¶1said, that to support the plaintiff’s action upon this declaration, she must satisfy the jury that there was a duty on the part of the defendant to be violated by not compensating the plaintiff for the services stated in the declaration. But there was no such duty, unless the services were performed at the request of the defendant, either express or implied; and that if they were rendered upon a sudden emergency, and were beneficial to the defendant, his assent might be presumed, unless the contrary appeared in evidence.
4 D.C. 693
Manning v. Cox
Decided March 15, 1836
The plaintiff’s original declaration contained three counts, namely, 1. Indebitatus assumpsit for ¡§100 for work, and labor, &e., in nursing the defendant’s slave, at the defendant’s request, while sick of the smallpox, at the plaintiff’s house. 2. For money paid, laid out, and expended, at the defendant’s request, for the like purpose. 3. Insimul compuiassent. The plaintiff afterward filed an amended declaration, with four counts.
Decided 1836-03-15