
    No. 50.
    Benj. H. Cameron, plaintiff in error, vs. J. H. Moore and wife, defendants.
    [1.] When the occupancy of ihe premises of the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant, as also the plaintiff's title to them, and there is no agreement as to the price of rent to be paid, the demand which the plaintiff holds against the defendant is a claim existing in account, and is within the provision of the Act of 1847. In a complaint for its recovery, the form prescribed by the 4th section of the Act of 1847, is sufficient, and the plaintiff -may prove the value of the rent under it.
    [2J The forms prescribed by the Act of 1847,’ are not amendable, except so far as to make them conform to the form laid down in the Act.
    Complaint, in Troup Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hill, May Term, 1851.
    This was an action of complaint, the declaration being in the form prescribed for action on account by the Act of 1847.
    
    On the trial, the facts as agreed upon by the parties, were that the defendant did use and occupy the house for which rent was claimed, and for the time alleged; and that it was the house of plaintiff, but that there was no agreement as to what amount of rent the defendant should pay, and that plaintiff expected and relied on proving that the rent was reasonably worth fifty dollars per annum, as charged in the account.
    Counsel for defendant moved to dismiss the case, on the ground that the action could not be maintained, under the form prescribed by the Act of 1847, and that there must be averments of reasonable value, as required by the rules of English pleading. The Court sustained the motion, and plaintiff excepted ; and at the same time moved to amend the declaration by inserting in the present form, the averments as required, and secondly, to add a quantum, valebant count.
    The Court refused the motion, on the ground that the declarations under the foim prescribed by the Act of 1847, were not amendable, and counsel for plaintiff excepted.
    B. II. Hill, for plaintiff in error.
    Pryor, for defendant in error.
    
      
       The following is the section of the Act of 1847, under which the action is brought.
      Section IV. The form of an action on an account may be as follows, to wit:
      GEORGIA, )
      
        County, j To the Court for said County.
      
      The petition of (A B) shewetb that (O D) of said County, is indebted to your petitioner dollars, on an account, as will fully appear by reference to a bill of particulars hereto annexed, which account the said (C D) neglects to pay: Wherefore your petitioner prays process may issue requiring the said (ó D) to be and appear at the next-Court, to be held for said County, to answer your petitioner’s complaint.
    
   By the Court.

Nisbet, J.

delivering the opinion.

It is clear that the Act of 1847 makes a writ or complaint, in the form which it prescribes, a sufficient writ, in all cases within its provisions. The Legislature, beyond question, intended to dispense with the Common Law pleadings, and the pleadings which have grown up under our own Statute, and to say that in the cases enumerated, the form embodied in the Act should b'e a good declaration. Whether they have wisely so enacted, is not the question; the only question, these things being so, in this case, is this, to wit: is this case within the provisions of the Act of 1847 ? It is, as appears by the facts agreed upon, an action or complaint (I knowT not how to designate it) for the recovery of rent, when no note was given for the amount of the rent, and no agreement entered into as to the amount which the rentor w7as to pay. The pleader has adopted the form which the Act of 1847 prescribes for the recovery of money due on account, appending to that form a bill of particulars. The occupancy of the premises being admitted, and also the title to them in the plaintiff, without any agreement as to price to be paid, the demand which the landlord holds against the tenant, is a claim existing in account, and is therefore within the 4th section of the Act of 1847, and the plaintiff can prove it, by the will of the Legislature, as fully as he would be able to doj if the declaration contained all the counts known to the law of pleadings. Holding this, we hold that the Court erred in dismissing the suit.

No amendment, in this view of the matter, was necessary ; and if it was, we hold that these legislative forms are not amendable, except so far as to make them conform to the form laid down in the Statute. ■

Let the judgment be reversed.  