case Courtney against HORNIGOLD on claim oyer of a award if it contain more  matter than the plaintiff have set out he can recover ante debt upon a bind  for performance of a award nul award plead the replication set forth a award  of such and such thing of one side and such thing b stram will black Rep burr  Rep Tidds pract b r h c the party may now file a new bill and amend by that  Russell v Martin stram and the court will not permit the time of fill it to be  inquire into wile v handy stram martial v ring stram modern report er p to be  perform of the other side all well award assign breach and bring the award  into court the defendant pray oyer thereof and have it whereby it appear that  it do contain more matter than the plaintiff do show in his replication and  demurrer for the variance and it be urge that if issue have be take upon the  replication and the award whereof oyer be give have be produce in evidence the  plaintiff must have be nonsuit for they be quite different award and the award  be entire and ought to be altogether set out for there may be that in the  award which if set out may make it all void or at least show that the  plaintiff have no cause of action for suppose here they have conclude by  declare that they have make no award or have award that the plaintiff shall  deliver to the defendant twenty pound and a horse and that thereupon the  defendant shall deliver a certain deed to the plaintiff can it be say if the  plaintiff have bring debt upon a bind for the performance of that award and  upon nul award plead shall reply and set forth a award that the plaintiff be  to deliver the defendant a horse whereupon the defendant shall give he up the  deed that upon issue thereupon the award make will maintain the issue beside  the the submission be with a ita quod de prmissis and the award set out in the  replication be not so it modern report be agree that perhaps in debt upon the  award this way will do but this be a collateral thing videlicet a bind with a  penalty it will not do to which it be answer that true it be if the defendant  have come to excuse himself of the forfeiture of his bind he ought to set out  the whole award but when one be only to show cause of action it will suffice  to show enough that a cause of action may appear to the court vide woodman and  mantle case in Plowd and Hammond and case in brown if a man be bind to b to  pay he such a sum provide he make a feoff upon condition to c in a action  bring upon this bind the defendant shall not crave oyer of the deed of feoff  and allege that it be not accord to the condition of the bind holt chief  justice the award must be reciprocal or else it be not good and you have omit  part of what be to be do of one side and therefore a part of the award to be  do of your side which be traversable by the defendant and if it will be  against you on verdict it will be so too on demurrer upon oyer and though your  declaration upon the bind and the breach allege be well yet if that which you  show upon over do not maintain it you be go where it be necessary to set out a  collateral matter to make the declaration good and he advice they to  discontinue and pay cost and so they do