Whitney & Woods v. Buckman

Citations

• 19 Cal. 300

Syllabus

<p>Wiiebb a complaint in ejectment described the land thus: “All that certain tract or parcel of land situated in Napa county, consisting of a preemption claim of one hundred and sixty acres of land, commonly known as the Soda Springs, and embracing said Springs and the improvements thereto belonging, and being about five miles from Napa city, in a northerly direction:” Held, that the description is sufficient to support a judgment for plaintiff.</p> <p>Section fifty-eight of the Practice Act, that “in an action for the recovery of real property, such property shall be described, with its metes and bounds, in the complaint,” is directory only, for a failure to comply with which the complaint is liable to a special demurrer; but if the complaint describes the premises sufficiently otherwise to identify them according to the general rules on this subject, the plaintiff may, after verdict, take judgment, and the Court cannot set it aside on motion of defendant, on account of this defect of pleading.</p> <p>In this case, the Court below having set aside the verdict and judgment because the premises were not described “ by metes and bounds,” the Supreme Court reversed the order and directed judgment to be entered on the verdict for plaintiff.</p>