Everett v. Irwin , No. 7,230.

Docket NºNo. 7,230.
Citation47 Ind.App. 263, 94 N.E. 352
Case DateMarch 14, 1911
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

47 Ind.App. 263
94 N.E. 352

EVERETT
v.
IRWIN et al.

No. 7,230.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

March 14, 1911.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Tippecanoe County; R. P. De Hart, Judge.

Action by Adeline Irwin and another against Thomas Everett. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.


Harry G. Leslie, for appellant. Will R. Wood, for appellees.

MYERS, C. J.

This was an action by appellees, against appellant, to recover the possession of certain real estate, commenced before a justice of the peace, and taken by appeal to the court below, where the cause was tried before a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of appellees. Appellant's motion in arrest of judgment and his motion for a new trial as of right were overruled. Judgment was rendered in favor of appellees, and appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error upon each of said rulings. The Supreme Court for lack of jurisdiction transferred the cause to this court.

Appellant by his motion in arrest of judgment challenges the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. The complaint showed that appellees were the owners as tenants in common of certain real estate in Tippecanoe county, Ind.; that a certain room in the building on said real estate was occupied by appellant as an office; that appellees were entitled to the immediate possession thereof; that appellant held possession of said room without right, and for 15 days last past unlawfully kept appellees out of possession thereof, to their damage, etc.

Where the relation of landlord and tenant exists, justices of the peace have jurisdiction of actions for the possession of lands. Section 8071, Burns 1908. Appellees insist that the complaint, reasonably construed, shows that the relation of landlord and tenant existed. It is a well-recognized rule of pleading that, where an action is commenced before a justice of the peace, a complaint sufficient, in substance, to apprise the adverse party of the nature of the demand, and to bar another action for the same thing, is sufficient even as against a demurrer.

[94 N.E. 353]

Clifford v. Meyer, 6 Ind. App. 633, 34 N. E. 23;Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Bowser, 20 Ind. App. 557, 50 N. E. 86;Lippman v. City of South Bend, 84 Ind. 276;Brown v. Thompson, 90 N. E. 631.

While we do not commend the complaint as a precedent in such cases, yet, when all of the facts therein are considered along with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 24, 1913
    ...1910, Sec. 5264.) Pleadings in justice courts are to be construed liberally. (Hudson Coal Co. v. Hauf, 109 P. 21; Everett v. Irwin, (Ind.) 94 N.E. 352; Brown v. Thompson, (Ind.) 90 N.E. 631; Costello v. Ten Eyck, (Mich.) 49 N.W. 153; 22 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 1365.) By filing an answer the defenda......
  • Garber v. Spray, 885
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 7, 1917
    ...in error. This is particularly true of Hudson Coal Co. v. Hauf, supra, which is supported by the following cases: Everett v. Irwin (Ind.), 94 N.E. 352; Fauble v. Stewart, 35 Ia. 379; Railway Co. v. Woodard (Ind.), 41 N.E. 544; Anderson v. Lipe (Ind.), 16 N.E. 833; Lippencott v. Smith, 4 N.J......
  • First Nat. Bank of Ft. Wayne v. Savin, No. 6,892.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 14, 1911
    ...is not authorized to interpose its prerogative.” The same rule is also recognized and expressed in the 160 Ind., 66 N. E., Case, supra, [94 N.E. 352]cited and relied upon by counsel. In this connection we think very applicable to the case at bar the language used by the court in the case of......
  • Glaser v. Jones, No. 9628.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 27, 1918
    ...(1908) 43 Ind. App. 482, 85 N. E. 733, 86 N. E. 1023;Brown v. Thompson (1909) 45 Ind. App. 188, 90 N. E. 631;Everett v. Irwin (1910) 47 Ind. App. 263, 94 N. E. 352;Gregory v. Redd (1913) 53 Ind. App. 629, 102 N. E. 140. The complaint is sufficient under this rule, and hence there was no err......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 24, 1913
    ...1910, Sec. 5264.) Pleadings in justice courts are to be construed liberally. (Hudson Coal Co. v. Hauf, 109 P. 21; Everett v. Irwin, (Ind.) 94 N.E. 352; Brown v. Thompson, (Ind.) 90 N.E. 631; Costello v. Ten Eyck, (Mich.) 49 N.W. 153; 22 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 1365.) By filing an answer the defenda......
  • Garber v. Spray, 885
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 7, 1917
    ...in error. This is particularly true of Hudson Coal Co. v. Hauf, supra, which is supported by the following cases: Everett v. Irwin (Ind.), 94 N.E. 352; Fauble v. Stewart, 35 Ia. 379; Railway Co. v. Woodard (Ind.), 41 N.E. 544; Anderson v. Lipe (Ind.), 16 N.E. 833; Lippencott v. Smith, 4 N.J......
  • First Nat. Bank of Ft. Wayne v. Savin, No. 6,892.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 14, 1911
    ...is not authorized to interpose its prerogative.” The same rule is also recognized and expressed in the 160 Ind., 66 N. E., Case, supra, [94 N.E. 352]cited and relied upon by counsel. In this connection we think very applicable to the case at bar the language used by the court in the case of......
  • Glaser v. Jones, No. 9628.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 27, 1918
    ...(1908) 43 Ind. App. 482, 85 N. E. 733, 86 N. E. 1023;Brown v. Thompson (1909) 45 Ind. App. 188, 90 N. E. 631;Everett v. Irwin (1910) 47 Ind. App. 263, 94 N. E. 352;Gregory v. Redd (1913) 53 Ind. App. 629, 102 N. E. 140. The complaint is sufficient under this rule, and hence there was no err......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT