256 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. his breach of promise. Three such instances, between 1377 and 1468, are mentioned in an essay upon " The History of Assumpsit," in an earlier volume of the Review.^ Those instances might have been supplemented by three similar cases which were brought to light by Mr. S. R. Bird.^ In Gardyner v. Keche (1452-1454), Margaret and AHce Gardyner promised to pay the defendant ^22, ^who on his part was to take Alice to wife. The defendant, after receiving the ;^22, " meaning but craft and disceyt," married an- other woman, " to the great disceyt of the said suppliants, and ageyne all good reason and conscience." The defendant was com- pelled to answer the bill. In Leinsterz^. Narborough (circa 1480), the defendant being betrothed to the plaintiff's daughter-in-law, but desiring to go to Padua to study law, requested the plaintiff to maintain his fiancee, and a maid-servant to attend upon her during his absence, and promised to repay upon his return all costs and charges incurred by the plaintiff in that behalf. The defendant returning after ten years declined to fulfil his promise, and the plaintiff filed his bill for reimbursement, and was success- ful.^ In James ^/. Morgan (1504-1515), the defendant promised the plaintiff 100 marks if he would marry his daughter Elizabeth. The plaintiff accordingly " resorted to the said Elizabeth to his great costs and charges," and "thorow the desavebull comforde " of the defendant and his daughter dehvered to the latter jewels, ribbons, and many other small tokens. Elizabeth having married another man through the "crafty and false meane" of the defend- ant, the plaintiff by his bill sought to recover the value of his tokens, and also the " gret costs and charges thorow his manyfold journeys." In all these cases there was, it is true, a breach of promise. But there seems to be no reason to suppose that the Chancellors, in giving relief, were influenced, even unconsciously, by any recollec- tion of ecclesiastical traditions in regard to Icssio fidei. It was so obviously just that one who had intentionally misled another to his detriment should make good the loss, that we need not. go further afield for an explanation of the Chancellor's readiness to give a remedy upon such parol agreements. In A little Treatise concerning Writs of Subpoena,* written shortly after 1523, — that 1 2 Harv. Law Rev., 14, 15. 2 The Antiquary, Vol. IV. p. 185, reprinted in part in 3 Green Bag, 3. 8 The Antiquary, Vol. V. p. 38.
- Doct. & St. (i8th ed.), Appendix. 17 ; Harg. L. Tr. 334.
