Case Name: ENGLISH against HORNER
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1811-05
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 817
Docket Number: 
Parties: ENGLISH against HORNER.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 382–383

Head Matter:
ENGLISH against HORNER.
ON CERTIORARI.
Action on the case, lies not on a sealed instrument. Breaches of a covenant must be specified.
The action below was an action on the case, brought on an instrument under seal, containing agreements respecting the hiring a plantation for one year. This instrument was set out at length in the state of demand, wherein English, the defendant below, agreed to perform several distinct matters, respecting the plantation, and.the manner of treating it during the year. The state of demand then concludes in this manner:—
Wherefore, the said George Horner, jun., saith, that by the non-compliance and non-performance of the above said article of agreement, so as aforesaid set forth by the said John English, he, the said George Horner, jun’r, has received damage to the amount of $100, and thereof he prays judgment.
It was assigned for error, first, that the action was misconceived. It ought to have been covenant, and not case. And second, that the breaches of the covenant were not properly assigned.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Both objections are well taken. The action is founded on a sealed instrument, and ought to have been covenant. The breaches ought [597] to have been assigned, that is, the state of demand [*] should have contained an allegation, that some one or more of the stipulations made by the defendant below, and contained in the agreement, had been broken by him, and how.
Crane, for plaintiff.
Judgment reversed.
Cited in Sayres v. Inhabts. of Springfield, 8 Halst. 166.