy the defendant in the original  action and plaintiff in the writ of error be the next brother to William Lacy  and claim the land by virtue of the old entail videlicet as heir male of the  body of their father the objection insist on against the recovery be that mile  Corbett who be make tenant to the praecipe bad nothing in the land at the time  of the return of the Carthew writ of entry and therefore the recovery be of no  effect otherwise than by estoppel or conclusion to the party and privy  thereunto but the defendant be neither party or privy to it for he claim by a  title paramount and therefore as to he this recovery be void and it be insist  that the writ of entry do Self facto abate because the tenant to that writ  have nothing in the land and to prove it the case in the margin footnote be  cite but it be agree that if once there have be a good tenant to the praecipe  his alienation afterward can not hurt nor if he shall suffer another recovery  against he upon a puisne title for that will be fraudulent and in this case  the voucher must likewise be void because the tenant at the time of the  voucher have nothing to warrant and a voucher be in lieu of a action and here  the tenant have no cause of action when be make the voucher but it be adjudge  in the court of common plea that this be a good recovery because before the  return of the summons ad warrantizandum the vouchee come in and the tenant to  the writ be tenant of the freehold and have a sufficient estate to warrant and  upon which the warranty do operate and this judgement be now affirm in b r per  totan curian Carthew de term sanct hill William b r