Case Name: Charles May and others vs. First Division of the St Paul & Pacific Railroad Company
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1879-06-12
Citations: 26 Minn. 74
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles May and others vs. First Division of the St Paul & Pacific Railroad Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 74–75

Head Matter:
Charles May and others vs. First Division of the St Paul & Pacific Railroad Company.
June 12, 1879.
Ejectment — Description of Property in Complaint. — A complaint in ejectment for land described by reference to monuments, need not aver positively tbe existence of sued monuments. Tims, when tiie land is-described as all that part of a designated lot lying witliin one hundred feet on either side of a certain railroad track, it is no objection to the. complaint that it does not positively aver that the-re is such a track on the land.
Appeal by defendant from, an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Vanderburgh, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action of ejectment, which alleges “that the plaintiffs are the owners in fee simple of all that portion of lot 3, in section 34, in town 118 north, of range 23 west, in Hennepin county, Minnesota, that lie's within 100 feet on either side of the centre of a track laid by” the defendant, “as said track crosses said lot 3, and that they owned said land prior to the time of the occupancy of the same by said railroad company. That since said ownership of. plaintiff and about 10 years heretofore,” the defendant “unlawfully entered upon and took possession of said land, and has ■ever since occupied the same.”
Geo. L. & Chas. E. Otis, for appellant.
Wilson é Laiurence, for respondents.

Opinion:
G-ileillan, C. J.
The complaint is good. The essential facts, required by the rules of pleading to be stated positively, are the title of plaintiffs, and the wrongful taking possession and detention by the defendants. The track of the railroad is mere matter of description. It was never heard of, that, in ejectment, mere matters of description, such as the monuments bounding the land, must be averred with the certainty and positiveness required in pleading the material facts constituting the cause of action.
The allegation of the0 taking and holding is sufficient.
Order affirmed.