Opinion
01-01-1822
John Hammock v. James Wilson
This is an adjourned Case from the Superior Court of Kanawha, and the questions in it, arise under the Act concerning forcible entries and detainers. 1 Rev. Code, ch. 115, p. 455.
The Plaintiff, Hammock, complained before a Justice, that the Defendant, Wilson, had unlawfully and forcibly turned him out of possession of a tenement containing one hundred acres, and prayed restitution of possession. The warrant issued, a jury was summoned and sworn, and the trial had before two Justices, who constituted the court: the proceedings were regularly carried on agreeably to the directions of the Act, until after the verdict. The verdict was in favor of the Plaintiff, and pursued the form prescribed by the Act. The Court did not enter a judgment, but the record proceeds, " Whereupon, on motion of the Defendant, by his Attorney, a new trial is granted him in the premises, on the payment of the costs heretofore accrued in this Cause, and thereupon it was ordered that this Court be dissolved."
The Plaintiff then applied to the Judge of the Superior Court for a Supersedeas, and in his petition set forth that there is error in these particulars: 1. Because the Court below, instead of entering up judgment for the Plaintiff, on the verdict rendered for him, granted a new trial of the Cause, when no power of granting a new trial is by Law given to such a Court, and the granting of which is inconsistent with the nature of such a Court, which has no periodical stated Sessions fixed by Law, and which Court is by Law dissolved when it adjourns after a verdict returned, and therefore a new trial is a thing impossible to be carried into effect. 2. Because the Court below, after granting a new trial, instead of adjourning its Session to some future time, when this new trial could be had, by its order, stood dissolved, and thereby the parties were discharged without day. For these errors he prayed that a Supersedeas might be awarded, and that a judgment may be rendered in his behalf on the verdict. The Supersedeas was awarded, and the Superior Court, on account of the novelty and difficulty of the case, adjourned the same to this Court, for its opinion on the following questions: 1. Has such final judgment been rendered in this Case, as authorizes the allowance of a Writ of Supersedeas, or was that Writ improvidently awarded? 2. Had the Court below the power to set aside the verdict of the jury, and award a new trial; if so, how, and in what way, is the second jury to be convened? 3. If the judgment below is reversed, on grounds not finally decisive of the Cause, may the Case be retained for trial at the bar of this Court, or to what Tribunal may it be remanded? 4. What judgment ought the Court to give on the whole Case, as appearing by the record.
OPINION
White, J.
The Court has maturely considered the transcript of the record in this Case, and is of opinion, that the Court before whom the proceedings were had, possessed the power to set aside the verdict of the jury, and award a new trial; and that the said Court having been dissolved, the Plaintiff in the Court below has the right to proceed de novo. It is deemed unnecessary to decide the other points adjourned.