Case Name: FLEMING against NEWMAN
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1811-09
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 865
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLEMING against NEWMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
FLEMING against NEWMAN.
ON CERTIORARI.
The action below was brought by Newman against Fleming, on the following state of demand:
“Jeremiah Newman, junior, the plaintiff in the above cause, comes into court, and demands of the said James Fleming, senior, the sum of thirty-seven dollars and seventy-one cents, being for damage done to the said Jeremiah Newman, jun’r, by the said James Fleming, senior, selling a yoke of steers out [j-j of my custody, which the said Fleming had put to me, the said Jeremiah Newman, junior, to work for four years, and upwards, and for attending to settle the same.”
On this state of demand, Newman recovered $22.39, damages.
To the proceeding below, it was objected — [633]
1st. That matter of debt and matter in damages were joined.
2d. That the justice admitted improper evidence.
That the action was misconceived; that for the matter complained of, the plaintiff below was not entitled to recover by a special action on the case.
O. Lloyd, for plaintiff.

Opinion:
Pennington, J.
The action below was an action on the case, brought by Newman against Fleming, stating in substance, that Fleming had put to Newman a pair of steers to work for four years, but had afterwards sold the steers out of the custody of Newman (as he states it.) At the close of this state of demand is added, "and for attendance to settle the same." The first objection in this case is, that here is matter of debt and matter sounding in damage, joined together; that distinct causes of action are joined in one. It appears to me that this is too nice a distinction; it all arises from one injury. The second objection is, that a special action on the case is not a proper remedy for the injury complained of. I am of opinion that if any action can be maintained on this state of demand, it is an action on the case. The only doubt with me is, whether or not the state of demand sets out with sufficient certainty a cause of action at all; but as this does not seem to be brought in question, I am for affirming the judgment.
Kiekpateick, C. J., and Rossele, J.
Were decidedly in favor of affirmance.
Judgment affirmed.