Case Name: Brockett v. Hammond
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1812-07
Citations: 2 Cranch 56
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brockett v. Hammond.
Judges: (ThRuston, J., absent,)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 2
Pages: 56–56

Head Matter:
Brockett v. Hammond.
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 indebitatus assumpsit, for work and labor done, and materials furnished, without a special count upon the written agreement.
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.

Opinion:
But
the Court
(ThRuston, J., absent,)
overruled the objection.
See 1 Chitty on Pleading, 340; Gordon v. Martin, Fitzgibbon, 302; Alcorn v. Westbrook, 1 Wilson, 117; Bul. N. P. 139; Giles v. Edwards, 7 T. R. 181; Mussen v. Price, 4 East, 147; Atty v. Parish, 1 New Rep. 104; Cooke v. Munstone, 1 New Rep. 351; Clarke v. Gray, 6 East, 569; Brooke v. White, 1 New Rep. 331; Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, February Term, 1813, Supreme Court of the United States, 7 Cranch, 299.