ccxl sir anthony shirley and ALBANYES case assumpsit suspension of rend in a  action upon the case upon assumpsit by sir Anthony Shirley against Albany the  plaintiff declare that he be seize of the manor of Whittington for the term of  his life the reversion to the earl of Arrundel in fee and so seize surrender  all his estate to the say earl who afterward by his deed grant a rentcharge of  per annum out of the say manor to he and afterward convey the manor to the  defendant in fee and afterward maii Elizabeth upon a communication betwixt  Leonard er p the plaintiff and the defendant concern the say rend the  defendant do promise to the plaintiff that if the plaintiff will show unto the  defendant any deed by which it may appear that he ought to pay to the  plaintiff such a rend he will pay that which be due and that which shall be  due from time to time and further declare that April Elizabeth he show unto  the defendant a deed by which it appear that such a rend be grant and due and  for eighty pound due for the two last year he bring the action the defendant  plead that after the say promise and before the show of the say deed sure Jan  Elizabeth the plaintiff enter into the say land and lease the same for three  year the plaintiff to fold back say that I ten Elizabeth the defendant do  reenter upon which they be at issue and it be find for the plaintiff it be  move by Glanville sergeant that by the entry the promise be suspend and be a  personal thing once suspend it be always extinct Wray the action be bring for  the arrearage due the two last year and so at the time of his reentry the  plaintiff have not cause of action and therefore it can not be suspend gawdy  when the plaintiff show the deed the defendant be Chargeable to arrearage due  before and after the promise wherefore if the entry make a suspend of the rend  the suspension do continue but I conceive here be not any suspension for this  promise be a mere collateral thing and so not discharge by the entry into the  land for it be not issue out of the land but if the plaintiff before the deed  show have release all action the same have be a good bar and I conceive that  the deed be not show in time for it ought to be show before any arrearage due  after the promise but here it be show five year after but that be not deny by  all the other justice another exception be take that where the promise be that  if the plaintiff show any deed by which it may appear that the defendant shall  be charge with the say rend and the declaration be by which it may appear that  the plaintiff ought to have the rend c so as the declaration do not agree in  the whole see I man in Browning and Bestons case the condition of the lease be  if the rend shall be arrear not pay by two month after the feast c and the  rejoinder be by the space of two month c and the plead hold insufficient for  per duos menses do not affirm direct post duos menses but by implication and  argument and here it be hold that the condition be a good consideration  another exception be take because the promise be lie all the rend ad tunc debt  is owed or deincep debend it be hold that this word ad tunc do refer to the  time of the show of the deed and not to the promise and as to the last  exception but one it be resolve that the declaration notwithstanding the same  be good enough sure to stretch out factum per quod that this only is apparent  quod To give back predict to loosen to withhold in form predict another  exception be take because here no breach of the promise be Leonard allege for  it be plead that eight pound de one year old To give back arrer fuer but it be  not say de To give back predict ergo it may be another rend and then the  promise as to this rend be not break Wray although the word predict be want  yet the declaration be well enough and it shall be intend the rend mention  before see h b where villan west shall be intend villan predict e in a quare  hinder the plaintiff do entitle himself by grant of the next avoidance cum to  fall upon and do not show in his count that the same be the next avoidance and  yet the count be hold to be good for so it shall be intend so here and he say  it be not necessary that a declaration be exact certain in every point but if  one part of it expound the other it be well enough and although the identity  of the rend do not appear by the word predict yet it appear by other  circumstance as by the day of payment c and no other rend can be intend and  now this exception be after verdict and therefore favourable to be take and  afterward judgement be give for the plaintiff cro ante Leonard er p hill  Elizabeth in the king bench