Case ID: serg-rawl_6/html/0053-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gibson J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Boyd against Gordon.
    In Error.
    
      Monday, May 29.
    A statement authorised by the act of 2ist qu‘re so much nicety and precision of decimation!* neei*not aver the iier**^ formance of be_ bringing suit ^h¡X3a not otherwise be demanded,
    Where the plaintiff, for the price of goods sold, ac-note^f?° th"¡d Person>-, ment, that in a certain event, the note should be themone’y " ^efencUint*,6it was held to ry foTheeSSa" statement in an action brought to re-of the goods, to say-about the; “¿[attreto the
    ar rangement has resulted-;n payment of the price of the goods, it is matter of defence, with which the plaintiff has nothing-to do, until he is called upon to answer it.
    IN this suit, which was-brought by the defendant in 7 r -r error, mthe Common Pleas ot Lancaster county, to recover the price of a quantity of lumber sold to the plaintiff in error, the following statement was filed. w
    “ On the 20th June, 1811, the plaintiff sold lumber to the defendant, for which the defendant agreed to pay him, * u * <• hundred and six dollars. The defendant afterwards gave the plaintiff a note on John Campbell, for the delivery 12,000 feet of white pine boards, on the express condition, that if the plaintiff should not be able to find Campbell, when he went up Susquehanna river, he was to return the said note to the defendant the spring following, and the defendant . 1 ° would pay him the money*
    , “ The plaintiff, after repeated enquiries, being unable to find Campbell, brings this suit, to recover from Boyd the said sum of one hundred and six dollars, with interest, agreeably to their contract.”
    On the trial of the cause in the Court of Common Pleas, several depositions that were offered by the plaintiff* and ob» jected to by the .defendant, were admitted by the Court, who sealed bills of exceptions. The grounds of these exceptions, the reporters regret they have not been able to ascertain.
    . , In this Court, the argument turned principally on the surficiency of the plaintiff’s statement, which Hopkins, for the plaintiff in error, contended set forth no cause of action, because as the money was .to be paid only after the return of the note,in consequence of Gordon1 snot being able to find Campbell, the return of the note was a condition precedent, and the statement ought to have contained an allegation to that effect.
    
      
      Rogers, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gibson J.

The principal exception here is that there is no allegation, that the note was returned to the defendant below before the suit was brought.. The cause of action was the original price of the articles sold, and that was not released by the acceptance of the note, which could not, before it produced the money, be considered as payment. It was therefore unnecessary, in the statement, to say any thing about the agreement concerning the note, which was a distinct matter, and an immaterial part of the case. If the arrangement had produced payment of the price of the lumber, it would have been part of the defence; but it would also have been a matter, with which the plaintiff had nothing to do, before he was called on to answer it. But if the case even rested on the ground taken by the plaintiff in error, the result would be the same. In a statement, it is not necessary the plaintiff should aver performance of precedent conditions ; for that is implied, by the very act of bringing suit for money that could not otherwise be demandable. Riddle v. Stevens, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 537, goes this length. The legislature never intended, that a plaintiff should disclose his cause of action in a statement, with the same nicety and precision of averment, that is necessary in a declaration ; for that would do nothing towards effecting' the object in view, which was to enable suitors, if they should think proper, to conduct their causes, in plain cases, without the intervention of counsel. They have, therefore, required the plaintiff to specify only “ the date- of the promise, book account, penal, or single bill, and the whole amount that he may believe is justly due.’.’ By what authority shall we exact more ?

Beside these, there are exceptions to evidence, which, we are of opinion, cannot be sustained. The depositions admitted, appear to have been taken, on due notice j and the evidence was pertinent to the issue. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.