case RUSSEN against Coleby if a covenant to pay seaman their wage yearly and b  in consideration thereof covenant to pay a every month these be mutual  covenant action of covenant on article of agreement by which the plaintiff who  be master of a vessel covenant to make use of the same in the coaltrade for  the defendant service and among other thing covenant that during the twelve  calendar month the time the vessel be hire for he will pay all the seaman  their wage yearly in consideration whereof the defendant covenant to pay the  plaintiff fortytwo pound every month during the year the nonpayment of which  be the breach assign to this the defendant plead that the plaintiff do not pay  the seaman accord to his covenant and to this plea there be a demurrer and  joinder in demurrer Mr Robinson for the plaintiff insist that these be mutual  covenant and that though the word be in consideration thereof yet in the  nature of the thing this can not be a condition precedent for the payment of  the seaman by the plaintiff be to be yearly of the plaintiff by the defendant  monthly so that from the manner of the covenant it be impossible the  performance of the act to be do by the plaintiff shall be necessary to entitle  he to a action against the defendant for not do the act he have covenant to do  and be cite the case of Thorp v Thorp salk a where this distinction be take by  holt chief justice in the resolution of that case Mr agar on the other side  cite Wyvil v Stapleton stram Mod brown p c b where the plaintiff by deed  covenant to transfer to the defendant two hundred pound SouthSea stock and the  defendant in consideration thereof covenant to pay therefore the sum of  thirteen hundred and sixty pound the breach allege be the nonpayment of this  money to this a trifle plea and demurrer thereto and the court of common plea  be of opinion that the tender of this stock by the plaintiff to the defendant  be necessary to entitle he to his action and for want thereof judgement be  give for the defendant upon a writ of error in the king bench that judgement  be reverse because that court be of opinion that they be mutual covenant and  no tender necessary but the judgement in the king bench be reverse in the  house of lord on this point Lord Hardwicke chief justice there can be no  condition precedent here for the reason give and the resolution in Thorp v  Thorp be certain good law for these case do not so much depend on the manner  of pen the covenant as the nature of they in the case of Wyvil v Stapleton the  reason the house modern of lord go upon be that it will be high unreasonable  that the party shall be compel to pay his money without have the stock which  be the consideration for pay the money transfer to he or tender and that at  least the payment of the money and transfer of the stock ought to be  concomitant act the other judge concern judgement be give for the plaintiff