Case ID: njl_3/html/0051-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALDERMAN against CHARD.
    OS OEETIOEABI.
    The action before the justice was an action on the [*] case; the plaintiff below delivered the justice the following state of demand:
    Joab Chard against Robert Alderman. — In Trespass.
    The plaintiff complains of the defendant for this, that he, the plaintiff, sent the said Robert Alderman 718 feet of popular boards, about 18th April 1808, at the rate of $4 per thousand, and the said defendant refuses to pay the said plaintiff for the said boards, which he, the said plaintiff, pleads that it is a damage to him the sum of ten dollars. And farther, the plaintiff pleads that his trouble and plague concerning the boards aforesaid, that it is a damage unto him, the said plaintiff, in the sum of five dollars.
    There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff’ for $10.05. It was moved to reverse the judgment of the justice on the ground that the action was misconceived ; that it must be considered as an action on the case, according to the style of the action in the record of the justice, or an action of trespass, as stated in the state of demand; in either case, the subject matter of the action did not accord with the action brought, for if the state of demand could be supported at all, it must be by considering it as containing a charge for boards sold and delivered, which is simple contract debt, and according to the positive provisions of the statute, the action to recover which, must be an action of debt and not otherwise. The charge for trouble and plague about the boards, was too vague and uncertain a charge to maintain an action.
   The Court,

being of that opinion,

Reversed the judgment.

Cited in Sayres v. Inhbts. of Springfield, 3 Halst. 168.