Larue v. Russell

26 Ind. 386
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 26 Ind. 386 (Larue v. Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Larue v. Russell, 26 Ind. 386 (Ind. 1866).

Opinion

Frazer, J.

This was an action of trespass, quare clausum foegit.

Answer, 1. General denial. 2. That the parties were joint tenants, and that the defendants entered the close by leave of the plaintiff. Reply, general denial. There was a jury trial at the August term, 1865, and a verdict for the [387]*387defendants, and judgment on the verdict over a motion for a new trial.

W. Morrow, B. M. Goodwin and W. II. Hay, for appellant. A. C. Hanna, for appellees.

A bill of exceptions infonns us that “ the cause came on for trial upon the issues joined, whereupon the plaintiff offered divers witnesses to sustain his part of the issue, but before said witnesses were permitted to be examined, upon defendant’s motion, the court ordered the plaintiff’s witnesses to be separated, and required the plaintiff to go out of the court room and remain out until he was examined as a rebutting witness.”

This proceeding is probably without a precedent. The right of a party litigant to be present during the trial of his cause, that he may be heard in his own behalf, has been so long accorded by universal custom, and is so obviously necessary foir the security of private rights, that the refusal to entertain the cause at all would scarcely be a greater error than the denial of this privilege. Besides, it is secured by plain and positive statute. 2 G. & H., § 765, p. 325.

The court below also erred in instructions to the jury, A party peaceably in possession of lands may maintain trespass for an injury to his possession, though the trespasser have a better title to the lands. This principle was contravened.

The court recapitulated certain facts in evidence, and informed the jury that if they believed those facts they must find for the defendants, excluding from consideration other evidence tending to explain and avoid the' effect of the facts thus recapitulated. This also was error.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re the Change of Name of Fetkavich
855 N.E.2d 751 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2006)
State v. Kinder
286 N.E.2d 826 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1972)
Keating v. Jerde
472 S.W.2d 651 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1971)
Holden v. Lynn
1911 OK 503 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Dold v. Knudsen
97 N.W. 482 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1903)
Shew v. Hews
26 N.E. 483 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)
Garman v. State
66 Miss. 196 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1888)
Schneider v. Haas
12 P. 236 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1887)
Brooks v. State
90 Ind. 428 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)
Cottrell v. Cottrell
81 Ind. 87 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Guetig v. State
63 Ind. 278 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Ind. 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larue-v-russell-ind-1866.