Johnson v. Quin

• Decision Date: 31 July 1874
• Citation: 52 Ga. 485
• Parties: Mary Johnson, plaintiff in error. v. John Quin, administrator, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

52 Ga. 485

Mary Johnson, plaintiff in error. v. John Quin, administrator, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, July Term, 1874.)

Pleading. Contracts. Before Judge James Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1874.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

G. E. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.

R. J. Moses, for defendant.

WARNER, Chief Justice.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the de-fendant on an account, in the statutory form, with a bill of particulars annexed, in which it is stated that the defendant\'s intestate was indebted to the plaintiff for wages as housekeeper, cook, laundress, and seamstress, at $40 00 per month, from the 12th May, 1868, to 29th of August, 1871, $1,580 00. On the trial the plaintiff proved by two witnesses that the defendant\'s intestate agreed to pay the plaintiff $40 00 per month for her services. The plaintiff also offered to prove at the trial the value of her services, which the court refused to allow her to do. The jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict for the defendant. A motion was made for a new trial on the ground that the court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to prove the value of her services; and, on the further ground, that the court erred in charging the jury, that if the contract to pay $40 00 per month has been proved, then she must recover on that contract, but if the contract set out by the plaintiff has not been proved to have been made, no matter how meritorious her services may have been, she cannot *recover in this action. The questions presented in the record necessarily involves the proper construction and interpretation to be given to that part of the act of 1847, which is embodied in the section 3393 of the Code. We all understand the common law rule of pleading, as modified by our judiciary act of 1799, as the court below appears to have understood it, but is that rule to be observed and made applicable to an action on an account like the one before us? What was the object and intention of the general assembly in passing the act of 1847 in relation to an action on an account? It seems to us that it was intended to abolish the common law rule of pleading, which had heretofore obtained in this state, and to allow the plaintiff to exhibit a bill of particulars of his or her account, and to prove at the trial either a special agreement to pay the amount charged, or what the goods, or services, were reasonably worth. In...