
    BIGELOW against PINE.
    OS OEETIOBABI.
    The state of demand did not express a consideration for the contract, yet after verdict, reversal refused.
    
    The action below was an action on the case, brought to recover damages for not taking a freight of wood to [395] Philadelphia from Pea Landing, in West Jersey, according to agreement; verdict and judgment for plaintiff below, for $9.31 damages. The defendant below brought this writ, and his counsel contended that the action below was misstated ; that it ought to [*] have been debt, under the supplement of the act for the trial of small causes.
    
      
       See contra, post 618. 1 Chit. PI. 865.
      
    
   But the court said, that it did not come within that supplement, and was correct.

It was then contended, that there was no consideration expressed in the state of demand, that an action would not lie.

But the court was of opinion, that in a court for the trial of small causes, and after verdict, it would be too strict to reverse for that cause; and

Affirmed the judgment.  