Bertrand v. Byrd
Supreme Court of Arkansas
This was assumpsit determined in the Pulaski circuit court, in- November, 1842, before the Hon. John J. Cdendenin, one of the circuit judges. Byrd sued Bertrand. The declaration contained four counts. The first count for work and labor, and materials furnished therefor in completing a brick house in the city of Little Rock: the second, a quantum meruit for the same work: the third, a quantum valebant: the fourth, for money paid, &c.
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit determined in the Pulaski circuit court, in- November, 1842, before the Hon. John J. Cdendenin, one of the circuit judges. Byrd sued Bertrand. The declaration contained four counts. The first count for work and labor, and materials furnished therefor in completing a brick house in the city of Little Rock: the second, a quantum meruit for the same work: the third, a quantum valebant: the fourth, for money paid, &c. Byrd .filed a petition for discovery, alledging that the action was brought for balance of thé price of certain work done on Bertrand’s house, by persons employed…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court,
Sebastian J.
This' was au assumpsit instituted by Byrd against Bertrand, to recover the price for the building, completing and finishing of a house. The declaration contains a count in indebitatus assumpsit, and quantum meruit for labor done, and a quantum valebant for materials furnished, together with a count for money paid, &c. There is no special count upon a special agreement.
In examining the questions raised by the several bills of exceptions, it is necessary to ascertain and fix the rights and duties of the parties, resulting from the forfeiture of the original contract, by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Douthit v. Ark. Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1966
- Byrd v. BertrandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1847
- Carter v. Ryburn Ford Sales, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
- Carter v. Ryburn Ford Sales, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1970