DATE DOWNLOADED: Sun Apr 17 10:31:38 2022

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:

Bluebook 21st ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 90 - King's Bench .

ALWD 7th ed.

. English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 90 - King's Bench .

APA 7th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 90 King's Bench. .

Chicago 17th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 90 - King's Bench. , .

McGill Guide 9th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 90 - King's Bench (: ., )

AGLC 4th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 90 - King's Bench (.,

MLA 9th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 90 - King's Bench. , . HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 90 - King's Bench. , .

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
ROZT, X &.V& MARRIAGE 1151

But the judgment was affirm'd by the opinion of the whole Court; for first it
was observed, that the verdict hath expresly referr'd to the avowry, for it finds that
H. T. held by service of suit ad cur. manerii preed. bis per ann. ad manerium ill.
tenend. prout in advocatione infrascript. interius mentionat'; but if these words prout
in advocatione, &c. were not there, it would be good; for there is not such variance
as was supposed; for the plea doth not mention before whom the court was held,
but leaves it at large, and the verdict ascertains it, and there is not thereby any
variance; for a court-baron may be well held coram seneschallo: and for this Holt
C.J. cited 1 Leon. 316, and 2 Jo. 22, 23, and the plea it self shews, that the court
was not a court-baron, according to general usage, for it shews that it was to be held
bis per ann. ex relatione alterius as to the matters in B. R.
Note; As to the objection made by Serjeant Gould, that no seisin of the manor
was alledged in William Mohun: the following precedents are according to the cog-
nizance i,, this case, viz. Co. Entr. 597 D. Rast. Replev. in Hors de Son Fee, pl. 1,
4, 5, in Tenure 3, 4, 5, 7, and Winch 937, [456] 973, but in this last precedent it is
said, that judgment was given for the plaintiff; but this case is reported in Winch 31,
by the name of Whitgift versus Sir F. Barington, and in Hutt. 50, by the name of
Whitgifl versus Heldersham, and in both those books 'tis said, that judgment was for
the avowant.

MARRIAGE.

1. HARRISON versus CAGE & Ux'. Mich. 10 W. 3.

[See S. C. Carth. 467; 90 E. R. 870 (with note).]
5 Mod. 411, 412. Carthew 467.
Action on the case, wherein the plaintiff declared, that in consideration he the
plaintiff would marry the defendant, the defendant promised to marry him; and that
he had offered himself to her, but she refused him, and had married the other
defendant : it was here insisted, that this action did not lie ; tho' it might be other-
wise in the case of a woman, for marriage is an advancement to a woman.
Holt C.J. The consideration of a man's promise, is the woman's; then certainly
his promise shall be a good consideration for her promise; for there is the same
parity of reason in the one case as in the other: in the Ecclesiastical Court, the
plaintiff might have compelled a performance of this promise; but here indeed, she
has disabled her self, for she has married another; though you might give in
evidence any lawful impediment, as that the parties were within the Levitical degrees,
&c. for that makes the promise void ; but 'tis not so of a precontract. The man is
bound in respect of her promise; if she makes none, he is not obliged by his promise,
and then 'tis but nudum pactum: so that her promise must be good, to make his
signify any thing to her; and then if her promise be good, why should not a good
action lie upon it? The action is grounded on the mutual promises; therefore this is
actionable on both sides, or on neither side.
Judgment for the plaintiff.

[457] 2. HEMMING versus PRICE. Mich. 12 W. 3.

Cases W. 3, 432.
She was libell'd against in the Spiritual Court ex officio, for adultery with one
now dead; by whom she had children living; and having pleaded below, that she
was married to him, it was replied, that she had a former husband then living; and
a prohibition was moved for, suggesting the matter of the plea. And it was urged,
that by sentencing her, they would in effect bastardise the issue, which ought not to
be after death of one of the parties.
Holt C.J. Do you think that if a man and a woman cohabit together, and have
issue, and one of them dies, that that shall protect the other from being proceeded