Case ID: serg-rawl_4/html/0271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilghman C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas against Culp.
    In ERROR.
    
      Saturday, June 6.
    THIS was an ejectment in the Common Pleas of Colum-. bia county. The writ described the land, as “ situate in Briar creek township, in the county aforesaid, containing 32 acres 47 perches, being part of a tract of land surveyed in the name of John Hoofnagle, bounded by lands for Robert Glen, and adjoining Briar creek.” The plaintiff in pursuance of the act of assembly of 21st March, 1806, filed a statement, containing a description of the land as lows :—“ A certain piece or parcel of land, situate below and .... _ .' . . . adjoining Brtar creek township, Columbia county, containing 40 acres, be the same more or less, being part of a tract of land surveyed in the name of John Hoojnagle, and bounded by lands surveyed in the name of Robert Glen” The defendant pleaded not guilty. The cause was tried, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict in the Court below. The errors now assigned were, that the description was too uncertain, and that there was a variance in the description, between the writ and the statement.
    A variance t\on between" ^ement filed in an by verdict. scription of thelandunder that act,
    Watts, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Hall and Greenough, for the defendant in error.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tilghman C. J.

There certainly is a variance, which might have been taken advantage of, if the objection had been made in due time; but after verdict it is cured by the statute 5 Geo. I. ch. 13, extended to this state, by the report of the Judges of the Supreme Court. This statute enacts, that after verdict, the judgment shall not be stayed or reversed, for any defect or fault either in form or substance, in any bill, writ, original or judicial, or for any variance in such -writ from the declaration or other proceedings. The only question then, will be, whether the statement contains a sufficient description of the land recovered. I think it does. For we have a designation of the whole tract, of which this is a part, the quantity of land demanded, and the name of the adjoining tract. It is also said, to lie below, and adjoining Briar creek township. From all this, the land for which the suit is brought, appears with sufficient certainty. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.