Trotter v. Sanders

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Trotter v. Sanders

30 Ky. 321, 7 J.J. Marsh. 321, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 85

DecidedMay 3, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Ky. 321 (Trotter 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.

Bluebook

Trotter v. Sanders, 30 Ky. 321, 7 J.J. Marsh. 321, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 85 (Ky. Ct. App. 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Robfrtson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an ejectment. The lessor having proved title, on the trial, the defendants proved facts conducing to show that they had entered .and continued to hold under executory contracts of purchase from the lessor: and thereupon the circuit court instructed the jury to find as in case of a non-suit, because the plaintiff had not proved any notice to quit prior to the institution of the suit; and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendants accordingly.

As the jury, and not the court, had the right to ascertain the fact of sale, and of entry and possession under it, and as the plaintiff had not proved or admitted that fact, the court erred in giving a peremptory instruction to find for the defendants.

Wherefore, though the princinle recognized in the instruction may he correct, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

Chief Justice Robfrtson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an ejectment. The lessor having proved title, on the trial, the defendants proved facts conducing to show that they had entered .and continued to hold under executory contracts of purchase from the lessor: and thereupon the circuit court instructed the jury to find as in case of a non-suit, because the plaintiff had not proved any notice to quit prior to the institution of the suit; and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendants accordingly.

As the jury, and not the court, had the right to ascertain the fact of sale, and of entry and possession under it, and as the plaintiff had not proved or admitted that fact, the court erred in giving a peremptory instruction to find for the defendants.

Wherefore, though the princinle recognized in the instruction may he correct, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Ky. 321, 7 J.J. Marsh. 321, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trotter-v-sanders-kyctapp-1832.