
    Joseph D. Clark vs. Richard Gage.
    A description of premises in a complaint, in proceedings for the recovery of land, before a Circuit Court Commissioner, as “ a farm in the town of QuinCy, in said county, lately occupied by complainant, being the Ramo farm mentioned in the writing executed between the said Clark and complainant, and dated November 24,1866, by which complainant let the said farm to said Clark,” is insufficient.
    Error to Branch Circuit.
   Opinion by

Graves, J.

This was a proceeding before a Circuit Court Commissioner to recover possession of land under chapter 123 of the Revised Statutes for 1846. Complainant Gage recovered judgment, and Clark appealed to the Circuit Court, where Gage again recovered judgment, and Clark brought the case by writ of error to this Court. It is claimed that the complaint did not contain a sufficient description of the premises to warrant a judgment alter objection on that ground. The objection was taken before the Court, and also before the Court below, and was overruled in both.

Held, that the description must be so definite and intelligible as prima facie to designate and identify the premises. The writ of restitution must follow the judgment, which must follow the complaint, and neither the Court nor the Court below is authorized to direct the officers in this regard in any other manner than by means ot the writ; nor could they exercise that control over his action which Courts have sometimes exercised in ejectment in case of indefinite description in the writ of possession. The complaint is of the nature of a pleading, and the degree of certainty required is measured by the rules o^ pleading rather than those governing contracts.

The description was “ a farm in the town of Quincy, in said county, lately occupied by complainant; being the same farm mentioned in the writing executed between the said Clark and complainant, and dated November 24, 1866, by which complainant let the said farm to said Clark.”

Held, that the description was insufficient, and the judgment below was reversed, with costs.  