Case ID: va_18/html/0045-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE) ROANE)", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Beverleys v. Holmes.
    Argued Monday, December 6th, 1813.
    1. Assumpsit — Declaration—Allegations of Considera™ tion. — The plaintiff in assumpsit cannot recover without setting forth, in his declaration, a consideration to support the promise.
    2. Contract — Agreement to Deliver Bonds — Consideration Necessary. — A written agreement, not nnder seal, to deliver bonds to a certain amonnt, must be considered nudum pactum, if no consideration for the contract be stated on Its face, or disclosed by testimony.
    See 1 Bac. 112, (Wilson’s edition) and the cases there cited.
    This was an action of assumpsit, upon a writing not under seal, in the following words : “Two months after date, we ^promise to deliver to Hugh Holmes, E)sq. or his order, Augusta bonds the amount of fourteen hundred and fifty dollars, payable in eighteen months from the 14th of October last. March 27th 1806.
    “Carter & Peter Beverley. ”
    The declaration contained two counts. In the first, the writing was specially declared upon, without setting forth any consideration for the promise. The second was for money had and received, in the usual form. The defendants pleaded that they did not assume, &c. The jury found for the plaintiff the sum of one thousand four hundred and fifty dollars, with interest from the 15th day of April 1807, until paid, subject to the opinion of the court on a question of law, whether the writing filed, (the execution of which, and also the existence of the partnership stated in the declaration, was admitted,) “the same being the only evidence before the jury,” was proper evidence in support of the declaration, so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover ?
    The County Court was of opinion that the law on the verdict was for the plaintiff ; and, its judgment being affirmed by the Superior Court of law, the defendants obtained a writ of supersedeas from a judge of this court.
    Williams, for the plaintiff in error.
    Wirt, Contra.
    Wednesday, December 8th, 1813,
    
      
      See generally, monographic note on “Assumpsit” appended to Kennaird v. Jones, 9 Gratt. 183: mono-graphic note on "Consideration” appended to Jones v. Obenchain, 10 Gratt. 259.
      The principal case is also cited in Farmer’s Bank v. Clarke, 4 Leigh 610.
    
   JUDGE) ROANE)

pronounced the court’s opinion, that the first count in the declaration is defective in this, that no consideration is set out to support the assumpsit therein mentioned ; and that no recovery ought to be had upon the second ; the case presented to the court by the jury being that of a nudum factum, on which no recovery can be sustained, and that the judgment of the said County Court is therefore erroneous.___

Both judgments reversed, and judgment entered that the *defendant in error (who was plaintiff in the County Court) take nothing, &c. 
      
       See Hall v. Smith, Young, and Hyde, 3 Munf.
      
     
      
       The court (on the 17th of December) set aside this judgment and re-considered the case: but afterwards, viz. on the 29th of March 1814, pronounced the same opinion. — Note in Original Edition.