case palmer against knight Trinity term car roll in assumpsit on a promise to  save the plaintiff harmless of all damage and loss c a declaration that the  defendant have not save he harmless but suffer he to be sue whereby he be  enforce to lie out diverse sum of money c be bad and not aid by the verdict  for he ought to have allege a special request show where for what and how much  he be damnified ante Bulst cro James assumpsit whereas there be a contract  betwixt the defendant and one cubit concern certain tree grow upon such land  the defendant in consideration the plaintiff will cut down or carry the say  tree to the defendant house assume and promise to he that he will save he  harmless of all damage and loss which croak car er p may happen to he by  reason of such cut down or carry away when he shall be thereunto require and  he allege in fact that he cut down five of the say tree and carry they to the  defendant house and that the defendant have not save he harmless although  often require but suffer he to be sue at the commonlaw for cut down and carry  they away croak car whereby he be enforce to la out diverse sum of money in  defence of those suit the defendant plead non assumpsit and find against he  and damage to thirty pound and it be now move in arrest of judgement by  Grimston that the declaration be not good because he do not show in what court  he be sue nor what charge he expend nor how he be damnified be all in his own  knowledge wherefore be ought to have show the special breach otherwise there  be not any cause of action sir William Denny move that the allegation that he  be put to diverse cost and charge in defence of the suit be sufficient and  although peradventure this have be cause of demurrer yet have plead non  assumpsit and a verdict find and damage assess it appear he be damnified  wherefore it be now make good and he shall not have advantage thereof  Richardson be of this opinion at the first that the verdict aid it otherwise  clear it be not good but Jones justice and myself hold that the declaration be  ill in substance no breach be sufficient show and be ill in substance the  verdict can help it and to that purpose Jones remember a case of peck v  Methold where a assumpsit be that he shall deliver such a obligation upon  request after payment of such a sum he allege in fact that the money be pay  and that although often require he have not deliver the obligation the  defendant plead non assumpsit and find against he and judgement in the common  plea for the plaintiff and error bring because it be not to be deliver but  upon request so there ought to be a special request which because it be not  make and the year and place allege of the request although the issue be take  upon the assumpsit and find yet it be not good but the judgement be reverse  which Richardson remember wherefore he agree that the declaration be not good  nor aid by the verdict whereupon judgement be give for the defendant