case harris against pet easter term will roll to debt on a bind condition to  save the plaintiff harmless of and from all cost and damage which may arise by  reason of a certain suit at law the defendant may plead non injure general S c  Carth debt upon a bind the condition thereof be to free and keep harmless the  plaintiff of and from all cost and damage which may arise by reason of a  lawsuit c the defendant plead non injure general and the plaintiff demurrer to  the plea the question be whether such plea be good or not it be agree that if  the condition have be to keep harmless only then non injure have be a good  plea but it be to free and keep harmless he ought to show how he have free he  and not answer the damnification alone and to prove this the case of Brett v  Andrews Leon Owen a be cite which be debt upon bind for performance of a award  in which among other thing it be award that the defendant shall acquit  discharge and save harmless the plaintiff of such a bind and the like plea be  plead as in this case which be hold insufficient because the defendant ought  to show how he have discharge he if the award have be make recite a suit in  chancery between the party and that the suit shall cease and the plaintiff to  stand acquietatus pro where you will means in pillage billa there a plea quod  to stand quietus ind be good enough without show how because he be acquit by  the award itself videlicet to stand acquietatus but if a man have be oblige to  acquit another from a debt or suit it be not sufficient to plead non injure  general but he ought to show how and in what manner and this be the case of  freeman v Sleen cro James roll Abr pl b to which it be answer that the case of  Brett v Andrews Leon Owen c differ from that at bar because it be to acquit  the plaintiff from a peculiar obligation which word c acquit imply that it  must be by deed and therefore he ought to show by what deed modern but this  condition be not to free and acquit the plaintiff from a suit but to indemnify  he from the consequence of it which be cost and charge and the defendant have  plead that no damage happen to he so that it lie upon he to prove that he be  damnified a action on the case king v Hobbs cro Elizabeth d be bring against  the defendant who promise that in consideration the plaintiff will discharge a  three person then under a arrest that he will pay the money and allege in fact  that be to free the plaintiff have judgement in the common plea and upon a  writ of error in this court one of the error assign be that to free cum be not  good without show how but the court hold it well enough and that it need not  be as a discharge of a bind or a rend which ought to be show in what manner if  this have be plead in the affirmative that he have free and acquit the  plaintiff there he must show how Mausers case   e but it be in the negative  the plaintiff ought to show how he be damnified cro James sand   Ent f and of  this opinion be the court that it be a good plea because the condition modern  er p be to save the plaintiff harmless from something that be uncertain at the  time of the make thereof videlicet from the cost and charge of the suit that  no cost may be recover against he but if it have be to save harmless from a  particular thing there such a negative plea general will not have do because  the defendant ought to show how he indemnified the other whereupon the counsel  perceive the opinion of the court move to have leave to discontinue the action