him Satisfaction, the Defendant pleaded tftiTWm&f Was made &c 1 he
Plaincifi
JP _Replieation and Rejoinder.
Plaintiff replied, that A. D. had received, in FJemilh Coin r fh; B . .*.'
Value of 3000 I. and that he had imbezzled and™fed?ll t* 'J ° '*",
*»**#?* *h Writing under bis HandiAVe gw^icVi
the Obligor &c. Upon Demurrer it was obiecfed Th« /d v ■ t0
was Hi, becaufe the" Plaintiff had ^/hX^mtleft^^
made ; vet by the greater Opinion, it was held goo « wuih ^ ?"'
angered the Herds of the Conditio,,. Hob 9- p f Tz6 Cofrl , n f 1C
cr addsa % a » U tr * **ue Account of all fuch Monty and Goods of UN decSd 1
iks* 2 3%&' 8£ ££& £r5#ea 1 h f £
concluded, was ,11, becaufe tfaePMntiff had alfigned 1 ^Breach of the ftSJiv"*
and as it lor 'tis not fufficienc lor him to f >v T hir r n i , Con dition i
6ughc, Quod Lr,nric i, T / ? v' I hat Goods came to the Defendant's
Mirum £- V a " ds 5. buc > oagbt farther to Jet forth, fhdt he did »otr,Z„n
„ etur For dend, as in Aftion oi Debt upon a Bond of Award and rh t rw f ?'T
tharitfeem-d Nullum Arbicrium, 'tis noffufficient to th" Pla'i n hV o £ tot* fit**
.ion, as P to ^Z} * ' S Rc P il f: t, , on is M ; for the Defendant hav neBed
this Point, T "ac no Gooes came 10 his Hands &c and the PI .inrin h gP , ,,'
was HI, but That a Sill er Bowl came to his Hands ; here ^ tSeStf'
Books cited * ln no Caie out in that ot an Award the Plaintiff i, hn! ', aC
bythcCoun- Breach 5 and that is becaufe an Award may b " 00 in i> art ,rS V**
llnti^he h an ' f ° as th K e C K ourc W d S e if rhe AaiL be 8 wel bS £ fortr
huBfelf b r^apsit majr be L brought ior a Breach ol that Part which isVoid ,7/?
ingCounfel no Caufe oi Action. But the Court delivered 5 . r fi • 7 ' f °
foftheDe- That the Replication was not good tor want of t • P T ' T atIm >
fendantjwerethe Matter was referr'd to tne( We nS f « l S / Breach - Buc
plt^ Saund.to, Mich. x 9 Car 2 . HayCan v^raS n ° Jud S' nent ^ r 'd-
paid for it; and that Windham. 1 douotc/whethc^ "hi R, f. ica H * ^ ■„ Y the f Bow) > y« he had
{tffert. i, «i, which may be anfS by the other Siae but ifT Id K "t ^ '"*"" c - f ,bl
the Condition, there it ought to have concluded to d ( , r ' ? f e " lMatrer "pref^'d in
afTent 'S.C. c,: M A,^C^ Iti f ^ that 1° th , ls the c =^ fcemed to
the Taylors Comparv in £xe er v Ckrkc - Ard in Si, £$£' 359> 5 f 2 ' p1 ' 355 ' b tlie Cafc of
and for whom jJd.ment W as gi^Twddo-n^ fo.low 1?^.^^ tft vK^S ^ .^
ill in Subftance, and ihe Matter captained in itfwfi-e ir n,-! I a a ■ ,'• i- '• nere,
tiff from his Action, there, thoThcSica £b1™Si 1 Wr ,nruf ^ to J^ n * !t, «PW»-
•Tis true, in ^r, ©onfjam's Cafe, in sTep ^ Z^lrl ett^ Thaf whe^ , h ^ laillti,f '
Replication ir appears the Plaintiff has no CarV nf Aft,™ .i i. A. ,, , K by the PkintiA '»
Bar be ill ; butThen the Bar I !infuffi c entS Mauet or amount » fr f ^^ /^ ff S^ th °' thc
tion, and the Plaintiff replies ard fh« us tl e T m of rl ■ 'm I ?• Con * fl » "* thc Point of Ac-
of Law fuch Replication \* immatenal^nd'd e, yet tl e pfe* S2 hS Sfr ^ ™ ^^^
the Count wants Subftance, no bar can make it Jod To , 1 " e^ the "a » m " s J^ ment .; tor wh «
made good by a faulty Replication So is Or KnnKw ■ a , ^ Sub ' ljr "-'e, it cannot be
aFreftam-sdfe, 9 Ze P , ?S« it is adjui-d ^Tfcf tSCS th Vf Ktro,u:io '' ls ln ^crtai
Count be good, altho' the Replication h cSaoJ, to Led it co^i^^M "' " ^^ arU thc
deftroys the Plaintiffs Action, tho ? iiJEK tbefW iffSSn,^ %T" h,ch ™P«Ba. or
JTurnrr's Cafe, 8 Rep. i,a. idly, Whcrclue :vcr tl ie H v ' m ^a Judgment ; And lb is
Condition in Avoid^c oPthe SkSSS^S^S^ JS? faSe^ C °' °- ^ d ' C
pleaded, tho'it be fpecified in the Condition in ,l„r. , f> y "P" 131 ' ,,!1 S le . particular Thing is
Breach of the Condition £? our RepfiSS ■' for n MaV f'l VV ^ 2*1 ™ ^ m Affi S«"«nt of Iny
tends to avoid it ab initio, if fuel, £ roe? U d^StS AuU ^ i T' W ^° id the Bood . oV
tion what it will; became all fuch Kind of Pleas do by Im -.^i J"**"*". «* «« KepJica-
Condition. l Icas d0> ^ "npiicmoA, agree a Non-pcrforraaBce of thc
Itofwa^^^H^^ia*^ B.R. in the Cafe of ^ fr eD,tI, v.
was, That if fuch a Ship rLrn'd ° S 7 Weeks and e te a'n ' /" " 0y / r 5 3 ^ ^' C C ° ndi ™»
Cau,, That no Breach was al^d SSKaa!r fc £^SS85ftS2i#S wl
out
Replication and Rejoinder. 33
Cit a Breach the Plaintiff had no Ca'ufe of Aftion, and the Condition, by craving ( )yer, is become Pare
of the Record. And he rely'd upon 1 Saund. 102. But the Court gave Judgment in this Cafe for the
Plaintiff Show. Rep 14S. S. C. accordingly.
4. Debt on Bond condition 1 & to pay 20/. within a Month after the De-
fendant's uling the Trade ot a Taylor in Exeter, and to leave the Town
on 40 Days Notice. The Defendant pleads, That the Bond is void, being in
Reltraint of Trade. The Plaintiff reply'd, That it was deliver 'd Modo £* For-
mats let forth in the Declaration. Exception was taken to the Replication,
That it did not fet forth any Breach of the Condition, and ib no Caufe of
Action appear'd. But the Court were all of Opinion for the Plaintiff;
for that the A fatter pleaded in Bar is merely idle and collateral, and admits a
Non-performance as much as a Releafe. And Judgment was given for
the Plaintiff by the whole Court, abfente Wythers. And upon Error
brought in the Exchequer-Chamber, the Court were of Opinion, That
the Replication was well enough without alleging a Breach, becaufe
the Plea admitted and fuppos'd a Non-performance. 2 Show. 345 to
364. pi. 353. PaiLh. 36 Car. 2. B. R. The Taylors Company of Exeter
v. Clarke.
m
Where srood. As to Place.
o
1. TIE who would have the Vifne to try his Deed in a Foreign County
JL~ 1 flight t0 allege the Place in his Bar; For otherwile he lhall noc
put it into his Rejoinder. Br. Lieu, pi. 25. cites 21 E. 3. 10.
2. Y\ here it is alleged, That M. had IJfue K. in full Lije, or it" Warranty Br. Replica-
and Afjets by Defcent in Fee be pleaded in Formedon, he need not to ihew tion, pi. 24.
where and in what Place K. is alive, or where the Ailets lie, before that cires Z 4E- 3-
the other denies it, and then the other in his Rejoinder lhall lhew the 55 '
Piace ; quod nota. Br. Lieu, pi. 34. cites 24 E. 3. 64.
3. Trefpafs by J. againjl two, the one [aid, That the other was dead the
Day of the Writ ckc. and the Plaintiff' [aid, That he was alive' and not dead,
and pray'd Pais where the Writ is brought. The Defendant faid, That
he dy'd at D. and pray'd Pais there, and had it. And fo fee the Place
put in the Rejoinder, and not before. Br. Lieu, pi. 28. cites 19 H. 6. 4.
4. In Replevin the Defendant avow'd in D. in a Place called M. for
Damage fe aft nt where the Plaintiff declared in a Place called S. abfque hoc
that hk took them in the Place called S. protit &c. and fhew'd that it was
loo Acres of Land, and demanded Judgment of the Writ, and pray'd Re-
turn. The Plaintiff' faid, That the 100 Acres are known as well by the
Name of S. as by the Name of M. and that the Place called S. and the
Place called M. are one and the fame Place, and not diverfe, Et hoc &c.
and to the Plea pleaded by the Manner &c. Br. Replication, pi. 31.
cites 1 H. 7. 1 1.
5. In Trefpafs if the Defendant fays, That the Franktenement of N. and
he by his Command enter' d, it is good without faying where the Command
was made ; but if the Plaintiff' traverfes the Commandment, then the De-
fendant by Replication pall jhew in what Place the Command was given,
and not before ; quod nota. Br. Replication, pi. 34. cires 3 H. 7. 13.
6. The Defendant pleaded, That he was an Attorney ot C. B. and 7 Hod 9-.
Ought not to be fu'd elfewhere, abfque Confenfu. The Plaintiff re- s C. bur
ply'd, That he did confent and laid not a Venue, and therefore bad. Ir*er tnlf P" nte(l '
Cur. 1 Salk. 4. pi. 9. Mich. 1 Annas. B. R. Ode v. Norcliffe.
K (E) Good,
34- Replication and Rejoinder.
(E) Good. Tho 1 not anfvoering Part of the Defendant i
Pica, or being too general.
yfs in Debt I. T^THERE the Declaration is good, but the Bar is ill, and the Re-
ufen an Obli- y y plication ill, and a Demurrer is to the Replication, yet the De-
"T"c''y) ^ctarar.' 011 being good, and the Replication in the principal Cafe being
is to perform only to avoid the Bar, which being ill, and therelore no Bar, needs not to
Covenants, be avoided ; and the Replication Hot being to wtitle thcplaintiff'to the Ad ion,
and the De- the Replication was held ill, but yet that Judgment iliould be given
/"^"p againlt the Defendant. But where the Replication is to intitle bimfelj to
tolmL
"pleads ill; not any Caufe of Achon, there Judgment (hall be againlt the Plaintiff
apd the a lt ho'' the Bar be ill. Cro. J. 133. pi. 4. Mich. 4jac. B. R. in the Cafe
flaintifl «- f Gevve n v. Roll.
flies, and
(heivs a
Breach -which appears to be no Bread, the Defendant demurs, Judgment fha'l be againft the Plaintiff ; for
the Court fhal 1 not intend any other Bitach or Cmie of Acfion than he him'cif has fhewn, which is
not any ; wherefore Judgment fhalt be againlt him. Cro J. 133 pi. 4. Mich. 4 Jac. B. R. in the
Cafe of Gewen v. Roll. S.C. cited 2 Show. 362. pi. 353'.
2. In Trefpafs for entring his Clofe and fpoiling his Grafs with his
Cattle, the Defendant pleaded, That Tempore quo &C the treehold of the
Place where &c. was in J. T. and that he as his •Servant, and by his Com-
fiiand,put in the Cattle. The Plaint! it replied and confeffed the Freehold to be in
J. T. but that he long bejorc &c. had leas 'd the Clofe to the Plaintiff' at JFill y
who thereupon enter d, and was pofjejs'd till the Delendant did the Tref-
pafs i and traversed, That the Defendant put in the Cattle by the Command
of J. T. And upon Demurrer the Bar was adjudged good, and not
avoided by the Replication, which is ill j becaule being by way of
Title, he does not intitle himlelf to any good Leafe atWill, tor he did
not allege in Fail any Seijin or PoJfe(Jion in J. T. out of which the Leafe at
Will might be derived ; and the Defendant having made a good J ttfi loca-
tion, the fame ought to be anfwer'd by the Plaintiff by a good Title,' viz.
That J. T. was leis'd and leas'd to him at Will. Yet v. 147. Mich.
6 Jac. B. R. Witham v. Barker.
Yelv.az;. 3. Debt for Rent upon a Leafe for rears made by himfelf. The Defend-
S.C. accord- ant ^/^^ That the Plaintiff Nihil habuit in Tcnementis prxdi6t. tempore
laiesNwice, Dimijioms predict The Plaintiff replied, Quod habuit die. and there-
That?/;e upon being at Iffue, and tound for the Plaintiff, and Judgment for him,
Leafe was not It was alligned for Error, That this Replication was not good ; for he
by Indenture. m gfy to have pew n what F.Jlate he had Tempore Dimiffionis, To as the Court
pig-" S C 4 ° m, gh c adjudge, That he had good Authority to demife, and the replying
— - Covenant generally, Quod habuit &c. is not good, nor is any Ilfue, and tnere-
vas brought fore the Judgment erroneous : And all the Court held, That the Repli-
^n^"' ° n cat ' on was nor - g °d> an d that the Defendant might well have demurr'd
dented 'the f° r c ^ at Caufe ; but the Defendant having joined llfue, and the Verditt
Defendant finding for the Plaintiff, it is now an Ilfue, and the Verdict has made the
pleads, Nil Replication good ; For the Court is now alcertain'd that the Plaintiff had
habuit in good Authority and Eftate to demile, wherelbre the Judgment was af-
ThTSiff nrm ' d - Cro -J- 3 12 - P 1 - 12 - Mich - I0 J ac - BR - Cyllv.Glals.
rc p'y '^>
Quod habuit bonum Titulum without faying what Eftate he had ; And this fyas licld to be ill on general
Demurrer. 3 Lev. 1513. Mich. 36 Car. z. C. B. Aylet v. Williams.
Roll. Rep. 7. 4. Debt upon Bond to perform an Award, the Defendant pleaded, That
pi. 9. s. C. t fa Arbitrator made an Award reciting a Suit in Chancery between the Par-
accordingly; ■> J ^
Replication and Rejoinder. %
•—7-7^; Caufe i «»7^d^¥hat the Suit fioald ceafe and 'that the £*gjfc
&£tfPld ft and acquitted of all Matters therein contained ■ *A**p, Kg
Vhafididmtimther pofecutefhe [aid Suit The Plaintiff reply'd that h
if \i 1 Kr.hnJlmt, the Defendant exhibited Mandam Bdlam in Chancery good, be-
^ toJaPttrt iSh verbatim a^hat fcr the fl^Jtf*£
Sited another Bill, mewing it verbatim ; and avers,. That they were .^
f 2 Z\ n , and the fame Cadfe, and that the fame Matter was contained diversBi Us
iJl Lfdfo he wa not acquitted. It was objected, That this Re- in Chancery
ftSt -s SlfrSA he id not aJU S That a ny Subpoena was TgB*&
Icrthat the Defendant anfwer'd thereto, ncrzvhat became of it- and that _ & c t
the Replication likewiie ikying, That he exhibited $>uandam Btllam, BuHL n
which 1 1 another than is intended in the Arbitrament, and therefore not Trm ^11 Jac.
" od And it was adjudged accordingly For the Defendant. Cro. J. grt^ ;
L pi 5. Pafch. 12 Jac. B. R. Freeman v. Sheen. pag „. Do _
toid« T fiM That O.undam Billart, jb«M have keen Billam r *Mam.— Brownl. IU. S. C. by the
Name" of Freeman v. Shield. Adjudg'd.
* Trcfpafs for entnng his Clofe and Honfe at G. the Defendant juftifed fa -here F.
*v ViSe 0/ Jwarrmts^on a Capias Utlagatum to h.m directed to exe- b ^ o
^ V irCUe , c I j it het C commonly laid, That he was at the Platntrff s Aai *, of
Judgment That he I Umt^iadMrep^ ^ j .^ fel w
SXd ' - W*thTfa*£ P°jnt which is fa J, and that the •»:
Srto^t^ance, or othet S „,s helped by the Statnteo, Jeohnl, Cro. j. ^
3j 3 . pi. 7. Mich. 12 Jac. B.K. VVatsv. »-in . Worceter,
ftoncv. Bowyer.
Freehold of f ^«r?«» o/ - #?»*>*, *W *>' his Command &c. 1 he P lain-
W £%fed in fee, and lev, J a Fine thereof totheVfe of himfelf and
his Zt for their Lives, the Remainder to £ Pawtetfjor 100 rears if he
$j£&«*r* «rf&* ?« the Plaintiff for 21 ^l™ C Zi^i
rawteu em demurr'd becauie the Repli-
to the Freehold ; And fo adjudg'd lor the Plaintiff Cro. Car. 384. pL i#-
W ; Ch ^ r /^kiS^dC^ 40 Sheep, by reafon ofvhichChaftng
cnonhtdid Th BelendantVLV That the Place & C ishisFree-
l lit ittt he -gently chafed than, <£u* eft eadem *™[%g°' «g
Plaintiff npferf* and jnftifted tor Common there. Jhe Defendant ^ m«
Z;r /w/o/i«: The Plaintiff demurr'd. It was objeded, That he Ke
vy incwjme. x Pliintiffftys nothing as to theChaling, lor
plication was ill, becauie tne 1 »miiu j^j & tft ft ; nt tft relies
he ought to have travers'd it. Eut Twilden faid,That the Plaintill relies
by hi? Replication upon the Common, and waives the Chafing; ^ and there-
Se 'tis go P od enough; And with this agreed the : whok .Court. Ami
Judgment for the- Plaintiff Raym. 185. Hill. 22 & 23 Car. 2. b. *.
Anon. 8, Fhlt
3 6 Replication and Rejoinder.
■ 8. Debt was brought on a Bond &c. the Defendant pleaded, that it was
given tor Money won at Pl 'ay, the Plaintiff rfp//>rf, that it was not given for
Money won at Play; and upon a Demurrer to this Replication, it was inlift-
ed lor the Defendant to be ill, beeaufe the Plainthf did not let forth that
the Money, or any Part thereof, was not won at Play, as the Words of
the Statute of 9 Ann. 14. are, "viz. That all Securities, where the whole,
or any Part of the Conlideration is for Money won at Play, lhall be
void. And the Court being of Opinion that'the Replication was too
large and uncertain, gave Judgment for the Defendant. 8 Mod. 57 58.
Mich. 8 Geo. 1722. "Coleborne v. Stockdale.
(F) Necejfary in what Cafe?.
1. TN all Cafes where the Plea is in the Negative, there needs no Repli-
1 cation nor Rejoinder; but feats, if in the Affirmative. Brown's
Anal. 10.
In fuch 2. In Affife, and in Affife of Mortdanceftor, or Juris Utrum if the
Pic" L"n be De Jf"1<»" Pf%b *fle« to the Writ trial le by the Jury, there be /hall con-
to the Point cllidt ™ er i li lour, d ^at it be not to the Points of the Writ • and there-
of the Writ, lore this makes Illue without other Replication, unlefs Et querens vel
fnhar 40 P etens hmillter - *r. Replication, pi. 58. cites 40 E. 3. 19. '
E. 3. 19. b. in a Nota.
l£?'- s t , 3 ' } n } Vard h th ? tW**** P^aded Fine to him and to the Anceftor, and
c.tesS.C- ^.thcfirvivd, the Plaintiff faid, Qtod partes ad ftnem nihil ' habuerunt
Littleton Um P ore &c {« the Anceftor died fei fed. The Defendant faid that the Co-
faid it was nufor was feifed in tee temper Finis &c. And fo note, that it is not a per-
pg'dlhat ° Ut Re J oinder - I5r - Replication, pi. i 7 . cites 7 H. 6. V
i Flu i ^!l eadS p° d - t artel f™ " ihi ! ""«« tempore &c. but cm J. N. G>ue Efiate he has, he MIfJ
Etfocjcnt quod, ncfunatur per Patri am ,»pd the other fhall fay Et iplh Jimltier, and fhall not make •any
Rejoinder. Br. Replication, pi. 43. cues 12 E a i - <:„ „n\„ ,„,*/ / r/ 1 • u " w , an 7
vouch'd, nor any Sec. Ibid.'-L&ath" Max. T^ S. C J ^'" '' '*"*'*■ ^ he >V ' h ° ,S
£ s P1 pT d ;- p t Wh f. r 5. the ^^ ^^ Jointenancy with A. of the Gift, and
cfes' £ h'- F
/ M , tf« J, bmfelfwasfiifedim G. entered and
6. 43. S. C. 'W * ^ Tenant, and A. upon whom he re-enter d, and was fctfed till by
the tenant alone difeifed ; for this Entry cannot be intended a Lawful
rSSV* £ w J1 d that he rj:a5 W edt,u b y G di JS«K ™*>o in.
feoff d the Tenant, and A. upon whom he re-enter V, and over, as above &c
quod nota. Br. Replication, pi. 20. cites 22 H 6
pI < F "cite S ,u 5 ; )r h r^ e ^ Bemandant « ™*»« **** reddat, counterpleads a Voucher
Lh.6 5 . '£" tbe X m A 0hee 2 1 or «»y of his Anceftors 8cc. never had any Thing, he
S. C— — fliall conclude, Et hoc petit quod inquiratur per Patriam.and the Tenant
Heath's limiliter ; lor the Tenant lhall make no other Replication nor Rejoinder
c£s 7 C •£ Per Newton : And fo fee, that in forne Cafe llfue lhall be good
cuc,S.C. withpot Replication or Rejoinder Quaere; for none anfwer'd to it •
but^Lib. Intrat. agrees with Newton. Br. Replication, pi. 21. cites 22
Br. Fines, 6. Where the Defendant pleads Fine, and the Plaintiff avoids it ®uod
pl. 8-. cite, Pffpws nihil habuerunt, nee eorum alter babuit tempore Levationistinis
*U y dchoc pontt fefuper Patriam, the other fhall only fay, Et diftus - >ue>
rens [or Deiendens] limiliter, without other Replication or Rejoin*!-.
Br. Replication, pl. 33. cues 3 H. 7. 9 J
Maf'-z n 7- Where Error is affign'd, that Record is enter'd upon tbe Jurata,
cues S. S Qndjvrata inter A. & B.ponitur in refpeclu hie u'que i S Pafch. &c. and no
Entry
Replication and Rejoinder. 37
Entry is made, Quod idem dies datus eft partibus pradiffiis hie &c. the
ether need not to reply or rejoin, that the Ciiftom o/C. E. is not to give fnch
Idzm dies upon the Jurata ; for B. R. and every Court of Common Law
il.all take Notice of each other's Ufage. Contra of particular Ufage in
Cities and Countries j note the DiverJity thereof. Br. Replication, pi.
68. cites 2R. 3. 9.
(G) In what Cafes there fhali be one or more Replications.
And in what Caies one Replication fhall go to feveral
Bars.
1. T N Debt upon an Obligation, to pay a kfs Sum at two Days, the De- Br. Deux
X fendatit pleaded two Pleas to the two Payments, and the Defendant P.' es > pl -i/"
made two Replications to the two Pleas, and was not fuffer'd to have Both, " r " '* c '
but was drove to the one ; lor it the Condition be broken in Part, it is 3
broken in All. Br. Replication, pi. 14. cites 14 H. 4.
2. In Quare Impedit, it two Preferments are alleged, the Defendant (hall Si-. Quare
ttnftver to both, but the Plaintiff lhall not reply to the one ; for the Ilfue Im P edlt > p'~
ihall be upon the other only, and not upon both. Br. Replication, pi. g 2 £ c es
42. cites 7 E. 4. 20.
3. In Formedon in Defcender, the Tenant to Parcel of the Tenements
pleaded one Fine, and to the Refiduc pleaded another Fine between the
fame Parties. The Defendant [Plaintiff] replied Pracludi non ; quia di-
cit quod prwd. feperales fines minime prockim. fuerunt ,fecuudum for mam Stat.
H. 7. Anno 4 ncc eorum alter. Exception was taken that the Replication
was not formal, becaufe he did not divide it into two Parts, viz. to an-
iwer to the Matter in each Bar, but had confounded them together with
one Anfwer. And it was the Opinion of the Court, that this had been
the better Pleading, but the other which trenches to both Fines and.
Proclamations, is good enough, inafmuch as the Defaults in Efle£t are
apparent &c. D. 181. b. pi. 52. &c. Pafch. 2 Eliz. Filh v. Broket.
4. An Indebitatus Affumpjit, and Infimul computaffet was brought by one r „
Merchant againft another for 55 1. &c. found due on Account, the Defen- s. c. but
dant pleaded the Statute of Limitations ; the Plaintiff replied that the Money S. P. doc-;
on the feveral Promifes, mention'd at the Time of the [aid Promifes, be- not plainly
came due, and payable upon Trade between the Plaintiff and Dejendant 3 as a PP ear - £c
Merchants, and wholly concerned Merchandize. And upon Demurrer it 2 Kcb 6^2
was infilled to be ill; for the Account for the 55 1. was ftated and pi. 15. S. C.
agreed, and fo became a Dead Debt, and confequently out of the Sta- Judgment
tute. And all the Court held it ill. And it was touch'd by the Court, ^'" ,
that admitting the Replication had been limited by the Statute, yec
when the Defendant had pleaded the Statute to both the Promifes in the
Declaration, which v/as a good Plea, prima facie, and the Plaintiff
made one intire Replication to the Plea, and the Replication is not
good as to the Indebitatus Afliimplit, tho' it had been fufficient as to the
Infimul Computaffet, yet being Intire and /// in Part, is 111 in the whole,
and ought to be totally adjudged againft the Plaintiff. And the Re-
porter, who was Cuunfel of the other Side, fays he thinks it was a
Fault in the Replication. Quod nota. 2 Saund. 124. Paf'ch. 22 Car. 2.
Webber v. Ti v ill .
5. Where the Plaintiff has any Manner of Right, he may alledge it
to fupport his Action ; and where the Defendant pleads but one Fuel, there
can be but one Reply. 8 Mod. 58. Mich. 8 Geo. 1722. Arg. and Judgment
accordingly. Coicborn v. Stockdale.
h (H) Repli-
%$ Replication and Rejoinder.
5ce(L) P i.s- (H) Replication. Aids Emits in the Plea &c. In
what Cafes.
S» in other j. "T It J Here a Man pleads Licence, and does not fhew the Place where
Cafeswhen yy &c. and the Plaintiff "replies to it, ^etthis does not make the
!! "S»T P^a good. £.. Replication, pi. 41. cites 6 E. 4. 2. "
Vanity unlffs
it be upon a Double Pica, there Iflue taken upon the one fhall aid the Matter. Ibid.
2. In Debt the Defendant pleads the Releafe of the Plaintiff', and fhewi
not where the Releafe was made, the Plaintiff replies Not his Deed, and
found with the Plaintiff. The Plea is made good by the Replication,
Mich. 1 3 E. 4. 17. a. pi. 19. Per Choke.
3. If one pleads a Double Plea, and the Plaintiff replies to it, and IfTue
is taken thereupon, and found for the Plaintiff, he Hull have Judgment $
For now the Plea is made good; per Brigges. Mich. 18 E. 4 17. a.
pi. 19.
4. In Debt upon an Obligation to deliver 20 as good Cloths to the Plain-
tiff in London, as are made in IV. in the County of G. the Defendant plead-
ed Performance of it fpuially; And per Brian and Catesby J. the Plea is
not good ; For thole ot London, where the Plea is, cannot try it ; The
Plaintiff Jaid that he delivered no Cloth in London, prout ike. And per Ca-
tesby, now the Replication has made the Plea good. Br. Replication,
pi. 44. cites 22 E. 4. 2.
5. Delt on a Bond, the Defendant pleaded the Statute ofUfury, alledg-
ing, that it was agreed, that the Plaintiff' Jtould have fo much Money tor
giving a Day of Payment &c. the Plaintiff replied, and traverfed that it
was corruptly agreed, and found Jor the Plaintiff ; and it moved in Arreff,
of Judgment, that the Ilfue was taken upon Corruptly agreed, which
Word (corruptly) is not in the Plea in Bar; but the Court adjudged for the
Plaintilt, becaule the Plea was made good by the Replication ; but if both
the Plea and Replication had been ill, yet the Declaration being good,
it fufRces for the Plaintiff to have Judgment. Mo. 464. pi. 655. Pafch.
39 Eliz. Rogers v. Jaekfon.
6. Debt upon Bond, conditioned that after Marriage of the Plaintiff', and
having a Sou by his Feme, that if he conveyed Lands to the Value of 40 /. per
Ann. in T'ail to the Son to enjoy after the Death oj the Obligor, that then tkc.
The Defendant /hews the Day of the Marriage, and the having of a Son •
And that he made a Feoffment to a Stranger to the Life of him ft If Jor Life,