
    Scott vs. Lancaster.
    Appeal from Charles County Court. The plaintiff below, (now appellant,) brought an action of assumpsit against the defendant, (the appellee.) The declaration contained three counts — -1. That the defendant on the 25th of May 1804, at, &c. made his certain note in writing, his own proper hand-writing being thereto signed, bearing date the same day and year aforesaid, and thereby promised and agreed to pay to the plaintiff the amount of a certain arbitration bond assigned by a certain B. Iteeder, and accepted by the defendant, which said bond and award was under the hands and seals of a certain B. Dyson, and B. Douglass, and also agreed to pay to the plaintiff such balance of a' certain J. llyndman’s open account, as should appear due — . ft’nd the plaintiff avers, that the said amount of the said ar < bitration bond, so assigned and accepted as aforesaid, was j £31, and that the said balance, so said to be due upon* open account, was £14 2 4. And the plaintiff further says, that the defendant then and there delivered the said note to him the plaintiff-, whereby and by reason whereof the defendant became liable to pay to the plaintiff the several amounts before stated, making a total amount of £45 2 4; and the defendant, in consideration thereof, afterwards, on, &c. at, &e. undertook and promised to the plaintiff- to pay lina the said sum of ,3^45 2 4, when he should be ■ 
      thereunto afterwards required. 2. Inslmul computássénL 3. That afterwards, to wit, oh the 6th day of September' 1790, the defendant being indebted unto B. Reeder, it wa® tlieíi and Hiere agreed that a certain B. Dyson and B. Douglass, of, &c. should settle and adjust the disputes, lying in accounts, between them,' ánd ascertain the balance? thát might be found due; and upon such reference and settlement there was found and ascertained to be due, and so awarded under the hands and seals of Said Dyson and Douglass, the sum of £33 4 9 current money, from ili'e defendant id the said B. Reeder. And whereas, also, after-wards, to wit, on the 4th day of December 1790, the said B. Reeder, for value "received, assigned the amount of said await! to Jl. Craivford, aftd then and there directed the' defendant to pay the amount thereof to Jl. Crawford, or order, and on the Said day and year, the defendant there™ bpon accepted to pay by his acceptance in writing tire sum of ¿651, on account of the same, on or by March", in the year 1791, And whereas afterwards, to wit, on the 3<i day of February 1804, Jl. Crawfor’d having assigned the said award and acceptance, and the money thereon due,unto J. Hyndman, ánd J. Hyndman having also a claim, on account against the defendant, amounting to the sum of d§10 2 4,- and Hyndman being also indebted in a large sum of money unto the plaintiff, he then and there,- to wit, on, &c. at,- &c. by his written assignment under h¡3 band and seal,- for value received, and in consideration of the said sum of money so dufe from him to the plaintiff did transfer and assign unto the plaintiff all the debts, dues, claims and accounts, which he had against the defendant, whether on open account, bond, arbitration’ bond, or bonds given or assigned to him Hyndman, or in any other manner whatsoever; of all which said several assignments the defendant afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c . bad notice. By reason whereof, and in consideration Of the said several assignments, the defendant, when thereof notified, and requested’to pay the same by the plaintiff, to Wit, on the 25th day of May 1804, according to the tenor and effect of the said assignment, did by his certain1 note and assumption in -writing, (his own proper hand-writing being thereto subscribed,) on the back of the said assignment, accept the same, and agree to- pay to the plaintiff Rie.amount of the said arbitration bond, (to wit, the said 'Award*) assigned by B. Reeder, and accepted by him the defendant, which said bond and award was under the seals ■of B. Dyson and B. Douglass, and also such balance of J. Jlyndman’s open account as might appear due; and then and there delivered the said note or assumption in writing, on the back of said assignment, to the plaintiff And the plaintiff in fact saith, that the arbitration bond, and the bond and award mentioned and described in the said note, and the assignment and acceptance thereof, mentioned in said note, and the award herein first before mentioned, and the assignment thereof, and the acceptance thereof by the defendant as herein first above mentioned, are one and the same award, assignment and acceptance, and not different; and that the amount of said acceptance of the defendant, and the money due thereon from the defendant, is the said above mentioned sum of £31; and that the balance of J. JJyndman’s open account, due to IJyndman from the defendant, amounts to the sun; of £10 2 4; of all which the defendant afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. had notice. By reason whereof, and also by force of the statute in such cases made and provided, the defendant became liable to pay to the plaintiff the said several sums of money, to wit, the sqm of £31, and the sum of .AiO 2 4; and being so liable, in consideration, thereof, afterwards, to wit, on, Ac. at, &c. undertook, and Upon hipiself assumed, and to the plaintiff then and there faithfully promised, that he the defendant the said several sums would well and truly pay and satisfy, whenever he the defendant should be thereunto afterwards, required, Nevertheless, &c. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit infra Ves annas, and actio non merevit infra tres annos, To which there were the general replications, and issues were joined. Verdict upots the first issue for the plaintiff, find damages assessed to £83 3 9 current money* The following points were saved for the court's opinion, viz. 1. That there was no consideration for the assumption laid in the plaintiff’s declaration. 2. That the promise oF the defendant, as stated in said declaration, was nudum pac« turn. 3. That the declaration of the plaintiff states no legal cause of action, nor any lawful consideration for tha promise therein stated.
    
      , In assumpsit by JP aglamst D, on & ■ note in writing» ’ by which D promised to pay to t* the amount of an • armtration bond assigned to hita by B, and fcccep* ted by I), and alsa to pay to \* suck balance of JJs open account as should! appear to be due, with averments a» to the amount of those respective claims — 1> pleaded non assumpsit* and the act ot’ limitations, to> which issues were joined — -and there was a verdict for P on the Jir&t issue, and damages assessed, and uq disposition made of the other issues. On this verdict ¡udcnient wa* €3\*> Lereci for A?
    
      The County Court gave judgment on the points saved for the defendant; and the plaintiff was nonsuited. lie appealed to this court.
    
      Thé cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Nicholson, Earle, and Johnson, J. by
    
      Ikagruder, for the Appellant;
    and by
    , TV. Dorsey, for the Appellee.
   The appellee’s counsel, without examining the points eaveJ, contended that no judgment could be rendered in favour of the plaintiff on the verdict; because the defen« c(ant below pleaded three pleas, on all of which issues were joined, and the jury had only found a.verdict on the issue of rym assumpsit, without having passed on the other issues,.

JUDGMENT REVERSED,

And judgment entered on the verdict for the damages laid in the declaration, and costs, to be released on payment of the sum assessed by the jury, with, interest and costs.  