¶1Leeper filed a claim against the estate Ketrow, which, among other things, alleged that on, &c., at, &c., the said Ketrow was the owner of a certain mare, &e.; that said Ketrow then and there represented said mare to be sound, and warranted and guarantied her to *464be free from any and all diseases, blemishes, and faults whatsoever; that the plaintiff, confiding, &c., purchased said mare, and paid for same 65 dollars; that said mare was in fact, at the time, disordered and diseased, from which disease and disorder she was entirely worthless, and died in one month after said purchase, &c.
¶2Demurrer to the claim or complaint, assigning three causes—
¶31. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient, &c.
¶42. That the terms of a warranty are not sufficiently stated.
¶53. That it does not allege sufficiently that the térms of the warranty were broken or failed.
¶6The statute requires a succinct statement of the natuie and amount of every claim to be filed. 2 R. S. p. 260.
¶7The following propositions are laid down in the work quoted, as a sufficient form of pleading in actions for breach of warranty:
¶8“ The breach stated must be coextensive with the contract of warranty. The breach may be in the negative of the words of the contract; the particular description of unsoundness, &c„ need not be stated, though in some cases it is usual to do so.” 2 Saund. PI. and Ev. 1226.
¶9More particularity is necessary, in declaring on a special, conditional, or partial warranty, than on one of the character set forth in the complaint in the case at bar. It is also sometimes said that a breach of an affirmative character requires more particularity than one of a negative character. 1 id. 216, 218.
¶10The demurrer should have been overruled.
¶11The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.