Tenants for 21. By the common law, if a præcipe had been brought against a tenant for life, and a recovery suf 10 Rep. 43 b. fered, it would have barred the persons in remainder; Life. Pigot, 18. Pigot, 83. i infra, c. 7. Wiseman v. Crow, but this being justly considered as a grievance, it is enacted by the stat. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 31. that all common recoveries suffered by tenants for life, without the consent of the persons in remainder or reversion, shall be totally void. 22. If after this act, a tenant for life had made a lease for years, and the lessee had made a feoffment, and a præcipe had been brought against the feoffee, and he had vouched the tenant for life; such a recovery was not within the statute, because the tenant for life was not then seised of the estate for life. To remedy this, the statute 14 Eliz. c. 8. was passed, 'reciting that several tenants in tail, after possibility, and other tenants for life or lives, had suffered common recoveries, to the prejudice of those in remainder or reversion : It was therefore enacted, that all such recoveries had or prosecuted by covin, against any such particular tenant, or against any other, with voucher over of such particular tenant, shall, as against all persons in remainder or reversion, be utterly void and of no effect. Provided that that act shall not extend to recoveries by good title, or to recoveries by assent and agreement of the persons in remainder or reversion, so that such assent appeared of record in any of her Majesty's courts. 23. In consequence of the last proviso in this Cro.Eliz.562. statute, a tenant for life may join with the persons in remainder or reversion in suffering a common recovery, without incurring a forfeiture. Jenning's Case, infra, c. 7. Who may take by Recovery. 24. With respect to the persons who are capable of taking an estate by a common recovery, as any person may sue out a writ of entry, it follows, that any person may be demandant in a common recovery; and the uses of a recovery may also be declared to any one capable of taking lands by way of grant, such as infants, married women, corporations sole or aggregate, or any other persons, not considered in law as civilly dead. Tit. 35. c. 7. Writ of Cross v. Grey, COMM SECTION 1. OMMON recoveries being judicial proceedings must be carried on according to the established forms and solemnities of a suit at law; but as they are suffered with the consent of all the parties, and considered as common assurances, the Court of Common Pleas has in many cases allowed them to be amended, on the same ground as that on which fines are amended. 2. A mistake in the writ of entry, on which a common recovery was suffered, was, in a modern case, allowed to be amended, by inserting 50 acres intead of 30. Lord Ch. J. Eyre doubted whether the Court had power to do it, in consequence of the determination in Lord Pembroke's case; but Mr. JusTit. 35. c. 7. tice Rooke observed, that by the stat. 8 Hen. VI. c. 12. original writs might be amended, as to mistakes of the clerks. 3. Where an evident mistake appears in the names Names of the or description of the parties, the Court has allowed Parties.. it to be amended. Norton, Dyer, 105. 4. A common recovery was suffered in a writ of Pinde v. entry in the post against Elizabeth Pinde, and in the warrant of attorney she was called Alicia: the warrant was allowed to be amended. Pigot, 170. 5. A common recovery was agreed to be suffered, Chapman v. wherein John Chapman and Richard Elton were to Bacon, be demandants. By the mistake of a clerk, the writ of entry was sued out in the names of John Chapman and John Elton. The recovery was allowed to be amended. 6. A warrant of attorney was given, in order to Idem. suffer a common recovery, by William Reynolds and Hester his wife. The serjeant who took the warrant of attorney certified the same to be given by William Reynolds and Margaret his wife: and the mittimus and transcript were made of a warrant given by Margaret, and the recovery was entered accordingly. It was allowed to be amended. 7. A common recovery was suffered by R. Callow Thurban . Pantry, et ux', without mentioning the name of the wife, Pigot, 171. and it was allowed to be amended. Coulthard, 8. A recovery was allowed to be amended, by Mayre v. changing the words Ann the wife of Henry Goodwin 2 Black. Rep. to Elizabeth, in conformity to a fine and deed to lead the uses of it. 9. A rule was made absolute to amend a common recovery, by transposing the names of the demandant and tenant, pursuant to the deed making a tenant to the præcipe for the recovery. Biscoe had been demandant, and Lord tenant; but, by the deed, Lord was to be the demandant, and Biscoe the tenant. 1230. Lord V. Biscoe, Description 10. In the same manner, where a mistake appears of the Estates. to have been made in the description of the estates intended to be comprehended in a recovery, it has been allowed to be amended. Skinner v. Whitwell v. Brook v. Biddolph, 11. A common recovery was agreed to be suffered of lands in Alphampton and Magna Hermney, in the county of Essex; but by mistake the same was suf fered of lands in Alphampton and Lamarsh. It was ordered to be amended. 12. A common recovery was agreed to be suffered of lands in New Church, Levington, and Mersham, but New Church was totally omitted. Upon examining the deed to lead the uses, it was ordered to be amended. 13. A common recovery was agreed to be suffered of two messtages and one garden in London; but 1 Taunt. 484. being only suffered of one messuage, it was allowed to be amended. Pigot, 172. Jenkinson v. 14. The præcipe and writ of entry in a common Pract. Reg. recovery were allowed to be amended, by adding the names of several parishes which had been omitted. C. P. Henzell v. 2 Black R. 3 Wils. R. Wheeler v. 15. The deed to lead the uses of a recovery, mentioned "all the vouchee's lands in Aldenham, or elsewhere, in the county of Kent, in the occupation of Robert Goddard." Robert Goddard rented one entire farm of the vouchee (all sworn to be intended to 2 Bos. & Pul. pass by the recovery), being principally in the parish of Aldenham, but part thereof lay in the parish of Mersham, which was not known to the parties when the recovery was suffered. The Court, after taking a day to consider of it, allowed the recovery to be amended, by inserting the word Mersham. 560. Milbank v. Watson v. 2 Black. R. 16. On a motion to amend the recovery of lands, &c. in the town of Kingston-upon-Hull, by inserting the words in Myton, and the words, and county, |