TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Barnard v. Whiting

John Barnard versus John Whiting &. Al.

Barnard v. Whiting, 7 Mass. 358 (1811)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1811
Citations
7 Mass. 358
Headnotes
Where a general verdict had been found at a previous term, upon a declaration containing several counts, one of which was bad, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the verdict [by the minutes of the judge] so as to take it upon such counts only as were sufficient; all the counts being for the same cause oi action.
Summary
This was an action of the case in assumpsit. The declaration contained five several counts. A trial was had before Parker, J., upon the general issue pleaded to all the counts, and a general verdict upon all the counts found for the plaintiff. The defendants moved in arrest of judgment, because the last count was bad, and the verdict being found upon all the counts, judgment ought not to be rendered upon it. The count, to which the objection was made, was as follows, viz “ for that the said. W. and F., at, &c., on, &c., being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 2172 dollars in bills of the Penobscot bank, of the value of 2172 dollars, before that time had and received by them, the said W. and F., to the use of the plaintiff, in consideration thereof, then and there promised the plaintiff to [ * 359 ] pay and satisfy * the same to him when they should be thereunto required ; yet, though requested,” &c.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court.

The last count is clearly bad. A general count of indebitatus assumpsit, for money had and received, must be for cash ; but here it is for bank bills. Judgment cannot be rendered on this count.

Whitman and J. Richardson for the defendants. Williams and Bigelow for the plaintiff.

But the judge, who sat at the trial, has certified to us that all the counts in the declaration were, in fact, for one and the same cause of action. He might have directed a verdict upon such count as the evidence applied to. And, although he did not do this, the plaintiff may yet amend his verdict, by taking it on either of the counts, upon this certificate of the judge, notwithstanding it is not of the same term.

The verdict was accordingly so amended as to find for the plaintiff upon one count only; and judgment was entered upon it so amended.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1812–1813: 11814–1815: 21818–1819: 11820–1821: 11826–1827: 11830–1831: 21832–1833: 11838–1839: 11846–1847: 11850–1851: 21858–1859: 21864–1865: 11874–1875: 11908–1909: 118122026peak 1814 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Minot v. City of Boston86 N.E. 783 (Mass. 1909)
  2. Patten v. Gurney17 Mass. 182 (1821)
  3. Sullivan v. Holker15 Mass. 374 (1819)
  4. Barnes v. Hurd11 Mass. 59 (1814)
  5. McLellan v. Crofton6 Me. 307 (1830)
  6. Weston v. Gilmore63 Me. 493 (1874)

Most recent

  1. Minot v. City of Boston86 N.E. 783 (Mass. 1909)
  2. Weston v. Gilmore63 Me. 493 (1874)
  3. Small v. Rogers46 N.H. 176 (1865)
  4. Aldrich v. Lyman6 R.I. 98 (1859)
  5. McDaniel v. Parks19 Ark. 671 (1858)
  6. Pitts v. Farnum62 Mass. 41 (1851)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list