Case Name: Nevitt v. Rabe et al.
Court: High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1841-01
Citations: 5 Howard 653
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nevitt v. Rabe et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 653–653

Head Matter:
Nevitt v. Rabe et al.
If the description in the declaration be sufficiently plain and particular to give the defendant notice of the character of the claim, no other bill of particulars is necessary. What is not so described in the declaration, in absence of a bill of particulars, cannot be given in evidence.
Van Winkle, for plaintiff in error.
Sanders, contra.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the defendants in error against plaintiff in error to the April Term, 1839, of the circuit court of Adams county, for the sum of four hundred and twenty dollars, for horses sold and delivered. The declaration contained two counts j the first indebitatus assumpsit for four hundred and twenty dollars, for “ horses and mares” sold and delivered and money lent and advanced. The second was a quantum meruit for “five head of horses, to wit, two black, one yellow bay, one sorrel and one bay, for which the plaintiffs below alledged they “reasonably deserve to have five hundred and fifty dollars.” There was no bill of particulars filed with the declara tion. It did not appear that the evidence offered was objected to. It was assigned for error, 1st. that no account of items was filed with the declaration. 2d. That the dates of delivery and the prices of the several articles, were not specified in the declaration.

Opinion:
Ter Curiam.
The errors relied on for reversing the judgment are, 1st. That no account of items was filed with the declaration. And 2d. That the dates of delivery and the prices of the several articles are not specified in the declaration. The action is inde-bitatus assumpsit for horses sold to the plaintiff in error. The first count is « for divers horses and mares" before that time' sold and delivered. In the third count, the horses are described particularly by color. This was certainly a description sufficiently plain and particular to give the defendant full notice of the character of the claim, and this is all the statute requires. But if it were not, it would only deprive the plaintiff of giving evidence of any thing that was not so described in the declaration. The defen-, dant went to trial on non assumpsit, and made no objection to any evidence given. Let the judgment be affirmed.