
    John T. Knox, et al., Pltffs in Error, v. James E. Breed, Deft in Error.
    ERROR TO FRANKLIN.
    Where the verdict and judgment are too general, the judgment will he reversed.
    This was an action of debt brought in the Franklin Circuit Court, by defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error ; the cause was tried before Denning, Judge, and a jury at September Term, 1850, when the following verdict was found by the jury: “ Upon their oaths do say $-118 75, (Four Hundred and Eighteen Dollars and 75 Cents,)” upon which verdict, judgment was entered as follows: “ Ordered by the Court that the plaintiffs recover of the defendant, the sum of Four Hundred and Eighteen Dollars and 75 Cents, together with their proper costs and charges and may have execution.” A motion for a new trial was made and overruled.
    Defendant below brings the cause here and assigns for error, the informality of the verdict and judgment.
    Casey & Montgomery and W. B. Scares for PMs in Error.
    R. Wingate and James M. Warren, for Defts in Error.
   Per Curiam.

The verdict and judgment are too general. The Case of Toles v. Cole, 11 Ills., 502, is precisely in point. Reverse the judgment, with costs, and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed.  