
    Wright v. The State, on the Relation of Howe.—In error.
   DEBT by the state, on the relation of A., against B. on his bond as administrator. The declaration stated that the reíator was a creditor of the estate, but it did not allege that he had recovered a judgment against the estate, nor did it show the nature or amount of his demand. Held, that the declaration was insufficient. Eaton v. Benefield et al. 2 Blackf. 52.

Where in such suit there are several issues in fact, a verdict, in general terms, “ for the plaintiff” may be valid; but a verdict in such case as to only one of the issues, not noticing the others, is bad. Crouch v. Martin, 3 Blackf. 256.—Hanna et al. v. Ewing et al. Id. 34.—Patterson v. Salmon, Id. 131. —Fitch v. Dunn, Id. 142.—Huff v. Gilbert, 4 id. 19. Van Benthuysen v. De Witt, 4 Johns. 213.  