## Facts

- Nichols agreed to deliver a cow to Raynbred for Raynbred’s use.
- In exchange, Raynbred agreed to pay Nichols 50 shillings.
- Nichols sued Raynbred in assumpsit to recover the 50 shillings based on Raynbred’s promise to pay.
- Nichols’s declaration pleaded the exchange of promises but did not allege that Nichols had actually delivered the cow.
- The case treated the transaction as an executory bargain: both sides had promised performance, and performance on each side remained due when suit was brought.

## Issues

1. Whether, in an assumpsit action based on reciprocal promises (cow for 50 shillings), the plaintiff must allege actual performance (delivery of the cow) to enforce the defendant’s promise to pay.
2. Whether “promise for promise” constitutes sufficient consideration to make each party’s executory promise actionable.
3. Whether the enforceability of reciprocal promises depends on their being exchanged contemporaneously (“at one instant”) rather than separated in time as independent gratuitous undertakings.

## Decision

- Judgment was for Nichols, and the judgment was affirmed.
- The court held Nichols did not need to allege delivery of the cow to state a claim for the 50 shillings.
- The court treated the case as “promise for promise,” meaning each promise supplied consideration for the other.
- The report noted that the promises must be made “at one instant”; otherwise, the promises risk being treated as nude pacts (unenforceable for lack of consideration).

## Legal Principles

- Mutual executory promises exchanged as a bargain can constitute valid consideration for each other (“promise for promise”).
- In pleading an action on such a bilateral exchange, the plaintiff need not aver completed performance in order to sue on the defendant’s promise.
- Contemporaneity matters: reciprocal promises must be part of the same exchange; if not made as a single bargain, each may be characterized as a nudum pactum for want of consideration.
- The case reflects an early view that, at least for purposes of stating a claim, duties arising from exchanged promises may be enforced without first proving the plaintiff’s performance.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed recovery for the seller on the buyer’s promise to pay, holding that in a contemporaneous bilateral bargain, mutual promises supply consideration and the plaintiff need not plead prior performance to sue on the defendant’s executory promise.


Nichols v. Raynbred, Hob. 88 (K.B. 1615)