
    [*] BRUEN against DOUGLASS.
    OH CEBTIOBABI.
    Charge “to cash had to my use,” insufficient.
    The action below was brought by Douglas against Bruen, on the following state of demand:
    Caleb Bruen to David Douglass Dr.
    To cash had to my use, $76 60
    On which there was a credit given of 29 76
    Leaving the demand, $46 84
    There was a trial, verdict and judgment, for $28 with costs. It was contended on the part of the plaintiff in eertiorari that the state of demand was insufficient; that the purposes for which the money was had by the plaintiff, ought to have been more fully set out; that a state of demand so loose, vague and uncertain as this, would expose defendants in justices’ courts to continual frauds and injustice.
    [351] The Chief Justice and Rossell, J., being of opinion that the state of demand for money had and received, in the justices’ courts, ought to be more particularly set out than it was in this case,
    Reversed the judgment.
    
    
      
       The real circumstances of this case will show the propriety of this decision. The action below was brought to recover back a sum of money recovered by the plaintiff below and his partner, before another justice, as he alleged, improperly, and by surprise, in his absence; to review the Eroceedings of a court of competent jurisdiction, in an action for money ad and received, would lead to endless litigation and uncertainly.
    
   Pennington, J.

Gave no opinion, being related to both the parties.

Cited in Elkinton v. Bennet, 2 Penn 637; St. Johns v. Adams, 2 Penn. 984.

Approved Hutchinson v. Targee, 2 Gr. 386; Brannin v. Voorhees, 2 Gr. 590.  