Case Name: Foster versus Pennington
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1850
Citations: 32 Me. 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: Foster versus Pennington.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
Foster versus Pennington.
A declaration upon a contract for a specified quantity of an article, though laid under a videlicit, is not sustained by proof of a contract for a larger quantity.
Exceptions from the District Court in Aroostook county.
Assumpsit on an alleged contract to deliver to the plaintiff !í a certain large quantity of oats ; viz. 600 bushels.” The proof was of a contract for 1000 bushels, of which the defendant had delivered 207. The defendant’s counsel objected to the variance; but the Judge instructed the jury, that a contract to deliver 1000 bushels would sustain the declaration.
Verdict for plaintiff.
Kelley and McCrillis, for plaintiff,
relied on 2 Hill, 126. They contended that, under a videlicit, much latitude is allowed ; that the quantity alleged under a videlicit is but surplusage. Bristow v. Wright, 1 Smith’s Leading Cases. The declaration was amendable, and substantial justice has been done.
John Hodgdon, for defendant.

Opinion:
Howard, J.,
orally.—The instruction was erroneous. It made a contract for 1000 bushels to sustain a claim upon one for 600. The videlidt can have no such effect. There was a variance, and it was a material one.
Exceptions sustained.