case knight against keech easter term will mary roll where there be mutual  promise and agreement special state in the declaration a breach assign general  that the defendant have not perform the agreement on his part be good after  verdict but have on demurrer S c comb S c Carth S c holt S c skin S c lev the  case be thus there be mutual promise and agreement between the plaintiff and  defendant which be special set forth in the declaration in which the plaintiff  allege general that the defendant non performavit agreamentum suum prediction  without show a particular breach there be a verdict and judgement for the  plaintiff in the common plea a writ of error be now bring and it be assign for  error that the breach be too general which be matter of substance the right of  the action can not be try and therefore it be not within any of the statute of  Jeofails to prove this many case be cite which resemble this videlicet that  non performavit agreamentum can not be good without show wherein as in  consideration that he will relinquish rend due a promise be make to pay thirty  pound and a allegation in facto that he do relinquish the rend but because he  do not show how the judgement be arrest Gregory v Nevil cro Elizabeth a so  where a horse be buy for a piece of gold in hand and eleven pound more to be  pay at the death or marriage of the plaintiff for which he be to be bind with  sufficient surety and thereupon the defendant promise to deliver the horse the  plaintiff offer to be bind but because he do not aver that he tender a bind  ready seal c that so it may appear that both he and his surety be bind in a  competent sum the judgement be likewise arrest hob b many more instance may be  give where the plaintiff must show the precise consideration agree on to be  perform as if a promise shall be make that in case the plaintiff will acquit a  man of a hundred pound due the defendant will pay the money now though it be  allege in facto that he do acquit he it be not sufficient without show how  Leneret v rivet cro James see also Langden v stote cro car and Prideaux v  Rawlins show c so a promise to pay money before the plaintiff begin his next  journey to London and he allege that he begin his journey on such a day but  because he do not aver that to be the next journey after the promise nil to  take in hand per billam modern e contra there be no form in the register  prescribe to a action on the case for if there be sufficient matter disclose  in the declaration to which the defendant ought to answer it be well enough  this be a negative videlicet non performavit and so not like those case of  affirmative promise or covenant where the breach must be aver beside in this  case the plaintiff can not have a verdict if the nonperformance of the  agreement have not be full prove good be deliver to a person and the defendant  promise that he will warrant all the money that be owe for they the breach be  for nonpayment of the money and although it be object it shall be for not  warrant yet it be hold well enough side e so if a promise be of a thousand  pound to save another harmless from a escape and the modern er p breach assign  be for not save harmless which be the gist of the action without say that he  have not pay the thousand pound at another day the judgement be affirm upon  these authority follow videlicet debt be bring upon a lease in which the  defendant be bind to perform several covenant or otherwise to forfeit so much  c the breach assign be that he have break all the covenant and do not show any  particular breach which be a hard case than this and yet it be hold good  yearbook Henry pl dyer b g if promise be executory on both side performance  need not be aver because it be the counterpromise and not the performance that  raise the consideration and therefore where the plaintiff promise to deliver a  cow to the defendant and he promise to pay he fifty shilling it be hold that  the plaintiff need not aver the delivery of the cow because without such  averment a promise against a promise make at one and the same time be a  sufficient ground for a action cro Elizabeth hob h and for a Iatter authority  this case be remember sand a there be a agreement between the plaintiff and  defendant that the plaintiff shall pull down old wall and build a malthouse  and that the defendant will pay he eight pound pro labour his the plaintiff  aver that after the agreement a preparation to be et to bring before  performare c and he have a verdict and this be hold good enough after a  verdict without aver performance of the work and therefore upon these  authority and because the promise in this case be mutual the breach be hold to  be well assign and thereupon judgement be give for the plaintiffThe court say  that this objection may be good upon demurrer but that tile plaintiff in the  original action be help by the verdict for it shall be intend that some  particular breach be give in evidence to the jury for that otherwise the  plaintiff can not have recover a verdict S c Carth S c skin b