Case ID: f-cas_4/html/0200-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 1,916.
    BROCKETT v. HAMMOND.
    [2 Cranch, C. C. 56.]1
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    July Term, 1812.
    Pleading — Declarations —Indebitatus Assump-sit.
    If there be a special agreement, not under seal, and the plaintiff has executed it on his part exactly according to its terms, he may recover the contract price in an action of in-debitatus assumpsit for work and labor done, and materials furnished, without a special count upon the written agreement.
    NOTE [from original report]. See 1 Chit. Pl. 340; Gordon v. Martin, Fitzg. 302; Alcorn v. Westbrook, 1 Wils. 117; Bull. N. P. 139; Giles v. Edwards, 7 Term R. 181; Mussen v. Price, 4 East 147; Atty v. Parish, 1 Bos. & P. (N. S.) 104; Cooke v. Munstone. Id. 351; Clarke v. Gray, 6 East, 569; Brooke v. White, 1 Bos. & P. (N. S.) 331; Bank of Columbia v. Patterson (Feb. Term, 1813) 7 Cranch [11 U. S.] 299.
    At law. 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.
    Mr. Taylor, for the defendant,
    objected that the plaintiff could, not recover upon the general count.
   But the

COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent) overruled the objection.