clarke plaintiff against GURNELL defendant enter pasch James b r rot a writ of  error for to reverse a judgement c in a writ of error to reverse a judgement  give in the c b in a action of covenant wherein the case appear to be this the  plaintiff there do covenant and agree James to let a ship for fraught to one  Boothby and that the say ship with thefirst wind that shall happen shall sail  out of the isle of line to such a place c and clarke covenantee for Boothby  that he for the fraught of all the premise will pay unto the plaintiff Gurnell  the sum of pro totan transfretatione all proamissaruni c for this monV the  action be bring in the c b and a judgement there have against clarke for the  same upon which judgement a writ of error be bring Henry Velverton for the  plaintiff in the writ of error that the judgement there give S erroneous and  to be reverse and for error allege that the declaration be not good because it  be not lie therein that the ship come thither and the covenant for the payment  of the money do depend upon the other covenant concern the shi p the plaintiff  by his declaration do not well entitle himself to have his action it appear by  h foe by fortescue if one do covenant with another to be his steward for so  much wage in a action by he bring for his wage in this court he ought to  surmise and set forth that be have perform his service which do entitle he to  his action and so here in this case he ought to show that he have take in the  fraught and perform what on his part ought to be perform here in this case the  covenant be entire it appear in e dyer foe plan that the word pro make a  contract to be conditional as pro maritagio habend a man do covenant for to  make a estate if the marriage take not effect the covenant be discharge so in  a annuity grant pro council impendend stop the counsel and the annuity be go  so if a man grant to another a way over his land pro chimino there the other  grant to he a rentcharge if the way be stop the rentcharge be go so that pro  make a condition and this be all one as if it have be in consideration ind h  foe b if a man do covenant to serve another for a year and be do covenant to  give he so much for his year service if he will bring a action for his money  he ought to show that he have serve he and so in the principal case here the  plaintiff Bulstrode before be can recover the money ought to show performance  of that which be to have be do of his part the which be not here do and so for  this defect and omission in the declaration the same be not good and so  consequent the judgement for this cause be erroneous and ought to be reverse  Geo croak that the judgement be not erroneous but be well give the covenant  header be to pay so much pro transfretatione all prcTmissarum though be do not  go yet he be to have his pay and to this purpose be the case in e foe b a  where one do covenant to serve another in the war in France with so many  esquire at lamb and he do covenant and promise to pay he so much for the same  a action of debt be there bring for the money it be there allege that he ought  to have show performance of the service but rule that he need not so to do but  the iudament there be a respond ouster notwithstanding the say exception and  witg to agree coke part foe Vghtreds case it appear by the book of h foe b a  if a man do promise another a year for to be of his counsel such a day and  year for two year next ensue in a action bring for his money Bulstrode er p he  ought to show in his count that he be with he and do give he counsel for this  be that which be the first cause of the duty but if it be a promise to pay so  much upon the promise of the other for to do such a thing there in this case  it be a promise against a promise and the one of they may have his remedy by  way of action for the money and the other his action for breach of promise  Elizabeth dyer foe plan where the office of the steward of a manor be grant to  one and a rentcharge grant to he pro exercitation occupation duty that there  it be a quoere whether he shall not be charge in the pursue of his remedy for  the rend to show that he have exercise the office for that if he have not this  do the annuity and rend be determine and make not destrainable this agree with  h foe but both these do differ from the case here in question for here in this  case it be one covenant against another and so the judgement be well give and  not erroneous and so to be affirm Yelverton justice where the payment be to be  make upon performance of a matter precedent there the party be to allege  performance of the matter before he can maintain a action for to recover the  money but otherwise it be where the matter to be perform be subsequent to the  payment and Ughtreds case coke part foe io be good law and nothing at all  against this the case before reniembred in e dyer foe pro maritagio one  covenant for to make a estate this pro make a condition and be matter  precedent the performance of which ought first to be lie down before the  estate covenant to be make for this can be obtain the principal case here be  not like the case where there be one promise make against another there they  ought to have their several action u on the several promise the one against  the other but it be not so in the case here for before he can here have the  money covenant to be pay pro transfretatione c be must express lie the  performance of that which be to be do on his part be matter precedent to the  payment which be the preparation and set forth of the ship the which be not  here so do and for this omission the declaration not good and so the judgement  not well give but be erroneous and ought to be reverse Fleming chief justice  if the covenant be that he shall take all the ware into the ship and so to  transport they and then the other do promise and covenant for to pay he so  much for the same or do covenant that when be return to London to pay he so  much for the same here of necessity he ought to show his take in of the ware  and the transportation and his return before he can recover the money against  the other and this be have here fail to do in his declaration and so the  declaration for this defect be not good and for this cause the judgement be  erroneous and to be reverse William justice this difference may be take here  they be not as several covenant and so one against another but they be here as  concomitant if the one do covenant for to transport good from place to place  and the other covenant to pay so much for the same these be several covenant  and the one may well have his action against Bulstrode the other mere upon the  covenant and for breach of the same but in the principal case here there be  matter precedent to be do to entitle the party to have the money covenant to  be pay and that be the prepare of the ship the lade of the good into the ship  and the transport of they c and then for all this the money covenant to be pay  the which he can recover before performance of the former part to be do by he  and this he ought to have allege in his declaration which he have not do and  so the declaration not good and the judgement erroneous but the court not be  full the reversal of the judgement be not pronounce but the same be adjourn to  another time though the opinion of the three judge be that the declaration be  not good and so the judgement erroneous