Case Name: Robinson & Meem v. Burks
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1841-10
Citations: 12 Leigh 378
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Robinson & Meem v. Burks.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 917–918

Head Matter:
*Robinson & Meem v. Burks.
October, 1841,
Richmond.
Assumpsit — Account—Sufficiency under Statute. — Under the statute, 1 Key. Code, ch. 328, § 88. an account filed with declaration in assumpsit for goods sold, charging goods sold “per account rendered,” with proof that the account was rendered, is sufficient.
Robinson & Meem surviving partners of M’Kee, Robinson & Co. brought assumpsit against Burks, in the circuit superior court of Eynchburg. The declaration contained four counts: 1. indebitatus assumpsit for the price of goods sold and delivered; 2. the same, on quantum valebant; 3. the same, for money lent and advanced; and 4. the same, on an account stated. Plea, the general issue. At the trial, the plaintiffs exhibited an account, which had been filed with the declaration, commencing with these words: ‘‘1828, July 12. To amount goods ^er bill rendered and due 1st October 1828 — 76 dollars. To amount goods per bill rendered to yourself — 23 dollars.” And then followed several items, shewing the amount claimed, which was 107 dollars. The plaintiffs also offered in evidence a notice to the defendant requiring him to produce the account rendered; and offered to introduce a witness to prove, that the goods, for which the two items above mentioned were charged, were actually sold and delivered to the defendant, and accounts thereof actually delivered to him; and that the particulars were not entered on the plaintiffs’ books, but only the amounts were charged thereon, in the form in which they were charged in the account filed with the declaration. The defendant objected to the introduction of the evidence, and the court excluded it; to which the plaintiffs excepted. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs applied to this court for a supersedeas, which was allowed.
*Garland for plaintiffs in error.
The opinion of the circuit superior court was founded on the statute, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 128, $ 86, p. 510, and was a mistake of the statute; Moore v. Mauro, 4 Rand. 488.
The attorney general, for the defendant.
See monographic note on “Assumpsit” appended to Keinnaird v. Jones, 9 Gratt. 183.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The evidence was improperly excluded. The judgment is to be reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit superior court, for a new trial; in which the evidence, which was offered at the former trial and excluded, if again offered is to be admitted.