29 Ohio St. 359 | Ohio | 1876
This verdict is manifestly too indefinite to be the basis of any valid judgment. It is simply void for uncertainty, and should have been set aside, or refused to be received by the court. It finds for the plaintiff for two feet in width of the strip of seven feet, without showing from what part of the strip the two feet are to be taken— whether from the north, south, or middle part. The evidence shows that the plaintiff owned and occupied on the ■north side of the seven feet strip, and, by the pleadings, it is admitted that the defendant is in possession of the entire seven feet, and that the south line of the strip is identical
As the case must go back for retrial, it is proper to decide a question raised upon the pleadings, and which may become important upon such retrial. The second defense sets up the statute of limitations, and also twenty-one years’ adverse possession by defendant and those under whom he holds, and the reply simply denies that the defendant has occupied the premises adversely for twenty-one years, thus apparently admitting that the cause of action did not accrue within twenty-one years, and that the defendant and those under lohom he claims have (in succession) been in adverse possession for twenty-one years. The •question is whether, upon this state of pleadings, the defendant is entitled to judgment. We think not. The second defense may be regarded as surplusage, being merely .a second denial of plaintiff’s title, by asserting title in defendant.
Judgments reversed, and cause remanded.
