's hand. Pleadings Book, p. 2. Printed with some variations in Perham, American Precedents
135. The records and files have not been found. Perham appended the following note:
“As the Dft. was to do the first act, viz. deliver the goods, it was not necessary
for the Plf. to aver an offer or tender of the freight; but query, if not a time when
the goods were to be delivered, and that that time was past? In order to apply the
evidence, the Plf., if he cannot prove a precise time agreed on, may allege the reasonable
time the law implies.” The editor of the second edition of American Precedents
revised this note to state that the plaintiff should have averred a tender, “for
defendant has a lien
upon the goods for the freight, and payment thereof is by the contract a condition precedent.
See 3 Burr.
1499. 4 Burr.
104.” He also suggested that a special request for delivery or the passage of a reasonable
time might have been alleged as alternatives to a specific time of delivery. American Precedents
185 (New York, 2d edn., 1810). This declaration in assumpsit is one of four declarations
against masters or owners of vessels on bills of lading in the Pleadings Book. See
Waldo v. Gridley, Form II; Langdon v. Barber, Form III; McLean v. McEwen, Form XVII.
The declaration in the last-mentioned case is a form more in accord with later practice
than that printed here. See note