
    Patrick O’Neal vs. John Kittredge.
    A declaration setting forth the recovery by the plaintiff against the defendant of a judgment for a certain sum as damages' and another certain sum as costs, which judgment remains in full force and unsatisfied, whereby an action hath accrued to the plaintiff to have and recover of the defendant the balance due thereon and interest, is sufficient on demurrer.
    Contract. The declaration set forth the recovery by the plaintiff against the defendant of a judgment for the sum of $5.41, damages, and $117.62, costs, “which judgment is in full force, and not impaired, annulled or satisfied, whereby an action hath accrued to said plaintiff to have and recover of said defendant the balance due on said judgment and interest thereon.” The defendant demurred,' assigning as cause that the declaration did not state the amount sought to be recovered, or the amount due on the judgment. Putnam, J. overruled the demurrer, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      J. C. Kimball, for the defendant.
    
      A. R. Brown, for the plaintiff, was not called upon.
   Bigelow, C. J.

We can see no defect in this declaration. The plaintiff was not bound to set out the precise sum which he might be entitled to recover upon the judgment declared on. That would depend on the state of the evidence at the trial. The cause of action, to wit, the judgment, is described with substantial certainty and precision. Strictly speaking, if any payment had been made, which reduced the amount due on the judgment, it was matter in defence, which the defendant was bound to aver and prove. Therefore he has no reason to complain that the plaintiff has declared only for a balance, instead of setting put a claim for the whole amount for which the judgment was originally rendered.

Demurrer overruled.  