Opinion
(April Term, 1797.)
Assumpsit will lie for promise to pay rent of a house.
THIS was a special case in which it was referred to the Court to decide whether or not an action on the case upon assumpsit would lie for the use and occupation of a house. The declaration stated the use and occupation, and a promise to pay. Mr. Hay cited 2 Cro., 596, 668, 684; Cro. El., 118, 859; Cro. C., 414.
An express promise, by all the books, will support this action. Some of them say an implied promise will not, because debt for rent is the assigned action. The promise here stated may be taken to have been an express one, as the contrary is not stated in the special case.
The plaintiff had judgment.
Judgments have been given for the plaintiffs upon a quantum meruit, before 2 Geo. II., c. 19; Vide, 3 Mo., 73.
See Hayes v. Acre, 1 N.C. 247.
Cited: Sessoms v. Tayloe, 148 N.C. 373.