case proctor against Burdet in covenant on indenture of apprenticeship to find  the apprentice in meat drink lodging and all other thing necessary a breach  assign in the word of the covenant be sufficient SC lev Yelv side ray lev Mod  Lutw show cro James Carth Mod Mod Mod Mod stram Bac Abr ld ray comens a action  of covenant be bring by a apprentice set forth the indenture by which the  defendant his master have covenant to find and allow the plaintiff meat drink  lodging and all other thing necessary during such a time and the breach be as  general as the covenant videlicet that he do not find he meat drink lodging et  alian necessarian the plaintiff have judgement by nil to say and upon a writ  of enquiry bring entire damage be give against the defendant and in a writ of  error upon this judgement the error assign be that the breach be too general  and that entire damage ere give among other thing for alian necessarian and do  not say for what and a case be cite in the point in Trinity term James where  the judgement be reverse for this very reason astel v hill cro James a the  counsel contra argue that that which be require in a action of covenant be  that there may be such a certainty as the defendant may plead a former  recovery in bar if he be sue again and therefore one need not be so particular  in assign of the breach upon a covenant as upon a bind for in a bind for  performance of covenant where there be a covenant to repair if it be put in  suit it be not sufficient to modern er p say that the house be out of repair  but you must show how ld ray and see Harmans case Mod a but in a covenant it  be enough to say that it be out of repair modern if in this case the plaintiff  have show what necessary be not provide for he it will have make the record  too long and therefore it be sufficient for he to say that the defendant do  not find alian necessarian Keilway b the case of astel v mill have since be  adjudge not to be law cro James roll Rep Bulst sand c for many contrary  judgement have weaken the authority of it videlicet that the breach may be  assign as general as the covenant as where a man covenant that he have a  lawful estate and right to let c the breach assign be that he have no lawful  estate and right to let c and do not show that the lessor have not such right  or that he be evict yet it be hold good curian in a quantum to deserve they  former set out the matter at length but now of late in that action in general  word and also in trover and conversion pro to visit other good have be hold  good which be as general as this case see Radley v budge I stram Bottomley v  Harrison I stram ld ray white v Graham I stram Shalmer v Pulteney ld ray  Marsfield v marsh ld ray Thornton v Barnard ld ray king v Maccarty ld ray  knight v Barker ld ray Mod Wiatt v Essington ld ray Kemp v Andrews Mod  Hesselgrave v Thom son fitzg d there be many instance where breach have be  general assign and hold ill that in croak be so but the late opinion be  otherwise the judgement be affirm see Hugh v richman Cowp e