Case ID: va_7/html/0424-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CUR.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lyne v. Gilliat.
    [Thursday, April 16, 1801.]
    Action upon Settled Account — Right oi Enquiry into Justice of Items. — The defendant, in an action upon a settled account, cannot go into an enquiry concerning the justice of the several items of demand stated in the account.
    Gilliat brought indebitatus assumpsit against Eyne, in the District Court, and declared, 1. For money laid out and expended. 2. Upon an insimul computasset. Plea, non assumpsit, and issue. Upon the trial of the cause, the defendant filed a bill of exceptions, which stated, “that the Court refused to permit the defendant to enter into a re-examination of the accounts on which the settlement was founded, and confined him to the pointing out errors on the face of the settlement, especially as the defendant was in possession of the first settlement, with all the accounts between the parties, some months before the second settlement was made, and the objections the defendant proposed to make, were to the items of the accounts on which the first settlement was made. That, the defendant also offered to prove, by parol testimony, that he ought to have had a credit, for part of the goods charged in the account on which the first settlement *was made, of eight, instead of six months, so as to take off two months’ interest, but, as it did not apppear that he had given the plaintiff notice of the last objection, the Court would not admit the testimony.” Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff; and the defendant appealed to this court.
    
      
      Account Settled — Right to Enquire into Justice of Items, — In Varner v. Core, 20 W. Va. 478, it is said: “If, however, the plaintiff had failed to prove undue advantage and gross errors, and the defendant under non-assumpsit or other proper plea had shown that there had been a settlement, this would, perhaps, have precluded the plaintiff from going into an enquiry of the justice of the several items of the account thus settled. Lyne v. Gilliat, 3 Call 5.” The principal case is also cited for this proposition in Despard v. County of Pleasants, 23 W. Va. 324. See also, Parkersburg Nat. Bank v. Andy Als, 5 W. Va. 50.
    
   PER CUR.

Affirm the judgment.