Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Blackf. 168

Moore v. Herndon

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 16, 1839

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1839-11-16

Relies on Evans v. Phillips

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1839-11-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1876

8 state decisions

2018391840185018601870decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1THE plaintiff having introduced his testimony was called, on the defendant’s motion, and nonsuited. It appeared that when the plaintiff was called, he was in Court and did not answer. Held, that the nonsuit was with the implied consent of the plaintiff, and that he was not entitled to a writ of error (1).

¶2 In a case where the plaintiff had submitted to a nonsuit, it was held that a writ of error in his favour would not lie. Evans v. Phillips, 4 Wheat. 73. But if a plaintiff be nonsuited against his consent, he may have a writ of error. Strother v. Hutchinson, 4 Bingh. 83. See, also, Pollard v. Buttery, Vol. 3 of these Rep. 239.

/5/blackf/168 · .json · Public domain