case whitley against Loftus in a action on a covenant by father and son that  the son shall account the declaration need not state a request to account  covenant on a indenture of apprenticeship wherein the plaintiff covenant with  the father and son the apprentice and they on the other side covenant with he  the plaintiff and this action be bring joint against the father and the son  for that the son have covenant faithful to account at his master the plaintiff  request for all such of his master good as shall come to his hand the breach  assign be that the defendant the son have not account c and upon non infregeru  assembly plead the plaintiff have a verdict it be move in arrest of judgement  first that the declaration be ill because the plaintiff do not set forth any  request make to the son to account which he ought to have do that the  defendant may have a opportunity to traverse it second that the plea be too  general two breach be assign beside it be no plea for one breach be in the  negative that he do not account modern report er p to which it be answer that  the breach be lie in this manner that he do not account ration pron  interrog   he break his covenant which be a affirmative beside this be a exception take  by the defendant to his own plea and be after a verdict which cure a informal  issue modern report three that this be a joint action against the father and  the son and the breach assign only against the son this judgement can be  maintain the court aid the plea and issue be good after a verdict fourthly  that the action ought not to be bring against the father for he do not  covenant that his son shall true account c he only covenant for himself  separate to pay the money which he be to give to the plaintiff for take his  son apprentice and the clause in the latter end of these article be in the  singular number videlicet that each of they the father and son bind himself  for the true performance thereof so that the father can proper be say to be  bind for his son but only for himself it be argue on the other side that this  be a covenant enter into by the master on the one part and by the son with the  consent of his father on the bind part but by both father and son as to all  other purpose for though the son be only bind apprentice yet they both  covenant for the true performance of all covenant c the word in the close of  the article be that each of they bind himself c for the true performance of  all the covenant and agreement therein mention and even from the nature of  these covenant the father be always bind for the son for otherwise master can  not rely on the covenant of their son who be common under age and so by law  not capable to consider what covenant to make and consequent in this case the  father shall be take to covenant for the performance of his son part as well  as his own the court be of opinion that the very end of bind the father be to  answer the wrong which may be do by the son to his master therefore the father  must be oblige for his son true performance of the article it be a joint  covenant and amount to the same as if it have be in this form it be agree  between the party that c it be true at the end of the article the covenant be  in the singular number that each of they do bind himself and it must be so  where the son be bind to perform the thing for which the covenant be make and  this clause be usual insert that the covenant may be take distributive that  each of the covenantors shall perform his part the latter part make the former  covenant joint or several and this make the covenant of the son bind the  father who covenantee for he as well as for himself so the plaintiff have his  judgement