carter mary Holcroft versus Dickenson action sur Le case sur assumpsit a  action on the case upon a promise the plaintiff declare that the that of  November car in consideration she do assume and promise to marry the defendant  within a fortnight the defendant do assume and promise within a fortnight to  marry her and lie that this hinder her preferment to her damage of pound  verdict for the plaintiff arrest of judgement argue by the court seriatim  Ellis justice it have be move in arrest of judgement that the action lie not  here be no consideration except spiritual matter and such whereof our law can  take no notice there be not quid pro quo it be such a consideration which be  not possible in the power of the defendant to carter er p perform for in this  case without another act to be do that be to say by the priest there can be no  marriage at all several case have be put coke foe bunting case the conusance  of the right of marriage do belong to the ecclesiastical court h foe one  bargain that another shall have his daughter there be not quid pro quo Edward  if a man covenant by deed to marry such a one it be good if without deed it be  of ecclesiastical conusance Edward if a man promise in marriage with his  daughter it be of ecclesiastical conusance if a man promise a certain sum of  money to another to marry his daughter no action lie at commonlaw it be a  cause of matrimony by choke and Littleton agree with the master of the roll  Edward Edward notwithstanding the opinion of all these book I conceive the  action be well bring and that judgement ought to be give for the plaintiff my  reason be here be a mutual contract betwixt the party about a lawful thing and  I hold it be not mere a spiritual act true ecclesiastical court have conusance  of it if one plead nient accouple en loyal matrimony they shall judge and bind  we but if he plead nient sa feme it shall be try by commonlaw ancient marriage  do not belong to the ecclesiastical court not till the time of pope Alexander  the three Selden will tell you what the right of marriage be original it be  not a thing of ecclesiastical jurisdiction if a suit be in this court concern  a marriage to be execute in specie we have nothing to do in it when there be  right of way for cattle contra sharply action will lie at commonlaw we bring  not the action to meddle with the marriage but for the damage that he have not  take her accord to his promise Fitzherbert n b a king brook pl action on the  case marriage be a consideration the commonlaw take notice of if I covenant in  consideration of marriage that I will stand seize c this will carter raise a  good use Plowd Fitzherbert n b foe if one promise to another to marry his  daughter a action of debt lie break debt doctor Stud foe late authority be  full dyer pl a action on the case upon a promise of make to the plaintiff by  the defendant in consideration the plaintiff have take to wife the cozen of  the defendant be good with a special request lie I will give as much as I give  with other my daughter a action on the case lie against executor crok James  sander and esterby stretcher and parkers case after these time precedent be  innumerable therefore I hold judgement pro to express grief Atkins justice I  be for judgement for the plaintiff it have be strong object that here be  nothing in the case but what be of mere ecclesiastical conusance in the  ancient yearbooks the matter be much dispute yet the yearbooks be with some  distinction Edward if the promise to marry be by deed then its triable at  commonlaw otherwise not if without deed Fitzherbert n b Edward b Edward ass pl  by which you may see the ancient book be not agreeable in this point Edward  there the distinction be more dice if the defendant promise to marry his  daughter it be determinable at commonlaw but if the defendant promise with his  daughter this ought to be sue in the spiritual court Edward foe nele be there  of a different opinion and give the case of tithe late authority be full  object this entitle the commonlaw court to promise of marriage be in  troublesome time resp stretcher and parkers case be before the troublesome  time car roll Abr hill James roll Abr foe pl sander and Estevby Trin car  chapman case pash car Nortons case it be not for we to go contrarient to these  judgement that which touch matrimony whether lawful or not lawful ought to be  try in the spiritual court but in our case the spiritual court can give remedy  for damage object its not a temporal damage resp it be marriage to a woman  especial be a advancement or preferment Rep Ann Davies case lot of matrimony  be a temporal loss Trin James b r I roll Abr tonson case and innumerable case  more I hold judgement ought to be for the plaintiff Windham justice pro to  express grief a action upon the case upon a promise for a portion this be not  our case proper carter er p and the case cite be put where marriage be  consummate in our case there be no marriage no way whereby the ecclesiastical  court can be entitle to it the book speak much of the consideration of the act  be ground upon ecclesiastical matter that therefore it ought to be question  there yet the book all agree that if there be a temporal matter do interpose  whereupon the action be ground remedy may he have at the commonlaw a man may  sue for one thing in the ecclesiastical court and at commonlaw too one sue for  a pension proper in the spiritual court yet if it be upon a grant by the  parson and patron carter he may sue for it at the commonlaw that case Edward  which put the distinction of a deed and no deed I can understand the  difference for one be as much a temporal act as the other be the case be  infinite you will not find a case as we be where the marriage be not  consummate as our case be I think the action will lie here be a mutual promise  mutual promise be good consideration to support action upon the case in our  case there be a mutual promise and a promise of marriage too than which be no  great consideration object here be a act to be do by another and perhaps the  party may be within age resp within age shall not be presume if I undertake to  do a act whereto a three person must concur I must procure he to do it and  there may be a very great temporal loss Ann Davies case the ground of the  action there be for lose her preferment Hobart p grisly and Lowther roll  Abridg foe Hutton p roll Abr foe stretch and Parker this be a clear authority  and the reason be clear and ground upon a future promise I hold judgement  ought to be give for the plaintiff chief justice Vaughan pro to ward off  action upon the case have increase much since the queen time late authority in  the troublesome time be of no moment the case of stretch and Parker in car be  but a single judgement No question there be many ecclesiastical matter upon  which may be temporal contract now I shall come to show how this matter do  differ from the other case I shall first look over the record I except to the  declaration she say in consideration she have promise to take he to husband  within two week space he promise to marry her but when she come to allege the  matter in fact that she be to make ready to bring before see c but say not  infra two soldiers as the promise be except when one be to do a act and a  three person its requisite to that act if one will entitle himself to a action  he ought express to show the act be so offer to be do as it ought to be do as  with a priest and other circumstance in our case it be not say she tender at  the church nor when any minister be by now to the point a promise to take one  to husband absolute notwithstanding any impediment this be not a good promise  and the impediment of marriage be to be judge in the spiritual court and this  reason differ this case from the rest if a man call another heretic a action  lie not here because if the defendant justify this court can judge of it and  so be our case if she promise to marry he absolute and a action bring against  her here she can allege a impediment as she may do in the ecclesiastical court  and the promise in question must be necessary intend if there be no impediment  the book of Edward this be express by way of contract and not as a marriage  portion the judgement be final and they all say it be of ecclesiastical  conusance Edward foe covenant to marry by deed be good without deed its of  church carter astical conusance ass pl Det Br be a sudden opinion fitzherberts  opinion have lead many into a mistake letter e its find upon this book of  assize he not take notice of the difference of deed and without deed now I  shall put this as a single case the promise make by mary be express to take he  to husband before such a time its naked bargain and no consideration I shall  agree accord to the common case if a be bind to feoff b such a day and b  refuse and the bind be sue its a good plea to say he be ready and offer and he  refuse if mary have enter into bind to marry he by such a day and he have sue  it it have be a good plea in this case for her to say she offer and he refuse  in carter er p our case it be otherwise this case be void for want of  recompense for the performance of a thing promise this have nothing in it but  a bare bargain the next thing to difference it from other case be this she  shall never have a action unless she make it good on her part and she can  never make it good on her part as this promise be if she demand the recompense  she do perform her part its necessary be perform his part and then they be man  and wife No such act reciprocal be a good consideration in this case one of  full age marry one under age she may dissent in consideration you will promise  to lie with I in the same bed I promise to lie in the same bed with you this  be a parallel promise the performance of one part do perform the other in  conisderation you will hold my hand with you I will hold hold you with I that  which be suppose to be a consideration be a direct consequence if you read a  deed in my hear I promise to hear it so for default in plead and other reason  I hold judgement ought to be give for the defendant carter boundary HILLARII  car in come ban