
    Davis vs. Morford and others.
    
      Error to Muscatine.
    
    It does not appear to be imperative on the court, to refer the assessment of damages * to the clerk.
    At all events as it is a matter of mere calculation, unles some error of computation is shown, the judgment will not on that account be reversed.
    Where the action is debt, and the form of the judgment is as though it had been assumpsit, it is no fatal error.
    This was an action of debt brought by defendants in error on a spe-ciality, judgment by default, and assessment of damages by the court. The judgment is in form of assumpsit.
    WhicheR, for plaintiff in error.
    Hastings & Day, for defendants in. error.
   By the Couet,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The two first errors assigned in this case, are in substance, that the action being in debt, the form of the judgment is as though the action had been assumpsit.— We do not think this such an error as should affect the judgment. It is erroneous only in form, and could work no prejudice to the defendant.

The third error alleged, is that the court appears to have assessed the damages, when the law provides that the court may direct the clerk to do so. The language is not imperative, and seems to leave the matter optional with the court. It authorizes the matter to be referred to the clerk, because it is one of mere calculation. At all events, if there were no error shown is this calculation, the plaintiff in error has sustained no injury. As nothing of this kind is alleged, the judgment below will be affirmed.  