gave the instruction as prayed by Mr. Mason.

Mr. Key had leave to amend on continuance and costs. Mr. Key afterwards obtained a rule to show cause why the costs of this term should not await the issue of the cause, on the ground of the misdirection of the court.

Mr. Key. There are two kinds of assumpsit, a general indebi-tatus, and a special assumpsit. Bull. N. P. 182; Impey, 171; Moses v. Macferlan, 2 Burr. 1005 ; Slade’s case, 4 Co. 92. The old strictness of pleading has been much relaxed. Gordon v. Martin, Fitz-Gibbons, 303, recognized in Bull. N. P. 139 ; Walker v. Witter, Doug. 1. Upon parol contracts, it is almost impossible *183to state precisely the terms of a contract exactly as they shall turn out in evidence. In general indebitatus assumpsit, you may recover less than you count for. Impey, 172, 200.

Mr. Key, also, cited the following authorities: Esp. N. P. 130, 138, 140; Rolleston v. Hibbert, 3 T. R. 412; Cates v. Knight, 3 T. R. 444; Cutter v. Powell, 6 T. R. 320 ; Payne v. Bacomb, Doug. 651; Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077, 1078; Prec. Dec. 18, 19.

The Court, however, remained of the same opinion, after consulting the following authorities: Seward v. Baker, 1 T. R. 616 ; Esp. N. P. 130 ; Weston v. Downes, Doug. 24; Towers v. Barrett, 1 T.R. 134 ; Touissiant v. Martinnant, 2 T. R. 104; Esp. N. P. 138; 1 Ld. Raym. 735, Anon.; Hockin v. Cooke, 4 T. R. 314; Bull. N. P. 145; Churchill v. Wilkins, 1 T. R. 449 ; Esp. N. P. 140; Cutter v. Powell, 6 T. R. 320 ; Duncomb v. Tickridge, Aleyn, 94; Baker v. Edmonds, Aleyn, 29 ; Janson v. Colomore, 1 Rol. Rep. 396; Buckingham v. Scott, 2 Keble, 240; Millward v. Ingram, 2 Mod. 43; Gordon v. Martin, Fitz-Gibbons, 303; Baker's case of Gray's Inn v. Occould, Godbolt, 186; Holme v. Lucas, Cro. Car. 6 ; Cook v. Sambrune, 1 Sid. 122; 1 Viner, 360; 1 Com. Dig. 193; System of Pleading, 104; Gilbert, L. E. 188; God bolt, 154; Child v. Guiat, Styles, 243; Giles v. Edwards, 7 T. R. 181; Barker v. Sutton, Trials per pais, (3 edit.) 186 ; Franklin v. Walkens, Ib. 187; Old Law of Evidence, 158, 160, 165, 166; Cheney v. Hawes, Moore, 466 ; Tissard v. Warcup, 2 Mod. 280; Gilbert’s Law of Evid. 189, &c.; Trials per pais, 504; Mustard v. Hopper, Cro. Eliz. 149; Lee v. Adams, 3 Bulstrode, 35; Revere v. Baptista, Moore, 470; King v. Robinson, Cro. Eliz. 79; Bagnal v. Sacheverall, Cro. Eliz. 292; Munday v. Martin, Cro. Eliz. 660.

Rule discharged.

At the December term, 1804, the cause was tried upon the amended declaration, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff for $ 116.50.