Davis v. . Watters

3 N.C. 173
Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided July 5, 1802·Published

Opinion

The plaintiff must state in his warrant the nature of his demand, so as to give notice to the defendant of what is intended to be proved against him; and when that is stated he should not be allowed to vary from it. The cause of action now stated is not an account, but a complaint for nonperformance of a special agreement, sounding in damages. Admitting what is contended for on the part of the plaintiff, that a demand on a special agreement, where the sum to be recovered does not exceed £ 20, is within the jurisdiction of a justice, it will not avail the plaintiff, for that does not prove that when he sues on account he may claim for nonperformance of a special agreement.

The plaintiff was nonsuited.

NOTE. — See Hamilton v. Jervis, 19 N.C. 227. A single justice has not jurisdiction where damages are sought for the breach of an executory contract. S. v. Alexander, 11 N.C. 182; Tyer v. Harper,12 N.C. 387; Fentress v. Worth, 13 N.C. 229; Adcock v.Fleming, 19 N.C. 470. *Page 180

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Davis v. . Watters, 3 N.C. 173 (N.C. Ct. App. 1802).

3 N.C. 173 (Davis v. . Watters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fentress v. . Worth
13 N.C. 229 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1829)
Hamilton v. . Jervis
19 N.C. 227 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1837)
Adcock v. . Fleming
19 N.C. 470 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1837)
Tyler v. . Harper
12 N.C. 387 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1828)
State v. Alexander.
11 N.C. 182 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1825)