The same Term in the same Court. Hodges versus Moore.
IN Debt for marriage money, the case was this: A man was bound to Hedges to pay him a 1000 l. after that he had married his Daughter, and afterwards he married her, and brought Debt upon this Obligation, and it was not averred that he had given notice to him of the marriage, but deman∣ded the money: And this was moved by Noy in Arrest of Iudgment (but quaere if request afterwards doth not implynetice.)
And Doderidge Iustice put this case, A man is bound to pay a 100 l. two moneths after A. return from Rome, he ought to give notice of his return before that he can have an action upon this Obligation, for he may land at Newcastle, or Plymoth, where by common intendment the Obligor cannot know whether he be returned, or not; and this was agreed by the chief Iu∣stice and Jones.
And Serjeant Davies argued for the Plaintiff, that there need not precise notice to be given, and he cited 1 H. 7. 18 E. 4. and Co. lib. 8. Where the Obligor shall take notice at his perill, and so here because he takes upon him ••or to pay it: And it was said, that one Blackamores case was adjudged in the point, and he conceived also that this request afterwards is a sufficient no∣tice. But Noy for the Defendant said, that he ought to give notice, or other∣wise this mischief would ensue, that if he had not married her, and yet had