
    Newell Wilcox v. John McCoy.
    A petition, stating that the defendant sold to the plaintiff a specified number of sheep, representing them to be sound when they were not sound, but all, or a part of them, were affected by a disease known as the hoof rot; and that, relying on the defendant’s representations as true, the plaintiff turned the sheep into his field with his other sheep, whereby they also became diseased and the pasture injured, does not state several causes of action, but only a single cause of action, with circumstances of special damage; and the averments showing special damage are not redundant or irrelevant matter.
    Error to the district court of Van Wert county.
    The petition of McCoy, the plaintiff, in the common pleas, dates that Wilcox, the defendant below, sold to him twenty-five head of fine wooled sheep, representing them to be sound; that they were not sound, but all, or a portion of them, had a disease known as the hoof rot, and that the defendant knew it. That, relying upon the defendant’s representations that the sheep were sound, the plaintiff took them home and turned them into a field with his other sheep, whereby they, also, were infected with the hoof rot, so that all the plaintiff’s sheep became, in a measure, worthless; and that by reason of the diseased condition of the sheep purchased of the defendant by the plaintiff, his pasture field was rendered useless for the purpose of pasturing sheep. To the plaintiff’s damage, &c.
    The defendant moved the court to require the plaintiff to make his petition definite and certain, by separately stating and numbering his causes of action. The court overruled the motion, and exception was taken.
    
      The defendant then moved the court to strike out of the petition, as redundant and irrelevant matter, all the allegations relating to the turning into the plaintiff’s field the sheep purchased of the defendant,.and the consequent injury to the plaintiff’s other sheep, and to the pasture. The court overruled this motion also, and exception was taken.
    The defendant answered the petition, admitting the sale of the sheep, but joining issue upon its other averments.
    Jury trial, and verdict for plaintiff. Motion for new trial-overruled, and judgment on the verdict.
    The district court, on error, affirmed this judgment. The present petition in error is to reverse the judgment of the district court.
    
      W. J. Beers (with Barr <& Bdson) for plaintiff in error v
    
    Sedgwick on Damages, 65, 66; 2 Greenl. Ev., sec. 256 ; Loker v. Damon, 17 Pick. 284; 2 Parsons on Contr. (4th. ed.) 454, note n, 455, 457, note r; Code, sec. 80; 1 Chitty’s Pl. (5th Am. ed.) 202, 204; 1 Greenl. Ev., secs. 34, 35, 80; 1 Story’s Eq. Jur., secs. 195, 197; McCracken v. West et al. 17 Ohio, 26; Edwards v. Owen, 15 Ohio, 505, 506.
    
      O. W. Oowan for defendant in error :
   By the Court :

The petition does not purport to state' several causes of action, but only a single cause of action, with circumstances showing special damage. The action is for false representations that the sheep sold were sound. The circumstances showing special damage are, that the plaintiff, relying on the defendant’s representations that the sheep purchased were sound, turned them into the field, whereby the disease was communicated to the plaintiff’s other sheep, and the pasture injured. The averments of special damage were not redundant or irrelevant matter, but, with the other allegations of the petition, formed a basis for the recovery of damages. Packard v. Slack, 32 Verm. 9.

Judgment affirmed.  