Bruer and Sowthwell.
Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg.
THe Plaintiff in this Case moved again for judgement,* 1.1 notwithstan∣ding what had been formerly spoken to arrest it, for though the word discomputando in the Declaration be insensible, yet there is enough in the de∣claration to ground the Action, and that is the breach of the Assumpsit assig∣ned to deliver the Currants bought of the Defendant, and the word dis∣counting shall not hurt it. Bacon Iustice was of the same opinion. But Roll Iustice said,* 1.2 all the bargain is here set forth upon which the Assumpsit was made, and if the bargain be ill, the Assumpsit is not good. Hales of Councell with the Plaintiff said, if part of the bargain be in∣sensible, and part not yet a good Assumpsit may be grounded up∣on that part which is good, But Roll said the bargain here is intire, and if part of it be not good it is all naught: yet he said if part of a bargain be good, and part void, yet an Action may be brought upon it. The rule was, That it should be argued again on both parts.