
    Shea v. Livingston.
    Justice of the peace! PLEADINGS. Technical precision and nicety in pleadings in a justice’s court are not required. The provisions of the statute respecting motions for a more specific statement are not to he rigidly applied in these courts.
    
      Appeal from Hamilton Cvrcmt Court.
    
    Thursday, July 27.
    The plaintiff instituted an action in a justice’s court against defendant, serving upon him a notice as follows: “You are hereby notified that James Shea claims of you the sum of $78, on account for labor done on behalf of James McMerchy, and unless you appear,” etc. The substance of this claim was entered upon the justice’s docket.
    The parties appearing, the plaintiff filed the following account:
    “ T. B. Livingston to James Shea, Dr.
    
    1st. To digging 45 feet of well, at $1 per foot.. $45 00
    2d. To 5 days teaming, at $3 per day........... 15 00
    3d. To 3 days boring and sawing lumber for well, at $3 per day......................... 9 00
    4th. To paid board bill....................... 9 00
    Total................................. $78 00”
    The defendant thereupon moved the court that the plaintiff be required to make his statement of cause of action more specific in the following particulars:
    1st. “ That plaintiff be required to state how he seeks to charge the defendant for the payment of labor done in behalf of James McMerchy.
    2d. That plaintiff be required to state whether the contract of defendant to pay for the labor done for James McMerchy is a written or a parol contract.
    3d. That the plaintiff be required to state fully all the facts upon which he relies to charge defendant with the debts of James McMerchy.”
    This motion the justice at first sustained, but the plaintiff, refusing to amend, and offering to prove his account, the justice reconsidered the matter, and determined to admit plaintiff’s proof without the amendment. The defendant objected to this, and refused to proceed.
    Upon hearing plaintiff’s evidence, the justice entered judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $73.75.' Upon writ of error from the circuit court of Hamilton county, the justice’s judgment was reversed. The plaintiff appeals.
    
      J. Skirmer for the appellant.
    
      Chernies A. Clark for the appellee.
   Day, Ch. J.

The justice was wrong in sustaining the motion for more specific statement, and right in reconsidering his action, and admitting plaintiff’s proof.

Technical precision and nicety in pleadings in a justice’s court are not required. The evident purpose of the law, where the matter in dispute is small, is to furnish parties a plain and inexpensive remedy, relieving them from the observance of legal form, and the necessity of employing counsel to prosecute their demands.

Hence “ no petition need be filed, as is required in the district court, except where the petition must be sworn to, but tbe notice must state tbe cause of action in general terms sufficient to apprise defendant of tbe nature of tbe claim against bim.” Rev., § 3860. If tbe cause of action is stated in general terms, and witb sufficient certainty to apprise tbe defendant of tbe nature of plaintiff’s demand, tbe law is complied .witb. This, we think, was done in tbe present case.

Tbe items of account are specifically set. out, and defendant is advised that plaintiff makes tbe claim for labor done on behalf of James McMerchy. If defendant bad any transaction witb plaintiff, out of which tbe claim might arise, be could scarcely fail, by this statement, to know what was referred to; and if be bad no such transaction, a more specific statement of a matter having no existence would not better enable bim to make bis defense.

Tbe necessity of compliance witb tbe requirements of ^this motion would introduce into proceedings in justice’s courts, in cases where no wzltten petition is required, all tbe fullness and exactness of statement necessary in tbe district court. Tbe provisions of tbe law, applicable to tbe procedure in those courts, are not susceptible of such a construction.

As bearing in some degree upon tbe question here discussed, see Hall v. Monahan, 1 Iowa, 554; Packer v. Cockayne, 3 G. Greene, 113; Sears v. Tubbs, 4 id. 409; Brownell v. Smith, 13 Iowa, 288; Dilley v. Nusum, 17 id. 239.

In our opinion tbe action of tbe circuit court was ez-roneous, and its judgment must be

Reversed.  