
    Case No. 5,112.
    FRESH v. GILSON.
    [5 Cranch, C. C. 533.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    Nov. Term, 1838.
    
    Brent & Brent, for plaintiff.
    Mr. Bradley, for defendants.
    
      
       [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]
    
    
      
       [Reversed in 16 Pet. (41 U. S.) 327.]
    
   THE COURT,

at the motion of Mr. Bradley, the defendants’ counsel, instructed the jury, that if they should find from the evidence that there was an agreement under seal between the plaintiff and the defendants for the execution of the work and labor for which this action is brought, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

CRANCH, Chief Judge, would have added, “unless they should also be satisfied by the evidence that the plaintiff had performed the work according to his agreement.”

THE COURT also instructed the jury, at the instance of the defendants’ counsel, that if they should find from the evidence, that the plaintiff performed the work and labor for which this action is brought, under a ■ sealed agreement between the plaintiff and Riah Gilson, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action.

CRANCH, Chief Judge, would have added,“unless they should be satisfied by the evidence, that the plaintiff had done the work according to the written contract; and that the contract was made by Gilson for the benefit of all the defendants and with their consent, and that they recognized it.”

To these instructions the plaintiff also excepted, and took his bills of exception. Verdict and judgment for defendants.  