Beverleys v. Holmes

Decided December 8, 1813

Supreme Court of Virginia · decided 1813-12-08

1. The plain tiff in assumpsit cannot recover without setting forth, in his declaration, a consideration to support the promise. 2. A written agreement, not under seal, to deliver bonds to a certain amount, mus; !>e considered nudum pactum, if no consideration for the contract be stated on it's face or disclosed by testimony. SeelJtoc. 112. fHllson’s editionJ and the cases there cited.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1935

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1813-12-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Judge Roane

¶1pronounced 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.

¶2Both judgments reversed, and judgment entered that the *97defendant in error (who was plaintiff in the Comity Court) take nothing, &c. (1)

¶3 See Hall v. Smith, Young, and Hyde, 3 Munf.

¶4 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,