
    [242] [*] GORDEN against BUTTS.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    Damages resulting from plaintiff’s negligence, not cause of action.
    Butts, the defendant in this court, was the plaintiff below; and brought an action on the case against Gorden, on- the following state of demand:
    The plaintiff demands of the defendant, Thomas Gorden, the sum of $100, being the damages sustained by the plaintiff, by reason of the defendant taking from my ferry, on the river Delaware, at Belvidere, on ■the 1st day of October, 1804, my flatt for transporting horses, travellers, &c., whereby I was prevented from crossing said river, and was ■obliged to leave my wagon and two horses on the bank of said river, in search thereof; and while in search of said flatt, as aforesaid, my said horses ran in said river Delaware, and were drowned.
    A trial by jury was had, and a verdict and judgment for $40, in favor of the plaintiff, Butts. Gorden, against whom the judgment was had, brings this certiorari, and relies, among other matters, on what he conceives to be a defect, in the state of demand, as not stating a legal cause of action.
   Kirkpatrick, C. J.

— The state of demand in this cause is, in substance, that Butts, the defendant below, had taken the plaintiff’s flat from his ferry at Belvidere, on the river Delaware; that the defendant being obliged to go in search of the flat, in order to cross the river, left his wagon and two horses on the beach, and that while he was gone, the horses ran into the river, and were drowned.

Now, as the plaintiff has undertaken to state the damages specially, he must rest upon that statement on the trial.

The question then will be, is the defendant answerable for the loss of this wagon and these horses ? and I think he is not answerable in the law. It was the [*] plaintiff’s own negligence to leave them, without first securing them.

I think, therefore, there must be a reversal.

Rossell, J. — Concurred.

Pennington, J.

— This is a special action on the case, for consequential damages. The loss sustained by the plaintiff below, is too remote from the injury complained of, to constitute the ground work of an action. The drowning the horses was not the consequence of taking away the boat from the ferry, but of the negligence of the owner in not taking care of them.

Judgment reversed. 
      
      
        Tidd, 399.
      
     
      
      
        Lev. 196. Virtue v. Bird, in point.
     