
    January Term, 1881.
    January 12th, 1882.
    Rementa versus Erwin.
    1. A declaration in detinue should describe the subject-matter with adequate certainty, so as to enable the sheriff who may serve the execution upon the judgment to identify it.
    2. Want of such certainty is ground for demurrer.
    Before Sharswood, O. J.; Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, Trunkby, Sterrett, and Green, JJ.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, for Philadelphia County.
    
    
      * Detinue by William Rementa against J. Warner Erwin, executor of the estate of Charles Rubieam, deceased, to recover possession of certain writings in the possession ‘of the defendant, and alleged to belong to the plaintiff.
    The narr set forth that the plaintiff “ was lawfully possessed, as an heir-at-law of the said Charles Rubieam, deceased, of a certain writing or writings, signed by the said Charles Rubieam in his lifetime, or by some one in his behalf, and at his instance and request, relating to a lot of ground of four acres, more or less, at or near Twenty-sixth and Federal streets, belonging to the said Charles Rubieam, dated within five years prior to the institution of this suit, and which said writing or writings concerns plaintiff's right, title, and interest in said lot of ground as an heir-at-law to the said Charles Rubieam, of the value of fifteen thousand dollars, or thereabouts, and came into the possession of the said defendant at the death of the said Charles Rubieam, by virtue of his office as executor of the said Charles Rubicam’s estate;” and that the defendant had been requested to deliver the said writing or writings, and had refused.
    The defendant demurred to the narr on the ground, inter alia, that it did not describe the said writing or writings with sufficient particularity and - certainty to identify the same; .The Court sustained the demurrer. The plaintiff then took out a writ of error, assigning as error that the Court sustained tbe demurrer, and refused to enter judgment for plaintiff.
    
      Robert Palethorp, for plaintiff in error.
    Great certainty is not required: 2 T. & H. Practice, 28 ; 2 Saunders, 919; 1 Chitty on Pleading, 389.
    Plaintiff in error never having seen the writings in question cannot describe them with precision, nor does tbe law hold a plaintiff' to precise averments in his declaration.
    
      Samuel Dickson, for defendant in error.
    January 23d, 1882.
   — Per Curiam:

The declaration contained no description of the writing or writings for which the action was brought. “ A writing or writings, signed by Charles Rubicana in his lifetime, or by some one in his behalf, and at his instance and request, relating to a lot of ground,” are certainly very inadequate to identify any particular writings. The judgment in detinue is special for the thing sued for, or damages in the alternative. How could the sheriff who goes with the execution know whether the writings signed by Charles Rubicana, which the defendant might surrender, were those demanded by the plaintiff? a

Judgment affirmed.  