case booth against johnson a declaration in assumpsit allege that the  defendant in consideration the plaintiff will receive such child into his  house as guest and find they necessary promise to pay and aver that be do  receive they into his house and find they necessary be good without say he  receive they as guest S c ld ray S c ld ray SC lily Ent SC salk ante ld ray  fitzg stram assumpsit the plaintiff declare that in consideration the  plaintiff testator do modern er p at the request of the defendant receive as  guest into his house such child and find they necessary he the defendant  promise to pay the plaintiff testator what it shall come to the defendant  plead the statute of limitation ill the plaintiff demurrer and have judgement  in common plea and a writ or error thereof be bring here and common error  assign Broderick for the plaintiff in error the agreement be to receive such  child ut female guest into the testator house and to find they necessary and  the averment be that be receive they into the house and find they necessary  without say that he have receive they ut female guest and the law annex  several substantial privilege to the condition of a host so that to receive  one general into a house and to find he necessary be very different from  receive he as host and therefore the agreement be not pursue a guest be a  distinct thing from servant apprentice c and yet as it be aver here it may be  that they be receive as servant or apprentice and where one declare upon a  express agreement be must bring himself express within it the case in leo sand  side Yelv cro Jones be all upon variances from the agreement Parker contra  quote dr clelands case Poph a where the plaintiff declare that the defendant  in consideration that he will do all his command honest and true for the space  of a year promise to pay to the plaintiff ten pound and that he have do all  his honest command and after a verdict for the plaintiff it be assign for  error that the promise be that he shall do all his command honest but that the  declaration be that be bad do all his honest command and that he may have do  his honest command but not do they honest yet the declaration be hold good  modern holt chief justice nun of your case come up to the case in question for  the case of Hargrave v Roger cro James Yelv b be thus a bind himself in a bind  with a condition that a three person shall appear to a action upon eight day  warning and that if be be condemned he will answer the condemnation the three  person appear in a action without eight day notice and be condemned that shall  not forfeit a s bind for be be a three person can do a act to alter the term  of a s agreement as if a be bind to b to pay he a hundred pound b may take any  collateral satisfaction for it but if the condition be to pay c a hundred  pound there c shall not receive any collateral satisfaction to save the bind  for he can alter the term of a agreement make between stranger and as to leats  case W Jones c the consideration be that the plaintiff shall procure I S to  renounce administration so there be a act to be do by I S to entitle himself  to a action for if be do nothing though the other renounce administration he  have no cause of action for the agreement be not to pay so much money if the  other renounce administration general but if I S procure he to do it so that  case quite differ from this and as to the case of saint Catherine hospital  which you quote out of Leonard Leon see also elsee v gateward term Rep d the  agreement must have be thus in consideration that a at the special instance  and request of b will build a house for b that then b will pay he so much  money for it and in his declaration he say that be do build the house but do  not say be do it at the request of b and be need not to do it for the  agreement be not that he shall build a house when the defendant do request he  but the agreement be absolute to build a house and to that agreement he be  bring at the request of the defendant and he quote the case of Berrisford v  Woodroffe cro James a and the case of pointer v pointer cro car b in  consideration that the plaintiff at the request of the defendant will marry  the defendant daughter be promise to give he so much money and the plaintiff  in his declaration aver that he do marry her without say that it be at the  request of the defendant and hold to be well in itself without any request or  help of a verdict and be put a case where the agreement be that the plaintiff  shall put his son as a apprentice to the defendant for seven year modern er p  and that the defendant shall find he meat drink and clothes and the plaintiff  bring his action against the defendant modern without aver he have put his son  to he for seven year and hold that the action do not lie for there it be part  of the agreement that he shall put his son to he and the defendant be not to  provide for he if he have not be p t to he as a apprentice for seven year salk  c the case of rock v rock Yelv d be he say against all reason and if the very  case in term be to be judge over again he will be of a contrary opinion to it  for it be to pay so much money before the plaintiff do take his next journey  to London and the exception take be that the plaintiff have not aver that the  journey mention in the declaration be the defendant next journey after the  agreement for if it be the next then by their own confession the action lie  and if it be not the next then there be another journey before and then too  the action well bring and be put the case of Tate v lewen sand e in  consideration that the plaintiff intestate at the request of the defendant do  find he to visit garment et in all respects material insert spectant he  promise to pay he all that he shall reasonable deserve for the same and the  plaintiff bring a action and aver that he do find to visit garment et  necessarian pillage and not a word mention of necessary before but only  material and that he deserve so much for they yet it be hold good and this be  upon a judgement by default move in arrest of judgement upon a return of a  writ of enquiry of damage in the case of Johnson v Abington in StilesStiles j  which be the best report case in the whole book for it be plain and sensible  report the agreement be that in consideration the plaintiff will deliver to  the defendant son so much ware as he shall desire the defendant promise to pay  what they shall be worth and the plaintiff aver in his declaration that he do  deliver such good to the defendant son which be receive by he without say it  be at his desire and that be hold good without any request or help of a  verdict for the acceptance of the son be tantamount to a desire though he  never do desire he so here be a agreement that in consideration that the  plaintiff will take into his house the defendant child to be his guest the  defendant will pay he for their diet what it shall be worth and the breach  assign be that be do take they into his house and do diet they c without say  that they be as female guest but sure the thing speak itself and they shall be  intend to be as guest if the contrary do not appear on the other side and if  the word host have not at all be in the agreement modern it will be intend  prima fancy that he be to receive they as guest yet upon the evidence that he  agree to take they into his house and find they meat and drink be can not be  nonsuit and the averment be full and complete as can be and it will be a very  foreign intendment to take they to be servant or apprentice or other than  guest and if such a thing be it ought to have come on the other side Powell  justice in this very case it be hold in the court of common plea that to take  one into his house and find he with necessary be to receive he as a guest as  much as if it have be so express for the word import so much and if it be not  so the defendant shall have come with a bene et yes be and confess the receive  and find necessary but allege that they be there as servant c and the  judgement affirm per totan curian