Opinion of the Court by
This was an action for forcible detainer, originally commenced by Hogan before two justices of the peace of Jo Daviess county. Hogan states in his complaint that “ he is entitled to the possession of a house and lot in the town of Galena, wherein one Wells lives, and that said Wells refuses to give possession of said house and lot, though he has been notified so to do in writing,” which complaint was sworn to, and on the trial before the justices, a verdict was found against the defendant below. To reverse this decision, an appeal was taken to the circuit court of Jo Daviess county, and upon the trial in that court, a verdict was found against Wells, that he was “guilty *338of a forcible detainer.” Upon giving this verdict, the defendant prayed time to file a bill of exceptions, which was granted. The record then states, “'It is ordered and adjudged, that unless the defendant enter into bond as the law directs, within fifteen days, in the penal sum of seven hundred dollars, with James Jones as his security, that then a writ of restitution be awarded, and that the plaintiff have execution for his costs herein paid out and expended.” To reverse this order or judgment, Wells has brought this case into this court by writ of error, and has assigned a number of errors. It will, however, be unnecessary to consider any but the following, to wit: The complaint made before the justices of the peace was insufficient. The proceedings under the statute for forcible entry and detainer being summary, and contrary to the course of the common law, must strictly conform to the requisitions of the statute. The complaint is the foundation of the action, and must contain sufficient matter to give the justices jurisdiction, or the whole of the proceedings will be coram nonjudice, and consequently, void. In order to justify the justices of the peace in taking jurisdiction of this case, the plaintiff below ought to have stated in his complaint, that the defendant below willfully, and without force, held over the premises after the determination of tlf6 time for which such premises were let to him, or the person under whom he claims, after demand made in writing for possession thereof, by the person entitled to such possession; or in other words, the relation of landlord and tenant should be shown to exist, and a holding over after demand made in writing for a redelivery of the premises to the landlord.
The complaint exhibited to the magistrate, states that the plaintiff below “ is entitled to the possession of a house and lot where defendant lives,” without showing that the defendant was a tenant, either to himself, or to any person under whom he claims. This was not sufficient to give the justices jurisdiction of the case. It is, however, objected on the part of the defendant in error, “ that no judgment has been given in the circuit court, and consequently, that a writ of error will not lie.” No particular form is required in the proceedings of a court, to render their order a judgment. It is sufficient if it is final, and the party may be injured. In this case the order of the court is absolute, that a writ of restitution should issue, unless the defendant below executed a bond in a large penalty, with security, within fifteen days. If the party failed to execute the bond, the writ of restitution was to issue, to obtain which writ was the design of commencing the suit. It does not appear that the bond was executed, and consequently, *339the defendant was exposed to have the writ of restitution issued against him, and thereby be expelled from the premises in a case where the justices had no jurisdiction. A writ of error was, under the circumstances, the only means left, after the fifteen days had expired, to prevent the defendant’s being illegally turned out of possession of premises, which for any thing that appears, actually belonged to him.
Cavarly, for plaintiff in error.
Ford and Strode, for defendant in error.
The judgment below must be reversed with costs, (a), (1)
Judgment reversed.