283/3 Y.B. 19 Hen.  VI. 49, pl. 5.  See, further, Y.B. 20 Hen.  VI. 25, pl. 11.

284/1 Cf.  Y.B. 3 Hen.  VI. 36, pl. 33.

284/2 Y.B. 2 Hen.  VII. 11, pl. 9.  Cf. 20 Hen.  VI. 34, pl. 4.

284/3 Cf.  Y.B. 14 Hen.  VI. 18, pl. 58; 21 Hen.  VII. 41, pl. 66, Fineux, C. J.

284/4 Keilway, 160, pl. 2 (2 Hen.  VIII.); Powtuary v.  Walton, 1 Roll.  Abr. 10, pl. 5 (39 Eliz.); Coggs v.  Bernard, 2 Ld.  Raym. 909 (2 Anne, A.D. 1703).  Supra, p. 195.

285/1 Sands v.  Trevilian, Cro.  Car. 193, 194 (Mich. 4 Car.  I., A.D. 1629).

285/2 Bro.  Acc. sur le Case, pl. 5; S.C., Y.B. 27 Hen.  VIII. 24, 25, pl. 3; Sidenham v.  Worlington, 2 Leon. 224, A.D. 1585.

285/3 Y.B. 21 Hen.  VII. 30, pl. 5; ib. 41, pl. 66.

285/4 Y.B. 3 Hen.  VI. 36, pl. 33.

286/1 Sharington v.  Strotton, Plowden, 298 (Mich. 7 & 8 Eliz.); ib. 309, note on “the civil law.”

286/2 Hunt v.  Bate, 3 Dyer, 272 a (10 Eliz., A.D. 1568).

286/3 See Lecture VIII.  Mr. Langdell, Contracts, Sections 92, 94, suggests the ingenious explanation for this doctrine, that it was then held that no promise could be implied in fact from the request.  There may be evidence which I do not know, but the case cited (Bosden v.  Thinne, Yelv. 40) for this statement was not decided until A.D. 1603, while the implication of Hunt v.  Bate, supra, which was the authority followed by the cases to be explained, is all the other way.

286/4 Sidenham v.  Worlington, 2 Leon. 224, A.D. 1585.

287/1 Read v.  Baxter, 3 Dyer, 272 b, n. (26 & 27 Eliz.).  Cf.  Richards and Bartlet’s Case, 1 Leon. 19 (26 Eliz.).

287/2 Bro.  Acc. sur le Case, pl. 5; S.C., Y.B. 27 Hen.  VIII. 24, 25, pl. 3; 3 Dyer, 272, n.

287/3 Marsh v.  Rainsford, 3 Dyer, 272 b, n.; S.C., 2 Leon. 111, and Cro.  Eliz. 59, sub. nom.  Marsh v.  Kavenford.

287/4 Smith and Smith’s Case, 3 Leon. 88, A.D. 1583; Riches and Briggs, Yelv. 4, A.D. 1601; Pickas v.  Guile, Yelv. 128, A.D. 1608.

288/1 Supra, p. 195.  Lord Coke’s caution not to rely on the abridgments is very necessary to the proper study of the history of consideration.  The abridgments apply the doctrine to cases which make no mention of it, and which were decided before it was ever heard of.

290/1 Y.B. 46 Ed. III. 19, pl. 19; 19 Hen.  VI. 49, pl. 5; Keilway, 160, pl. 2; Powtuary v.  Walton, 1 Roll.  Abr. 10, pl. 5; Coggs v.  Bernaard, 2 Ld.  Raym. 909.

290/2 Riches and Briggs, Yelv. 4, A.D. 1601; Pickas v.  Guile, Yelv. 128.

291/1 Bainbridge v.  Firmstone, 8 Ad. & El. 743, A.D. 1838.

291/2 Wilkinson v.  Oliveira, 1 Bing.  N. C. 490, A.D. 1835; Haigh v.  Brooks, 10 Ad. & El. 309; lb. 323; Hart v.  Miles, 4 C.B.  N.S. 371, A.D. 1858.

291/3 Wheatley v.  Low, Cro.  Jac. 668, A.D. 1623.  Cf.  Byne and Playne’s Case, 1 Leon. 220, 221 (32 & 33 Eliz.).

291/4 Wilkinson v.  Oliveira, 1 Bing.  N. C. 490; Haigh v.  Brooks, 10 Ad. & El. 309; Hart v.  Miles, 4 C.B.  N.S. 371; 6 Am.  Law Rev. 47, Oct. 1871.