Case Name: KADDERLY v. FRAZIER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1901-01-14
Citations: 38 Or. 273
Docket Number: 
Parties: KADDERLY v. FRAZIER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
Argued 18 December, 1900;
decided 14 January, 1901.
KADDERLY v. FRAZIER.
[63 Pac. 487.]
Quieting Title • — ■ Sufficiency of Description.
In a suit to prevent cloud on title, a complaint describing the property as “70 acres thereof,” referring to a farm of 110 acres, is insufficient.
From Multnomah: John B. Cleland, Judge.
Suit by A. A. Kadderly against William Frazier and another to prevent a cloud upon the title to real property. It is substantially alleged in the complaint that on March 14, 1892, one Alma Hall, being the owner in fee “of no acres of land situated in section 12, township 1 south, range 3 east of the Willamette Meridian, the same being a part of the L. B. Morgan donation land claim,” gave a mortgage thereon to H. W. Hogue to secure the sum of $3,500, which the assessor of Multnomah County duly assessed the same year to the mortgagee, who neglected to pay the taxes levied thereon; that in 1894 Alma Hall sold and conveyed said real property to the plaintiff, who is now the owner thereof; that in March, 1899, the defendant William Frazier, as sheriff of Multnomah County, in pursuance of a warrant attached to the delinquent tax roll of said county for the year 1892, “levied upon the real property of this plaintiff first described herein, to wit, 70 acres thereof,” and advertised it for sale to satisfy the taxes so levied upon the mortgage debt and security; and- that, if he is permitted to do so, a cloud will be cast upon plaintiff’s title to the land. A demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of suit having been sustained, and the plaintiff refusing to plead further, the court dismissed the suit, and plaintiff appeals.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of John H. Hall, Harry M. Cake, and Joseph J. Fitzgerald, with an oral argument by Mr. Hall.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Pipes & Tiift, and Bernstein & Cohen, with an oral argument by Messrs. Martin L. Pipes and Alex Bernstein.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Moore,
after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The'question presented for consideration is whether the complaint describes plaintiff's land with sufficient certainty for identification so that a decree can be predicated thereon. It would be very difficult toi say, from an inspection of the language of the complaint as quoted above, what part of the L. B. Morgan donation land claim had been levied upon by the sheriff. In Ward v. Janney, 104 Ala. 122 (16 South. 73),—a suit to quiet the title to- real property, — the complaint, in respect to the description of the premises,- contains this averment: "The following real estate, situated near the City of Montgomery, Alabama, namely, five acres of land, being a part of lot number five according to the survey made by A. J. Pickett of the land of Mrs. Westcott"; and it was held that the description was insufficient, and that the complaint was vulnerable to a demurrer interposed upon that ground. In the case at bar, the plaintiff not having described the real property with sufficient certainty for identification, no error was committed in sustaining a demurrer thereto', and hence the decree is affirmed. Affirmed.