Martin

It is alleged in the complaint herein that on a specified date the plaintiff was the owner, seised in fee and in the possession of a designated tract of land, and at the time the action was commenced he was the owner and entitled to the possession of said land. This is followed by an averment that on the date mentioned the defendant entered upon and ousted and ejected plaintiff, to his damage in the sum of $1,000. The prayer demands restitution of the premises with damages in the sum stated. The defendant filed an answer denying each of the allegations of the complaint and pleading a judgment rendered in an action between plaintiff and defendant’s predecessor in interest, involving the title and possession of the land here in controversy, which judgment was affirmed by the supreme court (see De Molera v. Martin, 120 Cal. 544 , [ 52 Pac. 825 ]). In connection with this special defense it was alleged that in the complaint in the former action one of the calls in the description of the land read “South 82 degrees West, 3.35 chains to station,” and by reason of a clerical misprision and mistake this call read “South 82 degrees West 5.35 chains to a station,” as inserted in the…