Ejectment — Pleading — Averment of Ownership — Ultimate Fact.— An averment in a complaint in an action of ejectment, that the plaintiff is “the owner in fee-simple” of the demanded premises, is a sufficient averment as to the plaintiff’s title; and the complaint is not demurrable on the ground that the averment is of a conclusion of law, and not of an ultimate fact.

Id. — Findings — Issue Rendered Immaterial — Ouster of Premises not Recovered. — Where a complaint in ejectment alleges that the defendant entered upon and ejected the plaintiff from the whole of a certain section of land, and the answer denies that the defendant ejected the plaintiff from the west half of the section, and alleges that the defendant is in possession of only the east half, the issue raised by the answer as to whether the defendant was in possession of the west half of the section is rendered immaterial, where judgment is given against the defendant only for the east half thereof, and the judgment will not be reversed for a failure to find upon that issue.

Id. — Review upon Appeal — Failure to Find. —A judgment will never be reversed for failure to find upon an immaterial issue.

Id.—Mistake in Findings—Clerical Error.—A finding that the defendant “withheld from plaintiff the east half of section 13 described in said complaint ” is a sufficient finding that he withheld from plaintiff the east half of section 31, where it appears that section 31 was the only section described or referred to in the pleadings, and that 13 is evidently a mistake, and should be read as 31.

Id. — Finding as to Possession — Admission of Pleadings.—Where the plaintiff in ejectment alleged possession of the land by the defendant, and the answer admitted possession, a finding as to the defendant’s possession is unnecessary, the rule being that findings are never required as to facts admitted by the pleadings.

Id. — “ Wrongful ” Withholding — Ouster — Pleading — Findings. — Although the gravamen of the action of ejectment is the wrongful withholding of the possession, and the wrongful withholding is an ouster, it is not necessary that the words “ wrongful” or “wrongfully ” be used either in the complaint or findings, and a finding that the defendant ousted the plaintiff is sufficient, although the court did not find that the defendant wrongfully withheld the property.