
    Charles F. Chisom v. The Directors of School District No. 8, of Beaver Creek Township, Greene County.
    On a motion in arrest of judgment for an insufficient declaration, one good common count will support the verdict, though there he special counts which are defective. In such case the intendment of law will be that the damages were assessed upon the good count, unless the contrary be made to appear by bill of exceptions.
    This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court for Greene county.
    The action below was assumpsit. The declaration contained four special counts upon a contract to teach a common school; and one common count for work and labor.
    Plea, non-assumpsit, with notice of a former recovery.
    
      At the March term of the court of common pleas, 1847, the cause was tried by a jury, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, in the following words: “ We, the jury, do say that the said defendants did assume and promise, in manner and form as the plaintiff has declared against them, and do assess the damages of said plaintiff at thirty-six dollars and eighty-three cents.”
    A motion in arrest of judgment, was made for the following reasons :
    1. The declaration contains no averment that the plaintiff had obtained a certificate of qualifications from the board of school examiners.
    2. The declaration is bad in substance.
    This motion was overruled by the court, and judgment rendered upon the verdict. To reverse this judgment, the directors prosecuted their writ of error.
    The errors assigned, were, first, that judgment should have been rendered for the defendant and not for the plaintiff. Second, that the court overruled the motion in arrest of judgment.
    The supreme court on the circuit at their June term, 1849, reversed the judgment on the ground that the declaration was bad, for the want of an averment that Chisom had obtained a certificate of qualifications as a school teacher.
    To reverse this last judgment, the present writ is prosecuted.
    
      R. F. Howard, for plaintiff in error.
    
      William Ellsberry, for defendants.
   Spalding, J.

The record, in this case, presents the identical question settled by this court, in Johnson v. Mullin, 12 Ohio Rep. 10. “ If the declaration contains a good count among defective counts, the court, on error, will intend that the verdict was well taken on the good count, unless the record shows it was rendered upon those that were defect ive.” However much the court might hesitate in sustaining the judgment of the common pleas, if the motion in arrest could be confined to the four special counts in plaintiff’s declaration, yet, finding the verdict supported by the common count for work and labor, we deem it unnecessary to inquire further.

Eor aught that appears from the record, the evidence was applicable to, and the damages were computed upon, that count.

The judgment of the court on the circuit must be reversed.  