Banks and Pratt.
Trin. 1654. Banc. sup.
Hill. 1653. rot. 603.
PRatt brought an Action upon the Case against Banks upon an Aumpsit,* 1.1 to pay him such fees as should be due unto him as his Attorney in pro∣secuting a sute for him in the Common-pleas, and such monies as he should lay out in solliciting a sute for him in the Chancery, and upon non-assumpsit pleaded, a Verdict was given for the Plaintiff, and a judgement thereupon. The Defendant brought a Writ of error in this Court, and assigns for er∣ror, that the Plaintiff did not shew particularly what sums of mony he had laid out for him, nor to whom he had paid it, as he ought to do, and Tooke and Sir Thomas Walsinghams case in this Court was cited to prove it. 2ly. The Assumpsit was that he should pay him his fees, so long as he should con∣tinue to be his Attorny, & it appears not that he continued to be his Attorny in the sute wherein he supposeth he prosecuted for him. But for the first excep∣tion Roll chief Iustice said,* 1.2 that it is not necessary to set down particularly, the several sums of mony he had laid out, for this might make the Declara∣tion tedious, and if the Plaintiff should (as it is objected he may) bring a∣nother Action for some part of the monies recovered in this sute, you may plead this recovery generally in bar of such Action. And as to the 2d. excep∣tion it shall be intended, that he did continue to be his Attorney if it appears, as it doth,* 1.3 that he prosecuted for him. The case was moved again the next