Case Name: Garret D. Wall vs. James Hunt and Jarret Boyd
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1827-02
Citations: 9 N.J.L. 38
Docket Number: 
Parties: Garret D. Wall vs. James Hunt and Jarret Boyd.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
Garret D. Wall vs. James Hunt and Jarret Boyd.
ON CERTIORARI.
In forcible entry and detainer the nature of the estate of the party grieved must be stated in tlie complaint.
This was an action of forcible entry and detainer, brought by Hunt and Boyd against the plaintiff in certiorari, upon the Hollowing complaint exhibited before the justice : [*38 “Warren county, ss. — James Hunt and Jarret Boyd do hereby complain to George W. King, Esq., one of the justices of the peace in and for the county of Warren, against Garret D. Wall, Esq., for this, to wit: That whereas the said Garret D. Wall, Esq., on or about the thirtieth day of June, in the year of our Lord 1826, in the township of Oxford and county of Warren, entered into the dwelling house and messuage of the said James Hunt and Jarret Boyd, of which said dwelling house and messuage the said James Hunt and Jarret Boyd are seized as tenants for years or lessors of the same, and from the thirtieth clay of June aforesaid, until the day of making this complaint, ho, the said Garret D. Wall, Esq., hath held and kept possession of the said messuage or dwelling house unlawfully, with force and strong hand, &c.” A trial was had before the justice and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs below. To reverse this judgment, the defendant below brought this certiorari, and the following among other reasons was relied upon as cause of reversal, viz: Because the complaint does not conform to the statute in setting forth the estate of the plaintiffs, or the description of the premises.

Opinion:
Chief Justice.
The act of the legislature requires that the nature of the estate which the party grieved has in the premises, should be set out in the complaint. (Rev. Law 350, sec. 7.) Now nothing is more manifest than that the estate of the persons making this complaint is not set out. They say they are " tenants for years or lessors of the same," that is, either tenants or landlords; but which does not appear. Therefore,
Let the judgment be reversed.