case gatehouse against row declaration upon three several promise the last  state at any time etian the aforesaid defendant in consideration that the  plaintiff provide good c super see assumpsit be good after verdict S c salk S  c comb S c Carth S c ld ray Writ of error on a judgement in the common plea in  a action on the case upon a indebitatus assumpsit and quantum to deserve bring  by Gatehouse for meat drink c which the defendant have when he stand for  burgess for Stockbridge the declaration state three several promise the last  of which be thus at any time etian pillage the defendant in consideration that  the plaintiff at his request have find and provide for he meat drink c super  see assumpsit and do not say that the defendant super see assumpsit this cause  be try at the assize at Winton and a verdict for the plaintiff Gatehouse and  entire damage give it be now move in arrest of judgement that the last be a  void promise because it be not allege that the defendant have promise so that  possible a stranger may make the promise and then the defendant be not bind by  it it can be take by intendment to be the defendant because it be the very  gist of the action and since the jury have find that row super see assumpsit  modus et form and have assess entire damage occasion praemissor and every  promise be a distinct declaration and one of they be wrong lie it be therefore  nought as for instance in assumpsit the plaintiff declare cro Elizabeth SC Noy  a that in consideration he will marry the defendant daughter super see  assumpsit to pay the plaintiff one hundred pound upon non assumpsit plead the  plaintiff have a verdict but the judgement be arrest because it be not allege  that the defendant super see assumpsit which be this very case in point modern  this may have be good in a indebitatus assumpsit salk b because where there be  a debt the law fix a promise upon the debtor to pay it to which it be answer  that if the consideration be void then the jury have not give damage for it  for they can give a verdict either for no promise or a bad promise as to that  case in croak beforementioned there be three person name in that declaration  of which the defendant daughter be last name and the word super see assumpsit  immediate follow may relate to her which be the reason of that judgement but  here there be but two person name so that when the plaintiff declare against  the defendant it must of necessity be intend that the defendant assumpsit and  nobody else because the consideration arise from he and those word at any time  etian in the three promise couple that sentence to the first if it have be  that the plaintiff assumpsit to pay himself it have be good after a verdict  side vent c so if there be several consideration allege in one declaration and  one of they be sufficient though the other be wrong both as to matter and form  yet the declaration will be good cro Elizabeth d so where a assumpsit be bring  against a executor upon the promise of the testator and the defendant plead  that he himself make no such promise after a verdict it shall be intend to  refer to the promise of the testator side latch e afterward in Hilary term the  plaintiff have judgement it be after a verdict modern er p