The rent was not paid and the landlord, Mr Welch seized Exall's carriage as distress, as was lawful.

Exall paid the rent to recover the carriage and then sued Partridge and the other defendants to get his money back.

As the plaintiff put his goods on the premises, knowing the interests of the defendants, and thereby placed himself in a situation where he was liable to pay this money, without the concurrence of two of the defendants, I thought at the trial that it was money paid to the use of [Partridge] only; but on that point I have since doubted; and I rather think that the opinion I gave at the trial was not well founded.Grose J concurred.

The question is, whether the payment made by the plaintiff, under these circumstance, were such a one from which the law will imply a promise by the three defendants to repay?

Under these circumstances, the law implies a promise by the three defendants to repay the plaintiff; and, on this short ground, I am of the opinion that the action may be maintained.Lawrence J concurred.