case palmer against stavely Indebitatus for money receive to the use of  defendant help by verdict S c ante S c salk S c comy S c ld ray case upon two  several promise and a verdict on both the first declaration be very special  set forth that the defendant do set up a lottery and a fraud in the manage it  the second be a indebitatus for money receive by the defendant for the  plaintiff and lie ad use of the defendant it be move in arrest of judgement  for assumpsit lie not for money receive by one to his own use to which it be  answer that this be after verdict to understand it accord to the word of the  declaration will direct contradict the verdict and say that it be for money  receive for the plaintiff be sufficient without say ad use c and therefore the  ad use superfluous be contradictory ought to be reject Nosworthys case a in  point and it be lie down for a rule that whatever imperfection there be in a  declaration if it be such as must necessary be give in evidence to obtain a  verdict it shall be cure by the verdict and the case of Paterson v Milton b be  quote where the declaration be that the plaintiff be indebt to the plaintiff  and that the defendant promise to pay and hold good after verdict side that  the defendant be indebt to the plaintiff for good sell and deliver the  plaintiff promise to pay to the plaintiff good after verdict keb modern report  plaintiff declare that the defendant be indebt to he in fifty pound for money  have and receive to the use of the defendant and after verdict the plaintiff  have judgement but to this it be object that it be very true the court may  reject word that be repugnant in themselves and inconsistent to what go before  but they can reject word repugnant or destructive of what go before if they be  sensible and here it be good sense to say that the defendant receive money for  the plaintiff to his own use as if the plaintiff owe the defendant ten pound  and I S a Mod b Mod modern report er p owe the plaintiff ten pound and the  plaintiff appoint the defendant to receive the ten pound from I S for his debt  that will be money receive by the defendant for the plaintiff to the use of  the defendant but it be reply if that be the case the jury can not have find  for the plaintiff holt chief justice in debt one never lie a promise but only  the debt but in assumpsit there be a contract in law to pay what you receive  to another use and though a promise be lie ever so express yet if you do not  show the cause of the promise it will not bear a assumpsit though you give  ever so just a debt in evidence because it may be debt by specialty or a rend  whereof assumpsits do not lie if it be not for forbearance of the payment  after it be due so it will not be enough to say that the defendant be indebt  to you in so much money he promise to pay you even after verdict and here per  curium judgement nisi be give for the plaintiff and holt chief justice inform  the court that he have bind the defendant to his good behaviour for cheat the  public in get their money into his lottery and run away without draw it