
    Crewdson v. Middleton.
    1. Pleading: jurisdiction: practice. Where a petition avers a want of jurisdiction, and does not set out the facts upon which the alleged want of jurisdiction is based* a motion for a more specific statement is proper, 'and if made should be sustained.
    
      Appeal from Harrison Circuit Court.
    
    Monday, December 12.
    Action in replevin to recover possession of certain corn. The petition avers that the corn was taken upon an execution issued upon a judgment against plaintiff which wag illegal and void, because the court which rendered the judgment had no jurisdiction of the defendant therein, the present plaintiff, nor of the subject-matter of the action.
    The defendant moved for a more specific statement showing the facts upon which the want of jurisdiction was based.
    The court sustained the motion, and the plaintiff electing to stand upon his petition, judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals;
    
      S. H. Cochran, for appellant.
    
      Smith & Clyde and R. A. Moore, for appellee.
   Adams, Ch. J.

It appears to us that the court was fully justified in sustaining the motion for a more specific statement. Behind the plaintiff’s averment that the court which rendered the judgment lacked jurisdiction were of course certain facts upon which the plaintiff relied. If those facts had been pleaded the sole question in the case might perhaps have been determined on demurrer. It was the defendant’s right to have the facts set out upon which the alleged want of jurisdiction was based.

Affirmed.  