CCXLII. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas.
IN Trespass, for breaking his Close; The Defendant pleaded That heretofore he himself brought an Ejectione Firmae against the now Plaintiff of the same Land in which the Trespass is supposed to be done, and had Iudgment to recover, &c. and demand∣ed Iudgment, if against, &c. It was moved, That the Bar was not good,* 1.1 because that the Defendant had not averred his title, And the Recovery in one Action of Trespass, is no Bar in ano∣ther, &c. Quod Curia concessit. But as to the matter, the Court was clear, That the Bar was good. And by Periam, Who ever pleaded it, it was well pleaded: For as by Recovery in an Assise, the Freehold is bound; so by Recovery in an Ejectione firmae, the possession is bound. And by Anderson, A Recovery in one Ejectione Firmae, is a Bar in another. Especially (as Periam said) if the party relyeth upon the Estoppel. And afterwards, Iudgment was given, That the Plaintiff should be barred.