
    Lanier v. Harwell.
    Decided, Jan. 22d, 1818.
    1. Statute of Frauds — Prosnise to Answer for Debt of Another — Case at Bar. — A plaintiff in assumpsit is entitled to recover upon a parol agreement of the defendant, that, if the plaintiff would furnish and supply a certain married woman and her infant children, with board, washing and lodging for a certain time, he the defendant would pay him for it; averring and. proving that he furnished the board, washing and lodging accordingly: — and this, altho’ the woman's husband be in the Commonwealth at the time, and bound to furnish her and the children with necessaries; and the defendant be not morally or legally bound, but by his said promise,
    2. Verdict — Certainty .-it seems, that a verdict for a certain sum of money, with interest from a day specified, “subiect to a credit,” (without saying on what clay such credit is to be applied.) is not so uncertain as that the plaintiff cannot take judgment upon it.
    3. Same — Judgment—Sufficiency.—A judgment, in such case, for the damages aforesaid in form aforesaid assessed, sufficiently follows the verdict.
    In assumpsit, the plaintiff declared upon a parol agreement between the defendant and him, “that if the plaintiff would furnish and supply a certain Mary Hunnicutt, Littleton Hunnicutt and Edward Hunnicutt, with board, washing and lodging for one year, he the defendant would pay the plaintiff as much money, as he, for the board, washing and lodging aforesaid, reasonably deserved to have” ;— averring performance on his part; that he reasonably deserved to have for the same the sum of 611. 10s. Od. ; and non-performance by the defendant. At the trial, on the plea of non assumpsit, the defendant moved the Court to instruct the Jury, that he was not responsible for the board of the persons in the *declaration mentioned, unless the plaintiff could produce a promise in writing to that effect: — -but, “the contract having been made by the defendant himself, and the said persons being in law incapable of contracting themselves, one being a feme-covert and her husband in this State, and the others infants and their children, the Court refused to give the instruction:” —to which opinion the defendant excepted.
    The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 6S1. damages, with legal interest from January 1st, 1808 ’till paid, (“subject to a credit of the sum of 2S1. 11s. 6d.”) besides Costs. The judgment was, “that the plaintiff recover against the defendant his damages aforesaid, in form aforesaid, assessed, and his Costs” &c.
    In a Petition for a Supersedeas, the defendant contended there was error in the Judgment; 1st, “because it did not appear, from the plaintiff’s allegations, that there was any moral or legal obligation whereby the defendant was bound to support Mrs. Hunnicutt and her children ; and she was a married woman; and her husband and the father of her children was in the State of Virginia, who was liable for necessaries furnished his wife and children :” — 2d, “because there was no promise in writing whereby the defendant bound himself to be responsible; and, if he made the promise, it was a nudum pactum, not susceptible of enforcément either at law or in equity:” 3d, “because the jury, in their verdict, allowed a credit for 251. without stating at what time, and consequently it was impossible to know how an estimate of the interest was to be made” : and 4th, because the judgment “of the Court did not pursue the verdict of the Jury.”
    The Judge of the Superior Court of law granted the Supersedeas, and afterwards reversed the judgment, and directed a new trial, on the ground, “that the Verdict was uncertain in not fixing the time when the credit of 251. 11s. 6d. was to be allowed.” Erom this Judgment of reversal, the “original plaintiff appealed to this Court: but, before the decision, “he offered, in the Superior -Court, to admit, and enter on record, that the *crédit of 251. 11s. 6d. was to be applied as a Credit on the 1st of January 1808; which, as his release of the damages aforesaid, (except as to the sum of 391. 8s. 6d. with interest from that day,) was, on his motion, allowed to be entered of record.”
    
      
       The principal case is cited in Black v. Thomas, 21 W. Va. 712.
      
    
   This Court (without argument) reversed the Judgment of the Superior Court, and affirmed that of the County Court.  