case smith against airy a indebitatus assumpsit will not lie to recover money  win at play in a action on the case for money win at play there be two count  one set forth a special agreement to play at such a game and mutual promise of  payment as it ought to be the other be in consideration that the plaintiff  such a sum have win of the defendant at play he promise to pay it and here it  be resolve on a motion in arrest of judgement after a verdict for the  plaintiff and entire damage give first that a indebitatus assumpsit do not lie  for money win at play for that action never will lie but where debt will lieBy  Lord Mansfield there be no foundation for the notion that no assumpsit will  lie where a action of debt may not be bring burr a and it never be hear that  debt be bring for money win at play second that the second count be bad for at  that rate one may declare that defendant be indebt to he upon a certain  agreement in such a sum of money and that in consideration thereof be promise  to pay which will doubtless be bad for he shall special set out some agreement  whereby a debt be raise as for modern good sell and deliver c a indebitatus  can never be upon mutual promise but general assumpsits lie on mutual promise  Carth skin b holt chief justice quote a case in my Lord hale time where it be  hold that it will not lie upon a bill of exchange against the acceptorHard  vent Bac Abr c and he say that there be no way in the world to recover money  win at play but by special assumpsit per curian notwithstanding the case of  Eccleston v linne in the exchequer Chamber it have be hold frequent both here  and in common plea ever since that this action of indebitatus will not lie for  money win at play see Browning v morris Cowp e three they hold clear that any  thing in the first count which be right can not help any defect in the second  for though they both be put in one declaration yet they be as distinct as if  they have be in two several action fourthly though it be object that this be  after verdict whereby the jury bad find that the plaintiff have win money of  defendant which can not have be without a special agreement and mutual promise  between they and if what the jury must necessary have find have be allege it  will have be well and therefore the verdict curedA verdict will not aid where  the get of the action be not lie in the declaration but it will cure ambiguity  Avery v Hoole Cowp and therefore after verdict nothing be to be presume but  what be either express state in the declaration or necessary imply from those  fact which be state spire v Parker Douglas notorious facts f yet the whole  court order judgement to be stay till the plaintiff move further and Parker  move for judgement at another day allege that mutual hazard suffice to raise a  debt and for case cure after verdict quote the case of Mannington v William  vent a and Ashford v Crispin vent b holt chief justice the action ought to be  bring upon the agreement of the party it be true that when two agree to play  for so much money it be a actual promise but if either win there be no debt  arise thereupon for nothing but a meritorious valuable consideration can raise  a debt and it be a error to think that modern er p every contract which oblige  one to pay money raise a debt see Moses v Macfarlan burr clerk v she Cowp c as  if a promise c to pay he a debt due to c from b and it be for good  consideration a be thereby bind to pay it but yet it be not a debt upon he and  if he after bad come and in consideration that I be bind to pay you the debt  of b I promise to pay you a indebitatus will not lie thereupon a indebitatus  have be bring for a tenantright fine lev see also grant v astle dougl  notorious facts whitbread v burst dougl notorious facts d which I never can  digest gold justice quote the very case of Shereborn v Colebatch vent e and  the case of Methwin v Andrews in the court of common plea per totan curian  judgement be arrest