Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 Ind. 551

Williams v. Port

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1857

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1857-12-09

<p>Under our practice, the Court cannot order an involuntary nonsuit, under any circumstances.</p> <p>When a judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for trial, the cause stands upon the docket of the lower Court for trial at the next term, if filed in time; and if not filed in time, it stands continued by operation of law.</p> <p>If the complaint, in such case, is defective, the defendant should withdraw his answer and demur: he cannot move to dismiss, or to strike out a pleading for technical defect.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-12-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1956

14 state decisions

5018571860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Stuart, J.

¶1This cause was here on appeal between the same parties at the May term, 1855. The judgment in favor of Williams was reversed and the cause remanded. Port v. Williams, 6 Ind. E. 219.

¶2At the fall term, 1855, of the Fayette Circuit Court, Port filed a motion in writing to dismiss the cause, as in case of a nonsuit. This motion the Court sustained, and the cause was dismissed. The appellant, Williams, filed a bill of exceptions, &c., and now appeals.

¶3The ruling of the . Court below was clearly erroneous. That Court has no power, under any circumstances, to order an involuntary nonsuit, under our practice.

¶4That mode of procedure is exercised by other Courts under a different practice.

¶5When reversed and remanded, the cause stood upon the docket of the lower Court for trial again at the next term, provided it was filed in time. If not filed in time, it stood continued by operation of law.

¶6When the case was here before, the Court said: “ In this instance, the vendee was dealing with the vendor upon *552equal terms, about a matter the truth of which was equally open to both.” But another trial might put a new face upon the evidence.

N. Trusler, for the appellant.

¶7If the complaint is defective, Port should have withdrawn his answers and demurred. He could not, under the present practice, move to dismiss, or to strike out a pleading for technical defects. This point was expressly ruled in Port v. Williams, supra.

¶8The Court erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss.

Per Curiam.

¶9The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

/9/ind/551 · .json · Public domain