Summary

Samuel Nelson McDonald v. Hobson — Opinion of the Court

The fact of liability to pay is not dependent upon a technical thing that can only be done in one way, and which must always be alleged to have been done in that way.
Simply, the case is an action for so much money received by McArthur to Hobson's use; and the only reason why we might not recover in indebitatus assumpsit is, that the covenant under seal drives us to this action of the higher nature.
It well appears that a certain sum of money arising out of joint property of Hobson and McArthur was in the treasury of the United States. The parties differ in the division
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson McDonald v. Hobson — Opinion of the Court

There is a total omission of any averment of the fact upon which the right of the plaintiff to any portion of the fund beyond the $11,500 is made to depend, namely a judgment, order, or decree awarding to him the amount. There is not only an omission of any such averment, but the contrary appears upon the face of the declaration, as the decree in the chancery suit is set out, and its contents particularly described.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature