Miles v. Moodie
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county, in a suit brought there by Moodie against Miles. The declaration was in indebitatus assumpsit and quantum meruit, for work, labour, and services. The Court below charged the jury, that evidence of a promise made by the defendant, to pay to the plaintiff a certain sum per diem, was legal evidence under this declaration. The defendant excepted to this part of the charge.
Read the full summary
In Error. THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county, in a suit brought there by Moodie against Miles. The declaration was in indebitatus assumpsit and quantum meruit, for work, labour, and services. The Court below charged the jury, that evidence of a promise made by the defendant, to pay to the plaintiff a certain sum per diem, was legal evidence under this declaration. The defendant excepted to this part of the charge. The suit was brought to June Term, 1804, upon a cause of action originating in the year 1797. Evidence was given, that when the sheriff served the writ…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman C. J.
The plaintiff declared on a general indebitatus assumpsit and quantum meruit, for work, labour, and services performed for the defendant, and gave evidence of a performance of the work, &c. and of a promise made by the defendant to pay him a certain sum per day. The Court below were of opinion, that, upon this evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. It is objected, that the contract was special, and ought to have been specially set forth.in the declaration. This objection was fully considered in the case of Kelly v. Foster, 2…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
- Kelly v. FosterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1809
3Cited by2 opinions
- Leas v. JamesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
- Pool v. TuttleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1834