Case Name: Lovejoy v. Wilson
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1802-12
Citations: 1 Cranch 102
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lovejoy v. Wilson.
Judges: Maeshall, J., and Cranch, J., did not object.
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: 102–103

Head Matter:
Lovejoy v. Wilson.
In assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, the defendant may prove a partnership between the plaintiff and the witness by the witness.
In a count “ for sundry matters properly chargeable in account,” if no account be annexed, the words which refer to an account as annexed, may be rejected; and money lent may be given in evidence upon that count.
Assumpsit, for stone and sand sold and delivered. The defendant produced Owen McGlue as a witness to prove a partnership between the witness and the plaintiff, and that this was a joint contract.
Mr. Gantt, for the plaintiff,
objected that the witness was interested'.

Opinion:
The Court decided that he was a competent witness to prove the partnership; but should not be compelled to give evidence of payments made by the defendant during the partnership. (Quare.)
One of the counts, in the case was indebitatus assumpsit, " for sundry matters properly chargeable in account as by a particular account thereof, herewith into court brought, may more fully appear." No account was filed. The plaintiff offered evidence of money lent. The defendant objected that it could not be given on that count.
Kilty, C. J.,
was of opinion that the evidence was applicable to that count. No account being filed, the words " as by a particular account," &e., must be rejected as surplusage, and then the count will stand as a general indebitatus assumpsit " for sundry matters chargeable in accountand money lent is a matter chargeable in account.
Maeshall, J., and Cranch, J., did not object.
(Quare as to this point.)