
    HORNER against PARKER and HORNER.
    ON CEETIOEAEI.
    Demand for trespass, in action on tlie case, is error.
    The action below was an action on the case. This appeared as well in the summons issued by the justice, as the entry in his docket, of the style of the action. The state of demand was for a trespass on land; besides this variance, the state of demand was itself defective. It stated that the plaintiff complains of the [481] defendant below for this; that about the 3d, 4th, 5th, and 6th days of October, 1809, the defendant’s sons or servants, with force of arms, &c., entered the close, &c., of the plaintiff, and with his aids broke down and carried off a house and fence, &e.
   By the Court.

The action is plainly an action on the case, and the state of demand in trespass. For this cause, without taking notice of the supposed defects in the state of demand, the judgment must be

Reversed.

Cited in Sayers v. Inhabts. of Springfield, 3 Halst. 166.  