Jones v. Mount

• Decision Date: 29 April 1902
• Parties: JONES v. MOUNT et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

30 Ind.App. 59

63 N.E. 798

JONES

v.MOUNT et al.¹

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

April 29, 1902.

Appeal from circuit court, Blackford county; E. C. Vaughn, Judge.

Suit by William L. Jones against Harry Mount and others. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Mock & Sons and Hindman & Powell, for appellant. Cantwell & Simmons, for appellees.

HENLEY, J.

This was an action to quiet title, commenced by the appellant against the appellees. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint on the ground and for the reason that the description of the land in the complaint, the title to which appellee asked to be quieted in him, was so indefiniteand uncertain that a valid judgment and decree could not be based thereon. The description contained in the complaint, put in the most definite shape which the whole complaint and contract will justify, would be as follows: “The west half of the southeast quarter of section five, township 25 north, range 11 east, in Wells county, Indiana,” except “ten acres around well number one.” An attempt to describe land as “a part” of a certain parcel is too indefinite to enable any one to know what was intended. It does not furnish any means by which the land attempted to be described can be ascertained and located. The description of the land contained in the appellant's complaint to quiet title is no more definite than if it described it as “a part of the west half of the southeast quarter,” etc., because the excepted portion is so indefinitely described that it could not be identified. Under section 1082, Burns' Rev. St. 1894, which authorizes the bringing of suits for the purpose of determining and quieting the question of title to real estate, our supreme court have held that the complaint should contain a definite description of the land, the title to which it is sought to quiet. Ratliff v. Stretch, 117 Ind. 526, 20 N. E. 438. This is necessary, because, if plaintiff obtains a decree quieting his title, the decree of court will follow the averments of the complaint, and the decree would be void if the description of the land therein contained was indefinite. Ratliff v. Stretch, supra. And so, in the case of Road Co. v. Moss, 92 Ind. 119, it is said: “In an action the purpose of which is to affect the title or possession of the real estate founded upon an instrument in which there is a description of the real estate, defective, but capable of...