
    William P. Woodruff vs. Stephen Badgley.
    On an appeal it is not sufficient for the Court of Common Pleas to render a general judgment affirming or reversing the judgment of the justice. The judgment should be rendered and entered specifically stating both the amount of the debt or damages, and the costs.
   By the Court.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas on the appeal in this case was erroneously rendered and entered. The judgment should -be specific both as to-the debt or damages and the costs. Hendricks v. Craig, 2 South. 567; Hann. v. Gosling, 4 Halst. 248. The nature-of the proceeding requires the court not merely to reverse- or affirm the judgment of the justice, but to render such judgment as he ought to have given. Griff. Tr. (1st ed.) 117; Penn. Tr. (1st ed.) 74. The language of the 37th section of the act constituting courts for the trial of small causes has been very incorrectly supposed to sanction and support a general entry. It was intended to prescribe a regulation as to the allowance of costs, but not as to the form or substance of the judgment on the appeal.

Let the judgment be reversed.  