
    VAN PELT against VAN PELT.
    OH CERTIORARI.
    The action below was an action on the case, and founded on the following state of demand :
    
      The plaintiff demanda of the defendant, $80 for this: that on [461] the seventh day of August last, did damage to [*] said plaintiff's clock, one dollar fifty cents, besides being deprived of the use of said clock from date until April 3, 1809, five dollars. And in December last, 1808, did sell and receive sixty dollars for oysters, belonging to said plaintiff; and on demand, refuses to pay the plaintiff the money for the said oysters ; and on the first day of December last, did receive of Jonathan Rile, nine dollars and twenty cents on said plaintiff’s account, and converted the money to his own use; for which nine dollars and twenty cents, he hath never accounted for to said plaintiff; for which I bring this suit.
    GEORGE VAN PELT.
    There was a trial, verdict, and judgment below, for $14 damages. To the judgment below, it was objected,
    That the state of demand is informal, defective in substance, and contains matter that cannot be joined in the same action.
   By the Court.

The right of the plaintiff below, to maintain the action he has brought, is very loosely stated; but as far as it can be understood, he has mixed tort with contract; partly for trespass, and partly on simple contract. As to the injury done to the clock, it must be presumed to be trespass. The money received of Rile, is simple contract. And as to the oysters, whether the defendant tortiously took them and sold them, or whether the plaintiff delivered them to the defendant to sell, does not appear. It is essential to the correct administration of justice, that the demands be distinctly stated, and the boundaries of actions preserved.

Judgment reversed.  