26 Del. 450 | Del. Super. Ct. | 1912
delivering the opinion of the court:
[1] The question here is whether the book entries themselves, considered independently of the billhead of the plaintiff, as shown by the copy of the book entries, attached to the plaintiff’s affidavit of demand, were made with sufficient particularity to disclose the nature of the plaintiff’s demand. We think.not. And the insuffi
The motion of the defendant should prevail, and judgment is refused.
Note.—Judgment was also refused at the same time in another cáse, No. 19 to the present term, in which the book entries annexed to the affidavit of demand were as follows:
Riverhead, N. Y., March 23, 1911.
Consolidated Agricultural Chemical Company,
To Riverhead Fertilizer Company, Dr.
273.88 tons tankage, at $28.50........................$7,805.57
Drafts Paid........................................ $6,261.38
Freight Paid....................................... 739.16
Freight due on Mattatock shipment................... 149.36
One-half bags to Mattatock, 288 1 ...............
Three-fourth bags Riverhead -at 6c............... 138.96
and Aquebogne 2028 ...............
Rebate on bone phos.........441 .................. 795.35
“ “ ammonia.........2.86/
Demurrage Aquebogne............................... 2.00
$8,086.21
Balance due....................................$ 280.64
[2, 3] In this case, the item of demurrage is not properly chargeable in a book account. And, at least, the two items next above the item for demurrage, do not sufficiently disclose the nature of the entries such as is necessary to entitle the plaintiff to a judgment at the first term on an affidavit of demand. O'Hara v. Reed, 1 Penn. (Del.) 138, 39 Atl. 776; Woolley’s Del. Prac. § 256.