bill versus lake case where the request be the cause of action London Francis  bill bring a action upon the case against sir Arthur lake and count that  whereas at the special instance of lettuce wife of the defendant he have  provide for the say lettuce a tassety roll the defendant do assume to pay as  much as it be worth upon request and so in like manner for provide of linen  stuff c and make of several garment for the wife and aver that the several  thing buy amount to such a sum and the make thereof be worth such a sum which  in toto c and allege the request and aver that they be necessary vestment and  convenient for the degree Hutton of the wife and after the make of they he  have deliver they to the wife the defendant plead the statute of of king James  for limitation and say that the plaintiff within six year after the promise  suppose nor within three year after the end of the parliament have not  prosecute any original or any action upon this promise and assumption  whereunto the plaintiff demurrer and upon argument at bar by sergeant Branston  for the plaintiff and davenport for the defendant the matter be reduce to this  question whether the cause of action shall be find upon the request or upon  the promise Branston agree that where it be find upon a assumpsit in law and  that the request be but for increase of damage and not issuable there the  assumpsit be the cause of the action but this can be find upon a assumption in  law because that it be not certain but to be make certain first by the  plaintiff buy and provide of the stuff second by the plaintiff trim and make  thereof and then the matter of promise be for the payment of so much money as  it shall be reasonable worth and therefore the request be there collateral and  then it be the cause of the action and so within the statute if it be a action  which be find upon a assumpsit in law then it do not charge the husband see  the difference when request be material and shall be allege and when not in  Metholl and Pecks case before and a feme covert be not capable to make any  contract because she be sub potestate man and though it be for necessary of  diet and apparel that shall not charge the husband but a infant be capable to  make contract for diet and apparel necessary a Elizabeth sir William alephs  case be adjudge that where a infant have take so much for his necessary  apparel and diet which amount to fifty pound which be pay by sir William aleph  and he take a obligation with a penalty adjudge that it do not bind he in  regard of the forfeiture and dyer sir Nicholas Poiness case the wife take  satin and stuff to make her a gown and sir Nicholas pay the tailor for the  make thereof and yet upon a action of debt bring against the husband it be  resolve that it do not charge he and that the request be the cause of the  action he vouch dyer e solvend sur request and h foe replevin and tenure for  blow the land when be shall be require he ought to allege the request and he  conclude with a case adjudge hill car rot banc king between Shuesouth and  Fernell croak a action upon the case and count that the defendant a have keep  a dog which he know have use to wory sheep and that the dog have woried and  kill diverse sheep of the plaintiff and the defendant in consideration thereof  promise to satisfy the plaintiff what he be damnified when he shall be require  thereto and the promise be a James and the request and refusal be within the  time of six year and it be adjudge for the plaintiff because that the request  be the cause of the action for without it be can not have his action and the  sole matter upon which davenport insist be that this be a contract by the  husband whereupon the pl may have a action of debt against he and then it be  but a assumpsit in law and the request be not cause of action and therefore he  say as well as Hutton debt lie upon the delivery of cloth to a tailor for the  make garment thereof so a action of debt lie for the sum accompany the Hutton  er p special matter videlicet for the payment of so much as the make shall be  reasonable worth vide coke lib fol so debt lie as well against the say sir  Arthur upon this promise be make then and there he vouch e Fitzherbert debt  vet n b fol e h Tatams case but the court incline that no action of debt lie  against sir Arthur upon this assumpsit but only a action of the case upon the  request mich car