Case ID: miss_21/html/0371-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Smith", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. Q. Vance vs. Jason Isbel.
    The ease of Proskeyv. West, 8 S. & M. 711, so far as it decides that the submission of a case to a jury upon issue joined on some of the pleas, and a verdict and judgment thereon, without disposing of a demurrer to others, is not error to the prejudice of the party whose plea is demurred to, cited and overruled.
    It is error to submit a cause to the jury, upon issue joined, without disposing of a demurrer to one of the pleas, for which a verdict and judgment on the issue will be set aside, and the cause remanded. '
    On appeal from the circuit court of Panola county; Hon. Francis M. Rogers, judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      H. W. Walter, for appellant,
    On the point on which the case turned, cited Marlow v. Hamer, 6 How. 189; lb. 500; 1 S. & M. 340; 6 lb. 47; 7 lb. 39; 8 lb. 711; and insisted that the last case was in conflict with, and should yield to the former.
    
      Watson and Craft, for defendant in error,
    relied on Proslcey v. West, 8 S. & M. 711, as settling this point.
   Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action for a malicious prosecution, tried in the circuit court of Panola county.

The defendant pleaded, first, the general issue; second, a plea of the statute of limitations; and third, a special plea in bar to the second count of the declaration. Issue was joined on the first, the second was waived, and to the third the plaintiff demurred generally. The cause was submitted to the jury on the issue taken on the first plea, the demurrer to the third not having been disposed of. This is insisted on as error.

That it was irregular and erroneous seems to be the settled doctrine of this court. See Walker v. Walker, 6 How. 500; Marlow v. Hamer, Ib. 189; Rowly & al. v. Cummings & Spyker, 1 S. & M. 345 ; Harper v. Bondurant, 7 Ib. 397. It is true, that in a later case, that of Proskey v. West, 8 S. & M. 711, a different rule is laid down. But there was no reason given for a departure from what was the settled practice. The decision in that case ought not, therefore, to be considered as overruling the previous adjudications on this point.

For this error, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.