That suit must first be brought on the possession rather than on the property.
 1And that possession rather than property must first be dealt with2 and that a  possessory action must take precedence though in the end the property must  prevail,3 may clearly be seen. For suppose that the justices first pronounce upon  the property and the right rather than on the possession; if they later wish to  take cognisance of the possessory issue between the same persons they achieve  nothing, for the plea of right which was tried4 between the same parties with  respect to the same tenement extinguished any recognition between them for  claiming the plaintiff's own or another's seisin of the same tenement, because a  plea de recto determines both rights, possession as well as property,5 as [in the roll]  of Trinity term in the third year of king Henry in the county of York, an assise  of mortdancestor [beginning] if William the steward.6 And so if two implead one  defendant, the first by a recognition in a possessory action and the other by writ of  right in a proprietary one, the plea by writ of right will be in suspense7 until it is  clear to whom the possession ought to remain, no matter in what court the plea  of right is pending, that of the lord king or the county court. If by the recognition  possession remains to the tenant, let the plea on the right then first proceed between  them; if the tenant loses by the recognition the writ of right falls, and let the  demandant sue against him who succeeded in the recognition. But though the  prosecution by writ of right is thus put in suspense by the recognition, the  demandant in the writ of right will always put in his claim against whomever the  judgment shall favour in the possessory suit. And that if violence is involved the  question of possession must be heard before that of property, is proved by  D. 18.104.22.168,8 where it is said that if a complaint is made concerning force and  possession or ownership, the issue of force must be dealt with before that of ownership,  and even before that of ownership or possession. There is also another reason,  because9 he who wishes to claim a thing, if he orders his affairs prudently, ought  first to see whether he can in some way secure possession, since it is more advantageous  to possess than to claim.10 There are many in possession who can protect  themselves by an exception, but who, once they are out of possession, will seldom  if ever recover by action. 11With regard to the general rule that he who first claims  by writ of right cannot thereafter descend to lesser actions, we must see how he  has used the writ. Some say that if the demandant has so far proceeded by writ  of right that the tenant has been summoned and on the summons essoined, that  this is enough