Hemenway v. Francis
Oregon Supreme Court
Lane county: M. L. Pipes, Judge. Plaintiff appeals. This is an action to recover real property. The complaint describes a number of tracts and parcels, some by legal subdivisions and others by courses and distances, and it is alleged that the defendant is in possession and unlawfully holds all of the real property described in the complaint. The complaint contains the other necessary allegations under the statute.
Read the full summary
Lane county: M. L. Pipes, Judge. Plaintiff appeals. This is an action to recover real property. The complaint describes a number of tracts and parcels, some by legal subdivisions and others by courses and distances, and it is alleged that the defendant is in possession and unlawfully holds all of the real property described in the complaint. The complaint contains the other necessary allegations under the statute. The answer admits the ownership of said property, but denies that the defendant wrongfully withholds the possession of said real property, or any part thereof, or that the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtStrahan, C. J.
— There is but a single question presented on this appeal, and that is the sufficiency of the defendant’s answer. The special point of objection is, that the defendant only defends as to part of the land described in the complaint, and as to that part it is not described with sufficient certainty. Section 319, Hill’s Code, though relating to the answer in this class of actions, does not undertake to prescribe all that an answer shall contain. The defendant’s answer must, therefore, be governed by the general rules of pleading prescribed by the Code, and in addition thereto must comply with…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jackson v. LodgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by1 opinion
- Paramount Publix Corp. v. BoucherMontana Supreme Court · 1933