case crosier against Tomlinson executor the statute of the James c to limit  personal action extend to a action of indebitalus assumpsit for though  trespass only be mention yet all action on the case be within the equity of  the proviso S C Freem in a action on the case the plaintiff declare that the  defendant testator be in his life time videlicet such a day indebt to the  plaintiff in the sum of twenty pound for so much money before that time to his  use have and receive do assume and promise to pay the same when he shall be  thereunto require and that the testator do not in his lifetime nor the  defendant since his death pay the money though he be thereunto require the  defendant plead that the testator do not at any time within six year make such  promise the plaintiff reply that he be a infant at the time of the promise  make and that he come not to full age till the year and that within six year  after he attorned the age of oneandtwenty year he bring this action and so  take advantage of the proviso in the statute of limitation modern er p James c  that the plaintiff shall have six year after the disability by infancy  coverture c be remove the defendant demurrer by rigby sergeant the reason of  his demurrer be because in the say proviso action on the case on assumpsit be  omit this Act be make for quiet of estate and avoid of suit as appear by the  preamble and therefore shall be take strict there be a enumeration of several  action in the proviso and this be casus to let go and so no benefit can be  take of the proviso in a writ of error upon a judgement bring car in the court  of Windsor the judge hold that a action on the case for slander of a man title  be out of this Act a cro car debt upon escape be out of the statute sand but a  action for escape be not side so be debt for not set out of tithe for these be  not ground upon any contract cro car hut note to the four edition a because  such a action be rare and not bring without special damage but hide chief  justice doubt cro the lawmaker can not omit this case unadvised because it be  within those sort of action enumerate by this Act this promise be make to the  plaintiff when he be but a day old and it will be very hard now after so many  year to charge the executor modern but turner sergeant argue that though a  indebitalus assumpsit be not within the express word of the proviso yet it be  within the intent and meaning thereof and so the rule be take in Bewfages case  b   l b when word slatuti are specific ratio autem general to cause to stand  to come to know be generally and this be a statute which give a general remedy  and the mischief to the infant be as great in such action of indebitalus  assumpsit as other action and therefore it be but reasonable to intend that  the parliament which have save their right in debt trovers c intend likewise  that they shall not be bar in a indebitalus assumpsit in the case of smith v  Colshil a and a debt be bring upon a bind the defendant there plead the  statute of the Edward c of sell of office the word of which be that every bind  to be give for money or profit for any office or deputation of any office  mention in the statute shall be void against the maker in that case the bind  be give to procure a grant of the office and also to exercise the same now  though this be not within the express word of the statute yet the bind be hold  void and if it shall be otherwise the mischief which the statute intend to  remedy will still continue and therefore the intent of the lawmaker in such  case be to be regard for which reason if action of indebitatus assumpsit be  within the same mischief with other action therein mention such also ought to  be construe to be within the same remedy but be take the case of swain v  Stephens b cro car b to rule this case at bar in which case this very statute  be plead to a action of trover and the plaintiff reply that he be beyond sea  and upon a demurrer to the replication the court hold trover to be within the  statute it be name in the paragraph of limitation of personal action which  direct it to be bring within the time therein limit that be to say all action  on the case within six year and then enumerate several other action among  which trover be omit yet the court be then of opinion that trover be imply in  those general word and of that opinion be the chief justice and Wyndham and  atkins justice that upon the whole frame of the Act it be strong against the  defendant for it will be very strange that the plaintiff in this case may  bring a action of debt and not a indebitatus assumpsit modern when the scope  of a Act appear to be in a general sense the law look to the meaning and be to  be extend to particular case within the same reason and therefore they be of  opinion that action of trespass mention in the statute be comprehensive of  this action because it be a trespass upon the case and the word of the proviso  save the infant right in action of trespass and therefore though there be not  particular word in the enact clause which relate to this action yet this  proviso restrain the severity of that clause and restore the commonlaw and so  be to be take favourable and this action be within the same reason with other  action therein mention ought also to be within the same remedy modern er p but  Ellis justice doubt whether action of trespass can comprehend action on the  case and that when the parliament have enumerate action of trespass trover  case for word c if they have intend this action they will have name it he say  he be for restore the commonlaw as much as he can but doubt much whether this  proviso do help the plaintiff but judgement be give for the plaintiff