
    C. B. & J. A. Stovall v. J. M. & L. S. Nabors.
    Writ of error to the Circuit Court of Sumter County.
    1. In*the action of assumpsit, it is not necessary, that the writ should be in a plea of “Trespass on the case;” it is sufficient if it be “in a plea of the case.”
    THIS was an action commenced in the court below, by the plaintiffs in this court, against the defendants on a promissory note. The court, on motion of the defendants, quashed the writ. The entry of the judgment is in these words: “Motion to quash, because the form of action as presented in the writ, is one unknown to the law. Quashed, and ordered by the court, that execution issue, for the costs of suit against the plaintiff.” The plaintiff brings the case here, by writ of error, and assigns for error, the proceeding in the court below.
    Bliss, for tbe plaintiffs in error.
    Inge & Smith, contra.
   ORMOND, J.

— The objection to the writ is, that it is stated that the writ is “in a plea of the case,” instead of trespass on the case. The “trespass” supposed to have been committed, is a pure fiction, which is retained in the form of the writ after the cause which gave rise to it, has ceased to exist: its omission, therefore, is not error. The writ and endorsement, is sufficient to show that it is sued out in assumpsit, which is an action well known to the law.

Let the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded.  