Davenport v. Barnes

OX CERTIORARI, No warranty is implied in assigning a bond. This was an action brought by the defendants in this Court, who were the plaintiffs before the justice; on the following state of demand, filed with the justice: Samuel Davenport, Dr. to J. & E. Barnes, to a bond assigned from Samuel Davenport to us, on Robert Sparks, which is not recovered, for said Sparks ran away and left the State. Debt, costs and interest, $90 00 Also, a balance of a book account, 5th Sept 1806. 10 00 It appears from the foregoing state of demand, and the proceeding had before the justice, that this action ivas brought by the assignees of a bond against the assigner, on the failure of the obligor to pay : and this simply on the assignment, no fraud or deceit being alledged, nor any special undertaking on the part of the [*] assigner to pay in case of the failure of the obligor. There was a small charge for the balance of a book account; But the particulars were not set out. This cause was tried by a jury, and a verdict anil judgment thereon, for one hundred dollars. It was contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that this action could not be sustained; that the principle had been determined by this Court in the case of Garretsie v. Van Ness.* — That even if the charge of a balance of a book account was regular, (which however was denied,) yet the verdict and judgment being for the whole demand, the judgment must be reversed.