
    BRUNER vs. STOUT.
    
      April 18th.
    
    i„ affumpjit. the declaration, forth * deration, and a pnmfejo pay,j by the ftatutes of jeofails.
    
    STOUT brought his action in Hardin circuit court, ftgainst Bruner. The declaration stated, “ That whereas the deferidatat became indebted to the plaintiff, on the 28th day of September 1803, to the amount of 200 sides of leather, at the parish of Kentucky, and circuit aforesaid ; and the defendant being so indebted, did agree to Owe to SamUel Stout, 200 sides of leather in the reef, that is to say, unfinished leather, but well tanned ; to be paid against the first day of November next: nevertheless, the defendant hath altogether neglected and refused to pay to the plaintiff, the aforesaid 200 sides of leather, as aforesaid, whereby an action hath accrued to the plaintiff, to sue for and recover of the defendant, the price of the aforesaid 200 sides of leather ; yet the defendant hath not paid,” &c.
    A judgment was taken by default, and* an inquiry of damages executed, &c; Bruner prosecuted a writ of error.
   Opinion of the Court. — This was. an action of assumpsit, brought on a parol agreement, which does not appear from the declaration to have been reduced to writing. A writ of inquiry was executed, and judgment rendered for the damages assessed by the jury.

This court is of opinion the judgment is erroneous ; because there is nO consideration laid in the declaration, sufficient to support the action, and because there is no promise or assumpsit alleged.

Allen, for the plaintiff in error.

Judgment reversed; and the cause remanded for new proceedings, to commence by filing a new declaration. 
      
      
        Burbage &c. vs. Bullett and wifey, July 1801, S. P.
     