text:  A promise under seal must assuredly require a different proof from a promise not under seal; but what end is answered by calling one an action of _covenant_ and the other an action of _assumpsit_? Or what good result can arise from limiting the definition of _debt_ to the claim of a sum certain? Who sees not what a snare may be here laid for the feet of unwary suitors? The names of _trover_ _detinue_ _trespass_ give no information to the defendant; the substantial cause of action is stated in the declaration and these names are mere useless additions