Beverleys v. Holmes

Judge Roane pronounced the court’s opinion, that the first count in the declaration is defective in this, that no consideration is set out to support the assumpsit therein mentioned; (1) and that no recovery ought to be had upon the second; the case presented to the court by the jury being that of a nudum pactum, on which no recovery can be sustained, and that the judgment of the said County Court is therefore erroneous. Both judgments reversed, and judgment entered that the [97] defendant in error (who was plaintiff in the Comity Court) take nothing, &c. (1) Footnotes [(1)] See Hall v. Smith, Young, and Hyde, 3 Munf. [(1)] The court (on the 17th of December) set aside this judgment and re-considered the case: but afterwards, viz. on the 39lh of March 1814, pronounced the same opinion,