Case Name: Evans v. Blakeney
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1803-06
Citations: 1 Cranch 126
Docket Number: 
Parties: Evans v. Blakeney.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 1
Pages: 126–126

Head Matter:
Evans v. Blakeney.
If it be agreed that the plaintiff’s work shall be measured and valued agreeably to the customary mode in Alexandria, and if it has been so measured and valued, and such measurement and valuation be reduced to writing, the defendant cannot give parol testimony to prove that the plaintiff’s work was not worth so much as was certified by the report of those who measured and valued it.
If the measurement and valuation of work be reduced to writing, parol evidence of the contents of that writing cannot be given, unless the writing be lost or destroyed or not in the power of the party.
If the plaintiff contract to do work on certain terms, and it be-done by plaintiff and another, the plaintiff may recover for the whole in his own name.
Assumpsit, on a written agreement, by which the plaintiff and defendant, one being a bricklayer and the other a carpenter, and each being about building a house for himself, agreed to do the work in his trade to the other’s house: “ Each work and materials to be measured and valued agreeable to the customary mode in Alexandria, and whatever balance there may be on either side, at any time they choose to have the work and materials valued, is to be paid in cash on demand. (Signed) Abel Blakéney, Jno. Evans.
The defendant offered to prove, by parol testimony, that the work done by the plaintiff was not worth so much' as the valuers had alleged. The plaintiff objected, that if he proved that the work and materials were measured and valued agreeably to the customary mode in Alexandria, and that according to such measurement and valuation, such a balance was due, it is conclusive ; and the Court were of that opinion, and refused to receive such evidence.
It appeared, from the testimony of the witness, that the valuers had reduced the result of their valuation to writing and delivered it lo the parties.

Opinion:
The Court
decided that parol testimony could not be admitted of the contents of that paper, without showing it to be lost, &c.
The plaintiff produced and offered in evidence a writing signed by one Bishop, and McLane, the witness, in which they state that, having been called upon by Evans and Burford, to measure and value, &c., they find a balance of ¿654.10s. Id. due from Blakeney to Evans and Burford.
The defendant objected, that this does not appear to be an award between the same parties. But the Court overruled the objection, and permitted it to be read in evidence.
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Affirmed upon error, in Supreme Court of the United States, February, 1804. 2 Craneb, 185. .