case heart against Longfield a indebitatus assumpsit lie for board a stranger  at the defendant request S c ld ray Indebitatus assumpsit there be several  count in the declaration and demurrer to some and issue take upon other one of  the count to which there be a demurrer be this the plaintiff declare that  whereas such a day and year the defendant be indebt to he in such a sum for  nourish Edward Longfield at the request and instance of the defendant and that  he the defendant promise to pay he there be also a quantum to deserve for  nourish the say Edward Longfield for the same time the first exception be that  a indebitatus assumpsit do not lie in the case and to prove this the case of  sand v Trevilian cro car but see Ambrose v row show a be cite where a desire b  to be attorney for I S and undertake to pay he his fee and such fee as he  shall give to counsel and it be adjudge that a indebitatus will not lie  against a and also the case of herison v BurridgeMoor b and rozer v rozer vent  e the second exception be that the first declaration be a indebitatus for  nourish of Edward Longfield for such a time there be likewise a quantum to  deserve for the same nourish and it be contradictory that there shall be one  agreement to pay so much as it shall be worth and another to pay a sum  uncertain and both stand modern holt chief justice there can be two agreement  and both stand for the same thing at the same time for in such case the last  will destroy the first and the last will only stand but the way have be to  aver they to be different child and that be the right way when a quantum to  deserve and indebitatus be bring for the same thing for here you ought to  multiply Edward Longfield as often as you multiply your declaration but as to  the other objection can a be indebt to b for do good to c t for if a shall say  to b give such a quantity of good to c upon my account and I will pay you or  make I S a cart and I will pay you for it sure a indebitatus will lie against  a in that case the sale proper be to he upon who request it be give and not to  he to who it be give but a indebitatus will not lie for be a attorney to a  three person because in that case his be a attorney on record be what entitle  he to debt and therefore if another promise to pay yet be for who he be a  attorney on record be not discharge and therefore the other can in that case  be liable to a indebitatus and in the case of the cloth put before no action  lie against he to who it be deliver but only against he upon who request it be  sell and the court direct the plaintiff to enter a non pro upon all but the  first and take judgement upon that and so it be do modern er p