Case Name: GIBBS against DEMPSEY
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1810-02
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 618
Docket Number: 
Parties: GIBBS against DEMPSEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 201–201

Head Matter:
GIBBS against DEMPSEY.
OH CERTIORARI.
In action.for breach of contract, breaches must be assigned.
The action below was brought on the following state of demand:
The plaintiff demands of the defendant, Richard Gibbs, the sum of $50 damages, for that the plaintiff did, on the 9th of March, 1809, haul 10 beach logs to the saw-mill of the defendant, and three more logs to be hauled at a certain time appointed by defendant, all to be sawed into scant-ling; and for thér further performance of said contract, said defendant did agree with the said plaintiff, that if said plaintiff would give him one dollar per thousand more than the common price, said defendant would saw said logs in said month; said plaintiff lost ten days attendance on said defendant, for which he demands ten dollars. Plaintiff demands ten dollars in loss of [*] hauling, ditto ; freight for ditto ; lost time at the sale of ditto; and in the sale of said beach scantling, thirty dollars; and the subscriber says, that he hath sustained damages to the amount of $50, for which he brings this suit.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The state of demand is defective [460] in not setting out a breach of the contract; the plaintiff sets out a contract with sufficient exactness, but he does not assign any breach; a non-performance of the contract was essential to the right of action; this is not merely a right of action defectively set out, which might be cured by verdict; but the breach, the non-performance of the contract, is not pretended to be set out at all; there is also a vagueness in setting out the damages, which is not necessary now to take notice of.
Judgment reversed.