64 SALE OF MILK-WALK. 



defendant of standing' trees, -which the defendant afterwards procured 

 to be felled and taken away ; and the objection was that the plaintiff 

 conld not recover on the orii^nnal contract for standing trees, which 

 formed part of the realty ; but it was held, nevertheless, that the ac- 

 kaowledgraent of the price to be paid for the trees, after they were 

 felled and applied to tlie nse of the defendant, was sufficient to sustain 

 tlie count on tlie account stated : Lord EUcnhorougli C.J., saying, that 

 if there were an acknowledgment by the defendant of a debt due to 

 the plaintiff upon any account, it was sufficient to enable him to 

 recover on an account stated. And in Hiylimore v. Primrose the Court 

 of Queen's Bench held that the proof of the acknowledgment of one 

 item of debt only, was good to support a count upon an account stated ; 

 and the former case was there mentioned with approbation, and relied 

 on. In Pinchon v. ChUcott there was a verbal contract for turnips 

 growing in a field, upon which it was held the plaintiff could not 

 recover ; yet as the defendant admitted, after some of the turnips were 

 drawn, tliat he owed the plaintiff £3 for them, it was held by Best C.J. 

 at Nisi Prills that he could recover to that amount upon an account 

 stated, and no motion was made to the Court to question the ruling. 

 And in Sea(jo v. Deanc, a promise to pay a specified sum where the 

 party had the benefit of the contract, though he could not have been 

 sued upon it, on account of its being a verbal contract only, was held 

 to be good evidence on the account stated. See also Peacoclc v. Harris. 

 Upon the authority, tlierefore, of decided cases, as well as on principle, 

 we think the plaintiff's right to the verdict on the account stated may 

 be sustained." As to the sufficiency of a consideration arising out of a 

 morcd obligation, see Lee v. Miiggeridge, Seago v. Deane, Liitlejield v. 

 Shee, and Eastwood v. Keinjon. 



The decision of the case of Coching v. Ward was also upheld by the 

 Court of Common Pleas in the case of Kelhj app., ^Yel)h resp., which was 

 an appeal from a decision of the Ticeds county court. 



It was also held l)y Lord EUcnl)oroiigk C.J., in Inman v. Stamp, that 

 an agreement to occu})y lodgings at a yearly rent, payable in cpiarterly 

 portions (the occupation to commence on a future day), is an agreement 

 relating to an interest in land. 



Smart v. Harding was another case of the same class. The defendant 

 agreed to purchase a milk-walk in Islington for £80, including jJosses- 

 sion of the 2)remises (of which he was tenant from year to year), and 

 plant, cans, and pails. When the contract was entered into the plain- 

 tiff represented tlie custom at between twelve and fourteen barn gallons 

 a day, and the customers as all full-priced ones except two or three. 

 The defendant was not to have had possession for three Aveeks, but took 



