
    RICE against OXSENIUS.
    CERTIORARI.
    The action below was brought on the following state of demand:
    
      
      
    
    Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff below, Oxsenius. It was contended on the part of the defendant below, the plaintiff in certiorari, that the state of demand, and also the credit, was too general and uncertain.
   By the Court.

We think the state of demand not sufficiently particular; it ought at least to have stated the kind of work and labor done; and also the credit is too vague.

Judgment reversed.

Cited is Hagerty v. Vankirk, 4 Holst. 118; Farley v. McIntyre, 1 Gr. 190; Howell v. Burnett, Spenc. 265. 
      
       Credit “ by sundries,” insufficient. Vide ante, 206, 561, 628; South. 104, 220; 4 Halst. 118.
      
     