Case Name: Philip, a negro and Eve his wife against Abraham Kirkpatrick
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1799-05
Citations: 2 Yeates 444
Docket Number: 
Parties: Philip, a negro and Eve his wife against Abraham Kirkpatrick.
Judges: COBAM, YEATES AND SMITH, JUSTICES.
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 2
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
AT NISI PRIUS AT PITTSBURG,
MAY ASSIZES, 1799.
COBAM, YEATES AND SMITH, JUSTICES.
Philip, a negro and Eve his wife against Abraham Kirkpatrick.
On a quantum rnlebat for service, if narr, states, that it was in consideration of plaintiff agreeing to serve for a certain time, that agreement must be proved.
Case. The plaintiffs declared on two counts.
1. That whereas the said Eve on the 1st June 1788, at the county aforesaid, agreed to serve the said Abraham for and during the term of four years then commencing, in consideration thereof, he the said Abraham, then and there upon himself did assume to pay to her, the said- Eve, what the service of the said Eve, should for the said term be reasonably worth. And the said Philip and Eve say, that the same service was reasonably worth the sum of 100/. nevertheless, &c. 2. And whereas on the 1st November 1792, he the said Abraham, was indebted to the said Philip and Eve in other 100/., in consideration of ser vice by her the said Eve to him the said Abraham, at the special instance and request of him the said Abraham done and performed, and being so indebted, the said Abraham, &c.
It appeared in proof, that negro Eve was brought into this state as a slave, in the month of October 1787, and in the course of three or four weeks, was sold to Aaron "Works, who in the winter following, sold her to the defendant; and that on the 9th June 1792, a habeas corpus ad subjicend/um issued against the defendant, who returned that he claimed her by indenture, and the validity thereof was agreed to be tried by a jury; but afterwards, the 7th September following, the defendant’s counsel admitted, that she was entitled to her freedom, and she was discharged from his custody under the habeas carpus.
Mr. Brackenridge then ofiered to show the value of the wench’s services, by reading a letter from the defendant.
But Messrs Boss and Woods opposed the same, and insisted that the special promise declared on must be proved, or the plaintiffs must suffer a nonsuit.

Opinion:
By the court.
On the second count, the plaintiffs cannot recover, without they show the particular sum agreed on. If the first count on the quantum valebant had been generally for work, labor and service, and that the defendant had agreed to pay what it was reasonably worth, the evidence proposed, would be proper and relevant; but as the declaration states, that the agreement was, that the woman should serve four years, and in consideration thereof the defendant promised to make her a reasonable compensation, that agreement should be proved in the first instance. The allegata and probata must correspond ; and unless this special promise be shown, there is no ground on which defendants's engagement can be founded.
The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.