Case Name: HALL v. BLAKE
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-04
Citations: 1 Wright 489
Docket Number: 
Parties: HALL v. BLAKE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
HALL v. BLAKE.
Special contract — common cause — non suit — judgment reserving rights as in case of non suit, is erroneous — division of costs on error — court giving such judgment as the court below ought to have done.
Where the plaintiff declared on the money counts in assumpsit, and proved that he purchased of the defendant his improvements on two quarters of congress land, held by entry and certificate, and paid for them, and aftex'wards the defendant refused to deliver the certificate, held that he could not recover on the common counts because of the special contract, part performed, and no attempt to put an end to it. •
Where the court instruct the jury to find against the plaintiff as in case of non suit, the court of error will hold it a non suit.
Where judgment is rendered for the defendant for costs “savingand reserving by consent of parties, his rights as in case of non suit,” such judgment is erroneous and will be reversed; but the court will render a judgment of non suit and leave each party to pay half the costs on error.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas. The record shows that the plaintiff originally brought suit before a justice of the peace, which was brought by appeal into the Common Picas. The plaintiff declared in assumpsit on the common money counts. Issue was taken upon non assumpsit, and also upon non assumpsit infra sex annos. The bill of exceptions sets forth that on trial, one witness testified that in 1816 or ’17, Blake sold to Hall an improvement on 490] *two quarters of land, one of which he had entered at the land office, paid the entrance money, and obtained his certificate, but the land had been forfeited by lapse of time. The other quarter remained in the United States. Blake gave his note for three hundred bushels of corn, the agreed price for the improvements, which had been paid. Another witness testified that Hall went into possession of the improvement. The certificate from the United States was not delivered, but Blake said Hall could have it when he called for it. He afterwards called, and Blake said it had been ••sent to Chillicothe and lost, but if found again, he might have it, or the land should be laid on, for it would be hard he should lose the whole, &c. The defendant then moved the court to instruct the jury the evidence was insufficient to sustain the action, which was done. That is now assigned for error. The record showed that the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury to find for the defendant, as in case of non suit, which was done, and the jury found so, on which judgment was rendered for the defendant for costs, “saving and reserving by consent of parties, his rights as in ■case of non suit.”
Johnson and Brazee for the plaintiff in error.
Clough contra.'

Opinion:
BY THE COURT.
If it was a non suit that was moved for and •ordered, it was properly moved and ordered, because of the failure -of the proof. The declaration contains only the common counts— the contract was special, and had been part performed. No step had been taken to abandon or put an end to it, and recover back the money paid; so far from it, the plaintiff held on to the contract, and the suit was to recover damages for its non performance. It was, in fact, a suit on the contract, which was a subsisting one, and -conferred no right to recover on the common counts. The record leaves it doubtful whether a non suit was ordered. We incline to construe it a non suit. The finding of the jury was improper; they should have been discharged. We reverse the proceedings as to all after the motion, but the costs; and under the law give judgment of non suit, leaving each party to pay half the costs on error.