Case ID: h-j_4/html/0312-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patrick vs. Ridgaway.
    anTactiona'"!frJ" mmpsit, havi- g a rat*tiii 1,foi*1!'sundi-y chur^abiepriíean account, which ac-huUdcVíaratíón,'Ind im-nt by"defaul'tda" gainst the defend-ptea-on'lxecuting he «ffcrcd^the ciaration and ac-S".“hu*geeXeede¡ ing^that then|u'dg-mem by default was account. Tjíe coun-thatco“hc «he.nseives,charged ?dmftfed°UbyThe that the Taiueoftheaciieies, the itemsmmust be Señce? on^pp^aí by the defendant, reversed,
    Appeal from Queen Anne's County Court. This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained a count for sundry matters properly chargeable in an ac-couní> as a particular account thereof brought into court would appear; a count for money lent and advanced, one ^01' money paid, laid out and expended; and one on an computassent. The account referí ed to in the first count was filed with the declaration. The defendant, (now appellant,) although ruled to plead did not an-declaration, and a judgment by default was en-fered against him, and an inquiry at bar ordered at the next term, &c. At the execution of the inquiry at bar the P'a'nCiff, (the appellee.) offered the declaration and account hied as evidence, to charge the defendant, stating to the jtiry that the judgment by default was an admission of the The defendant then prayed the court’s opinion to the jury, that by the operation and effect of the judgment ty default, the account filed was not admitted. But (i?e Court, [Harle, Ch. J. and Purnell, A. J.] refused to give the direction, being of opinion that the articles themselves, charged in the account, were admitted by the judg-menl: by default, but that the value of the articles, and the amount of the items, must be proved by evidence on the part of the plaintiff The defendant excepted; and the inquisition and judgment thereon being against him, he appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Buchanan, Johnson, Martin, and Dorsey, J.
    
      Carmichael, for the Appellant,
    referred to Eeve vs. Crop - ley, l Vent. 347. Green vs. Hearns, 3 T. R. SOL
    
      Harrison, for the Appellee,
    cited 3 Jacob's L, D. 55%. Tidd's Prac. 166, 168. Eadem vs. Lvtman, 1 Sira. 612; and l Phill. Evid. 141.
   JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND PROCEDENDO AWARDED,