DATE DOWNLOADED: Sun Apr 17 10:28:41 2022

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:

Bluebook 21st ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 88 - King's Bench .

ALWD 7th ed.

. English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 88 - King's Bench .

APA 7th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 88 King's Bench. .

Chicago 17th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 88 - King's Bench. , .

McGill Guide 9th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 88 - King's Bench (: ., )

AGLC 4th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 88 - King's Bench (.,

MLA 9th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 88 - King's Bench. , . HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

English Reports Full Reprint Vol. 88 - 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.
12 MOD. 214. MICHAELMAS TERM, 10 WILL. 3. IN B. R. 1271
and multiplied into several actions ; so that if A. draw a bill of one hundred pounds
payable to B. or order, B. cannot assign fifty pounds thereof, so as his assignee shall
have an action for the same; and if B. himself bring an action for part, he must
acknowledge satisfaction for the residue.

[214] CASE 350. LUCK against GOODWIN.

S. C. 2 Salk. 599. S. C. 1 Ld. Ray. 393.
Scire facias. Exception was taken, that whereas it was said, petit judicium pro
misis et custagiis in Mc parte, that it should have been in ed parte: but in hdc parte was
held good (a).

CASE 351. HARRISON against CAGE AND HIS WIFE.

[Referred to, Finlay v. Chirney, 1888, 20 Q. B. D. 505.]

Assumpsit by a man against a woman, in consideration that he had promised to marry
her, she promised to marry him.-S. C. 5 Mod. 411. S. C. 1 Salk. 24. S. C.
Carth. 467. S. C. Holt, 456. S. C. 1 Ld. Ray. 386. S. C. Ray. Ent. 403.
Action upon the case, for that in consideration he promised to marry the wife
dum sola, she promised to marry him; that he frequently offered himself to her to
marry her, but that she had not married him, but married the defendant. On not
guilty, and verdict for the plaintiff,
It was moved in arrest of judgment, that there was no consideration; for though
an action will lie for a woman against a man for non-performance of his promise to
marry her, yet such an action will not lie for a man against a woman.
Sed tota Cur. contra; Because if the woman's promise did not bind her, neither
could the man's bind him, because otherwise there would be no consideration for the
man's promise; and a promise without a consideration is void: but where there is a
promise against a promise, one promise is the consideration of the other, because each
may have his action against the other for non-performance. Whereupon the plaintiff
had judgment.
And in this case Holt, Chief Justice, held, that if a man making such a promise
ve3& incapable to perform by reason of consanguinity, &c. it would be there a void
promise, whereof she might discharge herself, by giving special matter in evidence
on non assumpsit (a).

CASE 352. MOOR against THE MANUCAPTORS OF GARRETT.

On pleading nul tiel record, day is given to bring it in.-S. C. 2 Salk. 566.
S. C. Holt, 558.
Scire facias against bail, who pleaded, that there was no capias against the
principal. The plaintiff replied, and set out a capias prout patet per recrnum. The
defendant rejoined, nul tiel record. The plaintiff surrejoined, that there was such a
record, and prayed a day to bring it in. Whereupon the defendant demurred.
Holt, Chief Justice. This way of pleading is out of the common course. There
are two [215] ways of pleading a record; either by craving oyer of the record, and
if it is not given it is a failure ; or he may plead "nul tiel record," and then a day is
given to bring it in ; but this surrejoinder is a third way, and a new one.
But it was adjudged well enough, and the plaintiff had judgment (a).
(a) See Bringar v. Allanson, 1 Ld. Ray. 532, accord.
(a) See Hutton v. Mansell, 3 Salk. 16. Ilolt v. Ward, 2 Stra. 937. Fitzg. 175,
275. Lowe v. Peers, 4 Burr. 2225.
(a) See Grant v. Burton, acc. post, 267, and Creamer v. Wickett, cont. post, 352.
1 Term Rep. 150.