Court Opinion

ID: 3892551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 09:23:07.259501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:58:35.200166
License: Public Domain

The practice of introducing entries in evidence, under the Acts of 1786, c. 20, and 1787, c. 23, he believed to be correct, and founded in principles of law; but he was for confining evidence strictly to the calls of the entry, agreeably to the opinion before delivered. As it respects statutory provisions, I am unable to see a distinction which has been frequently adverted to, between void
and voidable. If a statute declares a thing void, it would be proper to so consider it, whenever it came before a court of law or equity, in the course of judicial investigation. The Court cannot shut their eyes against the provisions of such a statute, and tell a suitor that his remedy was in equity. As it respects *Page 421 
the plaintiff's entry, suppose the call of Little Harpeth River were rejected, it will then refer to A. Tatum's line. The jury must be satisfied there was such a line, or one potentially existing through some legal claim, as an entry.
Verdict for defendant.
A mistrial having taken place in the case of Reid's Lessee v. Dodson, depending on the same principles, the Court granted a new trial in this, in order to give an opportunity for further investigation, and to preserve uniformity of decision in both cases.