Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

110 Ark. 293

McAlister v. Harness

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 24, 1913

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1913-11-24

W. Meeks, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This is an action in ejectment and the recitals of the complaint are as follows: The plaintiffs, by permission of the court, file this their amended complaint, and for cause of action against the defendant herein say: That they are the owners in fee simple, and entitled to the immediate possession of, the west half of the southwest quarter of section thirty-three (33), township ten (10) north, range thirteen (13) west, in Van Burén…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1953

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

affirmed · Decided 1913-11-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Smith, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts). Section 2742, Kirby’s Digest, reads as follows: “In all actions for the recovery of lands, except in actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, the plaintiff shall set forth in his complaint all deeds and other written evidence of title on which he relies for the maintenance of his suit, and shall file copies of the same as far as they can be obtained, as exhibits therewith, and shall state such facts as shall show prima facie title in himself to the land in controversy, and the defendant in his answer shall plead in the same manner as above required from the plaintiff.

¶2The recitals of this complaint give appellants no right to recover. AIT the allegations of the complaint may be true and yet make no prima facie right in appellants entitling them to recover the possesion of the land. While we construe pleadings liberally, no charity in construction can excuse this total failure of allegations. There is not a hint nor a suggestion in the complaint as to who the plaintiffs are, or by what right they claim. They do not plead title by descent, nor by purchase, nor by operation of law. No explanation is offered of appellants’ failure to amend their complaint, and we can not surmise what amendments might have been made. It is unnecessary to notice other defects in the complaint.

¶3■ The judgment is affirmed.

/110/ark/293 · .json · Public domain