TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wallace v. Brooker

Wallace v. Brooker, 5 N.E. 175 (Ind. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 20, 1886
Docket
No. 11,842
Judges
Elliott
Citations
5 N.E. 175105 Ind. 5981886 Ind. LEXIS 493
Headnotes
Pleading. — Complaint. '- — Motion to Make Specific.— Occupying Claimant.— Where a complaint, under the occupying claimant law, seeks a recovery for improvements, described merely as “ clearing and fencing, removing stones and putting the land in a state of cultivation,” of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, it is error to overrule a motion to make such complaint more specific.
Summary
From the Fulton Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Elliott

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Elliott, J. —

The appellee’s complaint seeks to recover the value of improvements placed by him on land from which he was evicted by the appellant, and 'is founded on the occupying claimants’ law. The improvements are thus described: “ Clearing and fencing, removing stones and putting the land in a state of cultivation,” and it is averred that the improvements were of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars-The appellant moved to make the complaint more specific, but this motion was overruled, and that ruling is assigned for error.

The court erred in overruling this motion. The appellant was entitled to a statement of the character and value of the clearing, and of the kind and amount of fencing, as well as a specific statement of what was done in the way of putting the land in a state of cultivation. We do not think it is necessary that the appellee should state the number of days he was engaged in the work, but we do think that it is necessary that he should separate his claim into items, and state the character of each item in general terms and give the value of it. A defendant has a right to a definite statement of the claim asserted against him. A great degree of particularity is not required, but the particulars of a claim composed of *599 several items must be separately stated, so that the character and amount of each can be known.

Filed Feb. 20, 1886.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1914: 119142026peak 1914 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Schapker v. Schwetz105 N.E. 579 (Ind. Ct. App. 1914)

Most recent

  1. Schapker v. Schwetz105 N.E. 579 (Ind. Ct. App. 1914)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list