Wheeler v. Moore

Ohio Supreme Court

Wheeler v. Moore

1 Wright 408, 1 Ohio Ch. 408

DecidedAugust 15, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 408 (Wheeler v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wheeler v. Moore, 1 Wright 408, 1 Ohio Ch. 408 (Ohio 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, J.

The rights of the parties in the court below, should have been determined in the suit, as they stood when it was commenced. Words without acts cannot make a trespass. All that Wheeler did before the suit, was to refuse to give the permission Moore asked of him. The cutting the grain, if proven, after suit brought, would make no difference in the case. Moore either had a right of action when-he brought suit, or he had not. If he had not, and we think he had not, the court erred in refusing to give the instruction to the jury asked for.

[419]*419As it regards the instruction given to the jury, which goes to establish the position, that where it apjDears, that under a possible state of things, a defendant would have committed trespass, the jury may find the trespass actually committed, probably was designed to rest upon the supposition, that in law that is considered as done which a party intended to do. We need only say, that this position does not accord with our understanding of the law. We think, therefore, the court below mistook the law in refusing to charge the jury as asked, and also, in charging them as it did, and reverse the judgment, with costs.

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

WRIGHT, J.

The rights of the parties in the court below, should have been determined in the suit, as they stood when it was commenced. Words without acts cannot make a trespass. All that Wheeler did before the suit, was to refuse to give the permission Moore asked of him. The cutting the grain, if proven, after suit brought, would make no difference in the case. Moore either had a right of action when-he brought suit, or he had not. If he had not, and we think he had not, the court erred in refusing to give the instruction to the jury asked for.

[419]*419As it regards the instruction given to the jury, which goes to establish the position, that where it apjDears, that under a possible state of things, a defendant would have committed trespass, the jury may find the trespass actually committed, probably was designed to rest upon the supposition, that in law that is considered as done which a party intended to do. We need only say, that this position does not accord with our understanding of the law. We think, therefore, the court below mistook the law in refusing to charge the jury as asked, and also, in charging them as it did, and reverse the judgment, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 408, 1 Ohio Ch. 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-moore-ohio-1833.