
    [*] M’CANNON against ANDERSON.
    OIT CERTIORARI.
    Technical formality in justice’s courts, not requisite.
    The action below was brought on the following state of demand. The plaintiff, Joseph Anderson, complains of Alexander M’Cannon, that he, the plaintiff, let the said Alexander have á horse to ride to Joseph Denor’s about sixteen miles, and was to return him the next day, but he did not, but held the horse two days longer than he was to; and also put out one of the horse’s eyes, to the great damage of the horse, to the amount of $40; for which Joseph Anderson brings this action against the defendant; and demand of him $40 damage done to said horse. June 10, 1809.
    1st. It was objected that the style of the action was an action of damages, when no such action was known in law.
    2d. That the action was brought for damages done to the horse, and not damages done to the plaintiff below.
   By the Court.

We have often declared our opinion, that the law does not require technical formality, or grammatical exactness in the state of demand, in the courts for the trial of small causes. If the plaintiff below had simply said that he demanded $40 for damages done to his horse, it would have presented a different case, but here the circumstances are set out; that the plaintiff let the defendant have the horse to ride to a particular place; that the defendant kept the horse two days longer than he had permission to keep him; and put out one of his eyes, and for this injury done his horse, the plaintiff demands $40 damages. This we think sufficient; therefore let

Judgment be affirmed.  