
    Alcock vs. Blofield.
    Trin. 3 Car.
    ALCOCK had judgment in an action on the case, against Blofield. The case was: Alcock brought an action against Bate, and Blofield promised him, that if he would forbear the suit, he would pay him £. 200 at the feast of St. John, the Baptist, and £. 100 at any time afterwards, when he should be thereto required. The plaintiff alledged non payment of said £. 100, licet postea, 18 Oct. of such a year; which in truth was before the day of the first payment, and this was assigned for error.
    1. It was agreed by the court the request is issuable, and therefore ought to be specially and certainly alledged. For there is no duty before the request, it being on the contract of a stranger. But when it is for the party’s own debt, licet sæpius requisit. is sufficient as the debt is due without a promise.
    2. The scilicet is merely void, being contrary to the premisses.
   Doderidge, J. Jones, J. and Whitlock, J.

Ideo judgment is affirmed, puto, irrot. P. 3 Car. rot. 213. Vide where the postea shall be void. P. 2 Jac. rot. 539. Noy 95.  