PLEADINGS, PRACTICE AND PROCESS AT LAW. 2361

Form by Assignee of Chose in Action.

(27) ———— county, ss: A. B., by S. T., his attorney, sues C. D. for
that the said defendant was indebted to one E. F. for goods sold and
delivered (or for whatever he was indebted, whether money lent or other
things, or if by bond or bill obligatory, state the date of the bond or bill
obligatory, and the sum thereon due), which the said E. F. assigned to.
the plaintiff, and the plaintiff claims therefor, $————.

S. T., Plaintiff's Attorney.

A declaration held sufficient under this sub-section, although there was no aver-
ment that assignment was in writing. Union Bank v. Tillard, 26 Md. 452.

As to assignments of choses in action and suit by assignees thereon see art. 8,
sec. 1, et seq.

For Wrongs Independent of Contract.

(28) That the defendant broke and entered certain land of the plaintiff,
called " The Orchard," in ———— county, and depastured the same with
cattle.

A declaration in trespass upheld under this section and secs. 3, 28 and 26—see
notes to secs. 3 and 26. Lapp v. Stanton, 116 Md. 200.

(29) That the defendant assaulted and beat the plaintiff, gave him into
the custody of a constable, and caused him to be imprisoned in the jail
of ———— county (or city).

(30) That the defendant debauched and carnally knew the plaintiff's
wife; or that the defendant debauched and carnally knew the plaintiff's
daughter and servant, whereby he lost her service.

Relation of master and servant at time of the seduction must be alleged in
declaration. Greenwood v. Greenwood, 28 Md. 380. And see Keller v. Donnelly,
5 Md. 211.

(31) That the defendant converted to his own use, or wrongfully de-
prived the plaintiff of the use and possession of the plaintiff's goods; that
is to say, wheat, rye, household furniture (or as the case may be).

A declaration held to be in substantial compliance with this sub-section. Crocker
v. Hoops, 78 Md. 261. And see Manning v. Brown, 47 Md. 507; Young v. Mertens,
27 Md. 124; Meixel v. Carr, 25 Md. 49; Richardson v. Hall, 21 Md. 399.

(32) That the plaintiff was possessed of a mill, called " Linganore mill,"
in ———— county, and as such possessor was entitled to the flow of a stream
for working the same, and the defendant, by cutting the bank of said
stream, diverted the water thereof away from the said mill.

It is not necessary to expressly allege that diversion of stream was wrongful. A
count held to be in substantial compliance with this sub-section. New York, etc.,
R. R. Co. v. Jones, 94 Md. 30; Price v. Lawson, 74 Md. 507.

A narr, which alleges that defendant negligently and carelessly maintained certain
catch basins, etc., is sufficiently definite on demurrer. Cases reviewed. Salisbury v.
Camden Sewer Co., 141 Md. 263.

(33) That the plaintiff was possessed of land, called "Idlewild," in
———— county, and was entitled to a way from said land, over the land
of the defendant, to a public highway, for himself and his servants, with