Case Name: MANUEL FRANCO OINS ET AL., Plffs., v. JUAN JOSÉ MAESO ET AI., Dfts.
Court: United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1906-08-13
Citations: 2 P.R. Fed. 59
Docket Number: No. 323
Parties: MANUEL FRANCO OINS ET AL., Plffs., v. JUAN JOSÉ MAESO ET AI., Dfts.
Judges: 
Reporter: Porto Rico Federal Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
MANUEL FRANCO OINS ET AL., Plffs., v. JUAN JOSÉ MAESO ET AI., Dfts.
San Juan,
Law,
No. 323.
1. A verdict and judgment will be set aside and a new trial granted when the charge fails to define to the jury the issues in the case.
2. It is error to charge the jury in an ejectment case, that the defendant can only recover by proof of his own title, or by proving title in a stranger.
3. In such a case, plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title.
4-. A motion for a new trial, filed during the term at which the judgment was rendered, may, by order, be carried over to the succeeding term for argument and decision.
Order granting new trial filed August 13, 1906.
Note. — As to what title or interest will support an action of ejectment, see note to Hancock v. McAvoy, 18 L.R.A. 781.
Henry F. Herd, Esq., and' Wm. H. Hawkins, Esq., for the-plaintiffs.
Messrs. Hartzell & Rodriguez for the defendants.

Opinion:
Rodey, Judge,
delivered the following opinion:
This cause came on to be heard on motion of the defendants
for a new trial herein, which was duly filed at the same term at which the verdict was rendered, and properly carried over to-the present time for decision. The motion was argued orally by counsel for the respective parties, and thereafter the counsel for-defendants filed an elaborate brief and argument.
An examination of the record in the case convinces the court that the learned judge who presided at the trial did not present the issues to the jury in a manner to enable them to decide the questions of fact involved therein, in accordance with law. In fact, it is impossible to conceive how any judgment that will not do grave injustice to certain of the claimants to the property can be entered on the verdict as rendered; and it would seem as if the jury were led to believe that the burden of proving title in themselves or in someone else was put upon the defendants, without plaintiffs being obliged to recover upon the strength of their own title, as is the rule in ejectment.
There are many other reasons for granting the motion,, that appear in the record itself, and therefore the, judgment will be vacated, the verdict set aside, and a new trial granted.