CXIII. Banks and Thwaits Case. Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench.
IN an Action upon the Case, the Case was, That A. had pawned an Indenture of Lease for years, of a Messuage and Lands to Banks; Thwaits, intending to purchase the same, required Banks to deliver him the said Lease, and he would give Banks 10 l. whe∣ther he bought it or no, at what time he would request the 10 l.* 1.1 And Banks delivered the same to Thwaits accordingly.* 1.2 And afterwards brought an Action upon the Case, and declared upon the whole matter; and concluded, Licet saepius requisitus, &c. without alledging a request express in certain, and the day and place of it. It was said by Cook, That here the monies did not grow due before Request, nor is payable before Request, and there∣fore a Request ought to be made in facto; And so, he said, It was ruled in this Court, in an Action upon the Case, betwixt Palmer and Burroughs; and he said, that the Mony was not due by the Promise, but by the Request. And it was the Opinion of the whole Court, That although it be a duty, Yet it is not a duty payable before Request; And the Request makes a Title to the Action: But if A. selleth to B. a Horse for 10 l. there is a Contract, and a Request in facto, need not be layed. And the Opinion of the Court was also, That upon this matter the Plaintiff could not have an Action of Debt; for there is not any Contract, for the thing is not sold, but it is a Collateral promise grounded upon the delivery: And by Clench, Here the Request is traversable: And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff. And it was said, It was so ruled in Alderman Pullisons Case, in the Exchequer.* 1.3