Case ID: h-j_4/html/0017-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Easton vs. Snavely’s Lessee.
    fnerauShLuS !££}“[* iSN,' wíjCh ¡L than the deten-ilanttook. defence tm-ou appeal the judgment was ajp finned
    Appeal from Washington County Court Ejectment for a tract of land called Showman's Forest, containing SO acres. The defendant (now appellant,) look defence en warrant. The plaintiff located his claim and pretensions on the plots returned in the cause for only part of Showman's Forest. The defendant took defence for a part of the land so located by the plaintiff as his claim. At the , 1 i • , trial there was a general verdict for the plaintiff, and the ° judgment entered was by lines on the plots» and tor much more land than the defendant took defence for. From this judgment the defendant appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, ' Ch. J. and Nx* ©hdlsdn, Earle, and Johnson, J.
    
      
      Taney, for the Appellant.
    As the record stands it would seem that the verdict as thereift stated does not justify the judgment. The land found for the plaintiff is not describ» ed with sufficient certainty in the verdict; because in his declaration lie claims the whole of Showman’s Forest, but in his locations oft the plots he narrows his claim to a small part of it, and it does not appear to which clairft the finding . of the jury was intended to apply. The judgment indeed is sufficiently certain in the description of the land, and is Stated to be according to the finding of the jury. But it is necessary that the verdict itself should describe the land With certainty, and should be stated in the record, in order that the court above might judge whether the verdict au-thorised the judgment; so are the precedents, 2 Harr. Ent. 284. But if it is considered that the record is substantially correct in this respect, and that it sufficiently appears that the verdict is according to the judgment, then it is objected, on the part of the appellant, that ,the judgment is erroneous, because it is for more land than the plaintiff claimed, as he himself located his claim on the plots. It is well settled that the plots in an action of ejectment are a part of the pleadings in the cause. The plaintiff’s pretensions, and the defendant’s defence, make the issue to be tried. The issue between the parties is on the plots. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot recover more land than he claims on the plots, because his location of his claim there, is a part of his declaration. The defendant cannot be prepared to defend himself against a larger claim than the plaintiff locates. The verdict in this case, so far as it exceeded the claim located, would be absolutely void, anil . would not support the judgment for such excess. The plaintiff might have taken judgment for so much land as his pretensions included, but for no more. Here he has obtained judgment for a great deal more. Trials per Pais, 324. As the defendant in the court below is the appellant, and the judgment one entire judgment, it cannot now be reversed in part, or a new judgment given for the plaintiff for so much as be may have been entitled to recover in the court below. Parker vs. Harris, 1 Salk. 262. Frede~ rick vs. Lookup., 4 Burr. 2018. Neither can the appellee derive any benefit from the acts of assembly of 1809, eh, 53, and 1811, ch. 161. The third section of the last act relates to cases where the judgment is entered for a greatéc sum of money than the damages laid in the declaration. The fourth section of the same act, as also that part of the act of 1809 to winch it has reference, embraces only those cases where “an entry is made 01 uct done” by one of the parties, and authorises this court to give such judgment as the Gentry or amendment” may require, oras the court below would have rendered if such “entry or amendment” had been there made before judgment, in this case no "‘entry or amendment” of the plaintiff in the court below, could have altered, or in any way affected, the judgment which ought to have been there given. No entry or amendment on his part was requited, in order to have obtained a correct judgment; nor can be now make any '■'■entry, or do any act,’’ that will “require an alteration of thejudgment given in the court below.” jin the court appealed from, and in this court, no act, entry or amendment, on the part of the plaintiff, would change tlie judgment to such ail one as ought to have been given. It would stand on the same grounds, as to the point now in controversy, with or without an entry or amendment qti the part of the plaintiff; for the verdict of the jury, so far as it exceeded the matter in issue, was merely void, and the judgment ought to have neen rendered on the verdict for so much only as was in issue between the parties; and no entry or amendment of the party was necessary to obtain such judgment, Trials per Pais, 324. Thejudgment given is inconsistent with itself. It purports to be only for land for which the defendant took defence within the plaint and pretensions of the plaintiff as located; but in describing by lines the limits of the plaintiff’s pretensions, they are made to include much more land than he located as his claim.
    
      Martin, for the Appellee.
    The jury, by their general verdict, found nothing more than what was in issue between the patties. The judgment is for all the land for which the defendant took defence, The plerk has describ-, ed in the record certain lines, which was a full description of the whole of the plaintiff’s pretensions; and at most it Is only a clerical error in the description, the whole of which was unnecessary.
   JWBSMENT AFFUtMEB.