, It lies in the detinet for goods; Dy. 24 b; Powlin v. Standifer, 1 Hempst. 290, Fed. !Cas. No. 4,041 a ; Snell v. Kirby, 3 Mo. 21, 22 Am. Dec. 456; and by an executor for money due the testator ; 1 Wms. Saund. 1; see Brown's Adm'r v. Brown, 10 B. Monr. (Ky.) 247; or against him on the testator's con tracts; Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 642, 5 L. Ed. 705.
The declaration, when the action is found ed on a record, need not aver consideration. When it is founded on a specialty, it must contain the specialty ; Huber v. Burke, 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 238; but need not aver considera tion ; Nash v. Nash, 16 Ill. 79; Barrett v. Carden, 65 Vt. 431, 26 Atl. 530, 36 Am. St. Rep. 876; but when the action is for rent, the deed need not be declared on; Gray v. Johnson, 14 N. H. 414. When it is founded on a simple contract, the consideration must be averred; and a liability or agreement, though not necessarily an express promise to pay, must be stated; 2 Term 28, 30.
The plea of nil debet is the general issue when the action is on a simple contract, on statutes, or where a specialty is matter of inducement merely; Stilson v. 2 Mass. 521; Minton v. Woodworth, 11 Johns. (N. I.) 474; King v. Ramsay, 13 Ill. 619 ; McConnell v. Bank, 6 Ark. 250; Dyer v. Cleaveland, 18 Vt. 241; U. S. v. Cumpton, 3 McLean 163, Fed. Cas. No. 14,902; Hyatt v. Robinson, 15 Ohio 372; Trustees of Dart mouth College v. Clough, 8 N. H. 22; Clark v. Mann, 33 Me. 268; Stipp v. Cole, 1 146; Matthews v. Redwine, 23 Miss. 233. Non eat factum is the common plea when on specialty, denying the execution of the instrument; 2 Ld. Raym. 1500; Chambers v.
Games, 2 G. Greene (Ia.) 320; Brooks v. Bobo, 4 Strobh. (S. C.) 38; People v. Row land, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 449; Brobst v. Welker, 8 Pa. 467; Utter v. Vance, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 514; Boynton v. Reynolds, 3 Mo. 79; and nut Mt record when on a record, denying the existence of the record; Mervin v. Kum bel, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 293; Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 232, 17 Am. Dec. 356. As to the rule when the judgment is one of another state, see Clark v. Mann, 33 Me. 268; Williams v. Preston, 3 J. - J. Marsh. (Ky.) 600, 20 Am. Dec. 179; Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cra. (U. S.)1481, 3 L. Ed. 411'; Town of St. Albans v. Bush, 4 Vt. 58, 23 A . Dec. 246; Lanning v. Shute, 5 N. J. 778; Clarke's Adner v. Day, 2 Leigh (Va. 172; as well as the titles FOREIGN JUDGMENT, CON FLICT OF LAWS.
As to the situs of a debt in attach ent and garnishment proceedings, see LEx pa SIT/E.
Other matters must, in geteral, be plad ed specially; Hays v. Muir, 1 Ind. 174. I The judgment is, generally, that the plat tiff receive his debt and costs when for t e plaintiff, and that the defendant receive his costs when for the defendant; Chapman Wright, 20 Ill. 120; Rutter v. State, 1 Ia. 99; Downs v. Ladd, 4 How. (Miss.) 40. It is reversible error to render judgment not only for the debt sued on, but for damages, as in assumpslt and for interest on the judg ment; Reece v. Knott, 3 Utah 451, 24 757. See JUDGMENT.