baker against smith mich banc sup in answer to a matter speak in arrest of  judgement the case of baker and smith former speak to be again move and  Maynard answer the exception offer in arrest of judgement it be object that  here be not a mutual promise set forth between the party for there be no  agreement make by the feme for it be only say that she consent to marry the  party which be not a bind agreement to this be answer here be a mutual and  bind agreement though it r oh be not so plain express in word as it may have  be h X verbal promise may be discharge by worids and so it be here London and  Stokes case Trin car rot next it be not necessary here to give notice of the  discharge of the promise though if there be notice it be well enough because  the thing to be do upon it to wit the payment of the l be certain and style  report er p the discharge shall be intend to be in the presence of the party  to who it be give for the declaration be exonQravit Self which shall not be  intend in his absence pasch car harvey and Inglethorps case and mich James  Martin and Wilbie Hodges and more pasch car banc Reg James Bradlyes case James  Beedly and Goodrose latch on the other side argue that here be no bind promise  on the behalf of the woman to marry with the defendant and so the discharge of  it can be no consideration for this be not a reciprocal but a bare acceptation  of the promise make by the other and a action of the case lie not against her  if she have refuse to marry with the defendant because here be no repromission  make by her that it appear not that the discharge be in convenient time for it  be year after but admit that to be so yet here be no notice of the discharge  and that be necessary to be give and it shall not be intend to be give without  show it for the declaration ought to be certain and here be no inducement in  it that there be any notice give in his presence and if it be give in his  absence he ought to have notice give he of his discharge else how shall he  know it and it be unreasonable to charge he if he have no notice and by a  three person he can receive notice as it be in the case put by Mr Maynard on  the other side in the case of peck and Ingram in this court adjudge that the  party ought to have notice when the feme leave her father house and come to  such a place roll chief justice say here be two promises The feme assume that  if the defendant will marry her she will consent to he and here be a  consideration although there be not a absolute mutual promise for it be a  promise in law and the action may be lie by way of consideration or by way of  mutual contract that here be but a promise de going to be and there may be a  temporal loss although the thing to be do videlicet the manager be spiritual  and the disengagement of the party do not imply notice but the demand of the l  now imply a discharge nor can the party here take notice of a three person and  therefore it be necessary to give he notice for where the party can take  notice from any but the party himself there notice must be give he jerman  justice hold here be a good mutual promise to raise a consideration and by the  word to free Self it shall be intend to be to the person himself this imply a  notice especial it be after a verdict Nicholas just much to the effect as roll  chief just but he doubt whether the word do imply a personal notice for it may  be it be in his absence and the verdict will not help it and so there can be  no judgement ask justice say here be a good promise but the word to free Self  do not imply a notice so the court be divide and will advice