DUNCAN M'ARTHUR, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
WESLEY S. PORTER'S LESSEE

U.S. | 1828-01-01
1 Pet. 626 Supreme Court of the United States (1828) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 7 L. Ed. 290 · 1828 U.S. LEXIS 433 · SCDB 1828-024
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In an ejectment action in the Circuit Court for Ohio, the jury returned a conditional verdict finding the defendant guilty of trespass but making the judgment contingent on the trial court's determination of whether a sheriff's deed validly conveyed the disputed land. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case because the verdict was too imperfect to enable the appellate court to render judgment, as the deed and other evidence of title were not properly presented in the record and the Court could not judicially verify they were the same documents referenced in the verdict.


© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
•Mr.. Chief Justice Marshall

•Mr.. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the -Court:—

This was an ejectment in the Court for the seventh Circuit and District of Ohio,- in whioh the jury, found, a verdict in the following words : We the jufy find the'defendant guilty of the trespass and ejectment, in-the. declaration mentioned, and assess the plaintiff’s damages to six cents,, which verdict is thus rendered, subject .to the opinion of the Court on the question reserved, by consent of parties, as to so much of the land in controversy, as-is contained in the deed, of the sheriff of Ross county, to the said defendant, bearing-date the ..day of 1802, and upon that part of the land "included in said deed. If the opinion of the'Court on the question so reserved by .consent, shall be with .the .plaintiff, that the said deed is, not valid to pass the-land therein described, then we the jury find the defendant guilty of the trespass and ejectment in the declaration mentioned; accordingly, for that part also; and if the opinion of the Court thereon shall be in favour of the defendant,- that said deed, with the other evidences exhibited as partof said .title, is valid-to'pass the fee-to the defendant; then the jury find the defendant not guilty-of the trespass and ejectment in the said, declaration mentioned, as to that part of the lands and premises in controversy.”

This conditional verdict is. for the plaintiff, or defendant, ac Cording to the opinion of-the Couyt-on the validity of. a deed* with the other evidences exhibited as sart of said title. But this deed, and these other evidences of title are:not exhibited to the Court, ih such manner as to enable us to notice them. A deed does, indeed,. form a part of a bill of exception taken to the .opinión of the Court, on a. motion subsequently made for a new trial. But-the Court cannot know, judicially,, that this is the saíne' deed which is. referred to in the verdict, . .or what áre the other evidences of title which are connected with it. The verdict is too imperfect to! enable the Court to render judgment on it.

The judgment of the. Circuit Court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions . to set aside the verdict, and to award a venire facias. di novo.-

This cause came on, &c. in consideration whereof, It. is the opinion of this Court, that the judgment of the.said Circuit Court.in this cause is erroneous,-because, the verdict, is imperfect. It is therefore considered and, adjudged by this Court, that the said, judgm.ent b'e, and the same is hereby reversed and annulled. And it is further ordered, that this causé be remanded to the said Circuit Court, with directions to award a venire facias de novo.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 150 U.S. 417 (U.S. 1893)
    …anters' Bank, 16 Wall. 250. We.are unable, therefore, to direct judgment for either party. Chesapeake Ins. Co. v. Stark, 6 Cranch. 268, 273; [*420] Harden v. Fisher, 1 Wheat. 300, 303; Barnes v. Williams, 11 Wheat. 415; McArthur v. Porter’s Lessee, 1 Pet. 626; Ex parte French, 91 U. S. 423; Ryan v. Carter, 93 U. S. 78, 81; Hodges v. Easton, 106 U. S. 408, 411; Fort Scott v. Hickman, 112 U. S. 150, 165; Tyre & Spring Works Co. v. Spalding, 116 U. S. 541, 545, 546 ; Allen v. St. Louis Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 3…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw