McQuesten v. Young
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The writ contained two counts, one for money had and received, to the amount of $150; the other on an account annexed to the writ, as follows: “ David Young to James McQuesten, Dr. 1847. April 9. To amount due on account,.......$75.” In his specification of claims filed, the plaintiff set forth “ a receipt, dated April 10, 1841, as follows: ‘ Received of James McQuesten eighty-five dollars, to be accounted for on settlement,” and signed by said Daniel Young.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The writ contained two counts, one for money had and received, to the amount of $150; the other on an account annexed to the writ, as follows: “ David Young to James McQuesten, Dr. 1847. April 9. To amount due on account,.......$75.” In his specification of claims filed, the plaintiff set forth “ a receipt, dated April 10, 1841, as follows: ‘ Received of James McQuesten eighty-five dollars, to be accounted for on settlement,” and signed by said Daniel Young. Also the following account: David Young to James McQuesten, Dr. 1844. Nov. 9. To 2,000 chimney bricks,........$7,00 “ “ “…
1Opinion of the CourtWilcox, J.
The form of the declaration upon the account annexed, is not known to the common law. It is peculiar to some of the New England States. When the account is annexed to the writ, the plaintiff may support his action by his book of accounts, containing entries made at the time of the services rendered, or of articles delivered, accompanied by his suppletory oath. Ryder v. Robbins, 13 Mass. Rep. 284. But the account proved must be the same with that annexed.
In this case, the declaration would probably be good after judgment. The plaintiff might, perhaps, be able to prove the “ amount due on…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rider v. RobbinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Stevenson v. MudgettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Burnham v. SpoonerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839