Long v. Thwing
9 Ind. 179
Opinion
The record before us contains the following averment:
“The Court, after hearing the evidence in the cause, find for the defendant. It is, therefore, considered that the defendant recover of the plaintiff his costs expended. Whereupon, the plaintiff moves the Court for leave to suffer a non-suit, which motion was resisted by the defendant, but sustained by the Court, and a non-suit granted — to which opinion of the Court in sustaining said motion and granting the non-suit, the defendant excepts.”
This ruling is plainly erroneous. After the finding and [180]*180judgment, the plaintiff should not have been allowed to suffer a non-suit. See Doughty v. Elliott, 8 Blackf. 405.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded with directions to the Circuit Court to render judgment for the defendant below.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Long v. Thwing, 9 Ind. 179 (Ind. 1857).
9 Ind. 179 (Long v. Thwing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State ex rel. Potter v. Riley
118 S.W. 647 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Thrasher v. Ballard
10 S.E. 411 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1889)
Burns v. Reigelsberger
70 Ind. 522 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1880)