Case Name: Maupin, and Catharine his wife, v. Francis Pic
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1811-12
Citations: 2 Cranch 38
Docket Number: 
Parties: Maupin, and Catharine his wife, v. Francis Pic.
Judges: (Fitzhugh, 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: 38–39

Head Matter:
Maupin, and Catharine his wife, v. Francis Pic.
When a contract has been executed, indebitatus assumpsit will lie for the amount due upon it.
Evidence of the pendency of a suit, between the plaintiff Catharine alone, by the name of Catharine Prisset, against the present defendant, for the same cause of action, at the time of bringing the present suit, will not support the issue upon the plea of the pendency of a suit between the parties to the present suit.
Indebitatus assumpsit for work and labor.
Mr. Morsell, for the defendant,
contended that as there was a letter stating the terms to be twelve dollars a month, and no count upon that special agreement, the plaintiff could not recover upon the indebitatus assumpsit. 1 Com. on Contr. 228.

Opinion:
But
the CouRT
(Fitzhugh, J., absent,)
said that when a contract has been executed, indebitatus assumpsit will lie for the amount due upon it.
There was a plea in bar that at the time of commencing this suit, there was another suit depending between the same parties for the same cause of action. The evidence to support this issue, was of a suit by Catharine Frisset alone, who was one of the present plaintiffs, for the same cause of action; which was discontinued after the present suit was brought.
The Court instructed the jury that it was not such a suit between the same parties as would support the issue on the part of the defendant.