Sinclair v. Sanders
This text of 26 Ky. 303 (Sinclair v. Sanders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was a proceedingagainst Sinclair, for ‘‘a forcible entry and detainerThe jury in the country found him guilty of the “forcible detainer.” On a traverse, the jury in the circuit'court, found him guilty of “the forcible entry;” and the court therefore, rendered judgment for restitution.
The verdict did not respond ip the issue.
There is an essential and specific difference "between a forcible entry, and a forcible detainer.
As the jury in the country, found a verdict for a forcible detainer, the only issue, involved in the traverse, in the circuit court, was, whether Sinclair was guilty of a forcible detainer. This issue, has not been tried by the jury. They found Sinclair guilty of a forcible entry only, and, therefore, not only acquitted him of the charge of a forcible detainer, but found him guilty of that, with which he was not charged in the circuit court.
The judgment is, therefore, erroneous. See Cammock vs. Macey, III. Marshall, 296.
If Sinclair entered peaceably when the possession was vacant, he was not guilty of a forcible entry. As the evidence conduced to shew, in some degree, that refusing he did so enter, the court erred in struct the jury, on his motion, that, if he EaakeJhis entry, he was not guilty of p forcible entry. to in-' did thus
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial*
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
26 Ky. 303, 3 J.J. Marsh. 303, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinclair-v-sanders-kyctapp-1830.