ing, as far as poſſible, all technical terms, and phraſes not hitherto interpreted.
Let us, in the firſt place, ſuppoſe David Edwards[1] to be tenant of the freehold, and deſirous to ſuffer a common recovery, in order to bar all entails, remainders, and reverſions, and to convey the ſame in fee-ſimple to Francis Golding. To effect this, Golding is to bring an action againſt him for the lands; and he accordingly ſues out a writ, called a praecipe quod reddat, becauſe thoſe were it's initial or moſt operative words, when the law proceedings were in Latin. In this writ the demandant Golding alleges, that the defendant Edwards (here called the tenant) has no legal title to the land; but that he came into poſſeſſion of it after one Hugh Hunt had turned the demandant out of it[2]. The ſubſequent proceedings are made up into a record or recovery roll[3], in which the writ and complaint of the demandant are firſt recited; whereupon the tenant appears, and calls upon one Jacob Morland, who is ſuppoſed, at the original purchaſe, to have warranted the title to the tenant; and thereupon he prays, that the ſaid Jacob Morland may be called in to defend the title which he ſo warranted. This is called the voucher, vocatio, or calling of Jacob Morland to warranty; and Morland is called the vouchee. Upon this, Jacob Morland, the vouchee, appears, is impleaded, and defends the title. Whereupon Golding, the demandant, defires leave of the court to imparl, or confer with the vouchee in private; which is (as uſual) allowed him. And ſoon afterwards the demandant, Golding, returns to court, but Morland the vouchee diſappears, or makes default. Whereupon judgment is given for the demandant, Golding, now called the recoveror, to recover the lands in queſtion againſt the tenant, Edwards, who is now the recoveree: and Edwards has judgment to recover of Jacob Morland lands of equal value, in recompenſe for the lands ſo warranted by him, and now loſt by his default; which is agreeable to the doctrine of warranty mentioned in the preceding
