Beresford plaintiff against GOODERIDGE defendant a action against a executor  Ro Rep cro James Ro Abr l e f in a action upon the case against the defendant  as executor upon a promise make by the testator for a marriage portion upon  non assumpsit plead a verdict be find for the plaintiff it be move in arrest  of judgement that this action lie not against the executor for this assumpsit  of his testator for this matter matrimonial the executor shall not be charge  with this at the commonlaw if it be not by deed and to this purpose be cite e  fol and that upon this difference if one do promise another to give he so much  if he do marry such a one or if he do marry his daughter for this he shall sue  at the commonlaw and his executor shall be liable for this after his death  otherwise it be where he assume to give so much with his daughter in marriage  for this suit shall be in the spiritual court S in court Christian and not at  the commonlaw and the executor for this be not there to be charge and upon  this difference be these book S Fitzherbert nat short catalog title  prohibition f a and fol in consultation e fol b e f e f e fol Plowdens  commentary fol in Sharinglon Pledals case out of e lib Assisar plea  Fitzherbert title prohibition plea brook title debt plea brook title  jurisdiction plea e fol b h dyer fol latimers case e fol plea fit title  Bulstrode er p jurisdiction pl title executor plea in debt he count how that a  covenant be have between he and the defendant that if he do take to wife the  daughter of the defendant that then he will be bind to he in l he show how  that he have take her to wife exception there take because this debt be demand  upon a covenant touch matrimony the which ought to be try in court Christian  by the statute of articuli allotment of land but because he demand the debt  upon a deed by force of which it become in law to be a covenant it be  therefore rule maintainable otherwise if without deed a precedent be cite in  this court between sander and Estarby in a action upon the case against the  executor upon the promise of a testator for a marriage portion which be mich  James b r enter termin Trin James b r rot Bulstrode after a judgement here  give for the plaintiff a writ of error be bring in the exchequer Chamber and  the same matter there allege for error as be now here move in arrest of  judgement another case be also cite to be in the exchequer between hurban  plaintiff against eliot defendant where the promise by the testator be that in  consideration that he marry his kinswoman he promise to give he so much it be  hold in the exchequer that the executor be not to be charge with this promise  of the testator to pay the l promise and l quarterly in maritagium for the  plaintiff it be urge by Coventry that the action well lie against the executor  and as to the precedent cite of sander and Estarbyes case that be here adjudge  against the executor a writ of error be bring upon this judgement but there be  no reversal of it only a certificate of the clerk be show that the opinion of  the judge in the exchequer Chamber be contrary to the judgement here give but  the same judgement be not reverse and as to the other case cite of eliot this  be differ from the case here now in question in h one there say marry such a  maid and I will give you so much debt lie for this as to the exception take  because in the declaration no notice appear to be give of the marriage to this  it be answer that this be not of necessity to be give and so the difference  will be between such a contract which be make a debt and a mere collateral  promise there if he suffer the day to pass he shall lose it otherwise where it  be in case of such a contract as make a debt though he suffer the day to pass  yet the debt and duty here always remain until the same be discharge by  payment so where a promise do amount to make a debt as in this case it do no  notice be to be give as it have be adjudge otherwise where it be for a  collateral thing Haughton justice I de doubt whether a action upon the case  lie against the executor upon the assumpsit of the testator for a thing or  contract which make not a debt upon coke pars fol Pinchbons case dodderidge  justice within these three year in this court there be here the like action  bring upon payment to be make at the marriage day and overthrow for default of  notice give of the marriage day if a man be bind to pay to another so much  money at the marriage day of I S he ought to give notice to he of this the  court be clear of opinion that here in this case notice ought to have be give  of the marriageday which be not do accord and therefore the court conceive  this to be a good cause to arrest the judgement but yet they will not overrule  this but give direction to search for precedent in this case as touch the  other matter the court be clear of opinion that this action as it be here  bring well lie against the executor upon the assumpsit of the testator this  case be afterward move again and as to the point of notice it be urge that no  notice be requisite to be give of the marriage though part of the money  promise be to be pay upon the marriage day for that this promise make this to  be a good and a true debt the which still have continuance until it be pay and  accord to this it be here adjudge Trin Elizabeth b r rot between Bulstrode er  p Hodges and Warley that in case where the matter demand be become to be a  debt there no notice be to be give and Trinit James b r rot between Brendly  and Cobbe the same case in effect and judgement there give in a action upon  the case upon such a promise without any notice give for this be hold not to  be requisite be a Bulstrode debt in Hodges case there he assume upon the  marriage of his kinswoman to pay unto he so much at the day of the marriage at  the day he bring his action without give he any notice of the marriage  judgement be here give for the plaintiff upon this a writ of error be bring in  the exchequer Chamber and the judgement be there affirm the other precedent of  Prindleys case James there also this point of notice be question and move here  in arrest of judgement because no notice be give as touch notice to be give in  such case there will be a difference as it be urge where a collateral thing be  to be do upon a marriageday there notice ought to be give of it but where the  thing then to be perform be a due debt to the party who do not demand this yet  notwithstanding this remain a good debt to he and for refusal to pay this he  may after have his action and in this case no notice be requisite to be give  Haughton the resident here show be the one of they upon payment to be at the  day of marriage the second to be upon payment after marriage and no notice  give I be of opinion that in this case judgement ought to be give for the  plaintiff and that the want of notice give be not material but in case of a  bind for payment of money at the day of marriage it be to be consider whether  notice be there requisite to be give of the day of marriage afterward at  another time this case be move and urge for the defendant that this action lie  not against the executor upon the assumpsit of the testator be for a thing  which be impossible for the testator himself to perform this be for  marriagemony to be pay upon promise after his death here it be not debt is  owed against the testator and therefore his executor shall not be charge with  it to this it be answer that in Elizabeth judgement be here give in such a  case before Slades case now resolve coke pars f that a action lie against the  testator and against he likewise upon indebitatus assumpsit here it be not as  it have be urge to pay after his death but this be to be pay tempore death  crook justice the executor here be Chargeable with this c there be a  difference between a charge which charge the heir and which charge the  executor if the testator upon a good consideration make a promise to pay such  a sum one year after his death his executor shall be charge with this the  court agree that the action here well lie against the defendant be a executor  for this assumpsit of his testator and that no notice be here requisite to be  give of the marriage and therefore by the rule of the court judgement be give  and so enter for the plaintiff