bolton against lee covenant into a of one part and b and c of the other who  the dawn a bring a action against b only SC keb covenant upon a charter party  between Bolton owner and lee and Morgan merchant freighter of a ship by which  Bolton lend they the ship to fraught a voyage to guinea for per month and it  be mutual covenant between the party who the dawn modus following and then  follow diverse covenant concern ship tackle and perform the voyage and then a  covenant for levinz payment of fraught videlicet when the ship arrive at  guinea that the fraught then due shall be pay in England upon notice of the  arrival and when she arrive in England that all which shall be due from the  time of the last payment be to be pay and set forth that at such a time the  ship arrive at guinea and that six month and ten day be then pass which come  to so much whereof notice be give and that afterward at such a time the ship  arrive in England and that then fraught at the time of the last payment for  six month and the fraught since come to S and that the defendant have not pay  any of the sum the defendant demurrer and take two exception to the  declaration that the action be bring only against one of the merchant and not  against both and the covenant between the party be mutual neither do the  covenant for they who the dawn make it disjunctive levinz er p between the  party of both side but leaves it joint of the one part and several of the  other as the duty itself be which ought to be pay by both the defendant each  have a equal benefit and the who the dawn shall be refer to the plaintiff only  who be the sole party of the one side say non allocatur the covenant be  between they who the dawn be joint and several of both side it appear by  computation that the plaintiff demand more than his due upon the first breach  by S and less than be due upon the second breach by S and though the first may  perhaps be cure by the jury find less or the plaintiff release of the overplus  yet this demand of less than be due be a fault incurable so be cro Adderlon  against Dunton in assumpsit Poph latch style hob Latchlow against Tomlinson  ibidem Baily against goad all in assumpsit from which covenant can differ for  all be to be recover in damage in both case and Clotworthies case cro in  annuity and Baily and Offords case ibidem in debt and hill of this king inter  hulm and sander in debt of the other side for the plaintiff be cite cro that  it be good in other action nor in debt hale chief justice take a difference  between this case of covenant and debt and hold that after verdict it be  unquestionable cure though upon general demurrer it will be doubtful but upon  a special demurrer it be clear nought and levinz give rule for judgement pro  to express grief say the defendant may move it in arrest of judgement after  the writ of inquiry if he think good but it be not move and so judgement pass  absolute for the plaintiff sir William Jones counsel for the plaintiff levinz  for the defendant