Brockett v. Hammond
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Indebitatus assumpsit and quantum meruit for work and labor done, and materials furnished. The defendant proved a special agreement in writing, not under seal. The plaintiff offered to prove that he did the work, &c., exactly according to the agreement, and that the price stated in the general indebitatus assumpsit, was the contract price. objected that the plaintiff could not recover upon the general count.
1Opinion of the Court
But
the Court (ThRuston, J., absent,)
overruled the objection.
See 1 Chitty on Pleading, 340; Gordon v. Martin, Fitzgibbon, 302; Alcorn v. Westbrook, 1 Wilson, 117; Bul. N. P. 139; Giles v. Edwards, 7 T. R. 181; Mussen v. Price, 4 East, 147; Atty v. Parish, 1 New Rep. 104; Cooke v. Munstone, 1 New Rep. 351; Clarke v. Gray, 6 East, 569; Brooke v. White, 1 New Rep. 331; Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, February Term, 1813, Supreme Court of the United States, 7 Cranch, 299.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- The BANK OF COLUMBIA v. PATTERSON’S Adm’rSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
- Evans v. WadkinsIndiana Superior Court · 1872