
    Paul v. Smiley.
    Argued Thursday, October 26th, 1815.
    Ejectment — Issue Joined on Title — Verdict—Description of Land — Sufficiency—Case at Bar. — Issue being joined in ejectment on the title only, a verdict may be found, and judgment rendered, for a tract of land, “according to a survey filed in the cause,” though described, in the commencement of the declaration, as a “messuage, with the appurtenances;” in a subsequent part thereof as “the said tenement, witti its appurtenances;" and. in the conclusion, as “the plaintiff’s said farm.” ■without mentioning- quantity or boundaries.
    In ejectment the declaration, in its commencement, described the land in controversy as one “messuage with the appurtenances,” afterwards, as “the said tenement,” and, in the concluding part, as “the said farm with its appurtenances.” On the general issue, a verdict was found in these words ; “We of the jury find that the boundary of the patent under which the defendant John Paul claims, and which issued to his father, John Paul, senior, deceased, dated the first day of June, 1741, for 400 acres of land, is as follows, to wit: Beginning at the corner R. on the platt of survey filed in this cause, made out by Andrew Alexander, and dated the 10th day of April, 1812, and running thence, with the black dotted, and black drawn line, on said platt, to the corner C. ; — thence, with the black drawn line, to the corner at O.. where a former hickory stood ; thence, with the dotted black line, to the letter P., a corner on Borden’s line ; and thence to the beginning. We further find for the plaintiff his term unexpired in the land in the declaration mentioned, and one cent damages.” Judgment was rendered, “that the plaintiff recover against the defendant his term yet to come of and in the messuage and land, with the appurtenances, in the declaration mentioned,” &c.
    The defendant appealed to this court.
    Wickham, for the appellant,
    contended, that the declaration *in ejectment, being for “a messuage,” or for a “tenement,” with the appurtenances, the plaintiff could not recover a tract of land ; in support of which position, he cited 2 Saund. 401, note (2); 1 Bos. & Pull. 53, Buck v. Nurton; 1 East. 441, Doe, lessee of Bradshaw, v. Plowman; and 2 Chitty, 394.
    Heigh contra,
    relied on the act of assembly, (Rev. Code, 1st vol. ch. 76, sect. 35, p. 112,) as conclusive, that, after issue joined on the title only, no advantage can be taken of any defect, in form or substance, in the declaration in ejectment.
    Wickham in reply.
    I do not say that the declaration is defective, but that a tract of land cannot be recovered upon a declaration for a house.
    Wednesday, November 1st,
    
      
      See monographic note on “Ejectment” appended to Tapscott v. Cobbs, 11 Gratt. 172.
      The principal case was cited with approval in Myers v. Ford, 9 W. Va. 188; Williams v. Ewart, 29 W. Va. 671, 2 S. E. Rep. 881.
    
   the court affirmed the judgment.  