Case: Doe on the Demise of John A. Elmore, Plaintiff in Error, vs. William A. Grymes, and John J. Beatie, Defendants in Error
Abbreviation: Doe on the Demise of Elmore v. Grymes
Decision Date: 1828-01
Docket Number: 
Citation: 1 Pet. 469
Volume: 26
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Doe on the Demise of John A. Elmore, Plaintiff in Error, vs. William A. Grymes, and John J. Beatie, Defendants in Error.
Judges: 
Pages: 469–475

Head Matter:
Doe on the Demise of John A. Elmore, Plaintiff in Error, vs. William A. Grymes, and John J. Beatie, Defendants in Error.
The Courts of the United States have no authority to órder a peremptory nonsuit, against the will of the plaintiff, on the trial <Jf a cause, before a jury. The plaintiff might agree, to a lion suit, but if he. do not so-choose, the Court cannot compel him to submit to it. {471}
When the state.of. the record did not show a judgment of nonsuit to'have been entered, ^though the bill of exceptions states the fact, the plaintiff may. apply for a certiorari to bring up' a perfect record, or dismiss the writ of -error, and proceed de novo. ■ {472}
AN action of ejectment was instituted in- the Circuit Court ' of the United States for the District of Georgia, for the recovery of 287| acres of land, , in which the plaintiffs, claimed title . as .follows: A grant from the state of Georgia to-Samuel Alexander : and' a déed.fróm John.Cessna, styling himself Sheriff of Greene county in the state of Georgia,” purporting to .convey-to Buchner Harris, by virtue of a salé under an execution against Herod Gibbs, “ two hundred and eighty-seven and a half acres of land in said county, on Little Beaver Pam, on the waters of Richland creek; and bounded on Academy lands, and land belonging to William Alexander, which land was formerly the. property of .Samuel Alexandera deed .from. Buckner Harris to Ezekiel E. Park, for, a tráct of land “ containing two hundred, and eighty-seven and a half acres, in the-county, of Greene, and state of Georgia, on. the Little Beaver Dam of Richland, creek;. being an equal half of the- double bounty of land granted to Samuel Alexander, adjoining Academy lands.”
The plaintiff then introduced .a.witness,-who testified that-.‘‘Ezekiel Park was in possession of a tract of land lying in Greene-county, usually called-Park’s old mill tract, on.Beaver Dam creekj for about twenty years.” He then produced a' deed from Ezekiel E. Park to John -A. Elmore, for a tract of land “in the cóünty of Greene, and-state of Georgia, on the Little Beaver. Dam creek, or fork of Richland creek, being one equal- half of a double bounty tract, originally granted to Samuel Alexander, adjoining lands belonging to the University; -being the same originally sold and conveyed to Herod Gibbs, by the grantee, on the 14th of March, 1790.” He then éxhibited a deposition of the county surveyor, stating that he had made- a re-survey of the premises -in dispute, agreeably to a plot annexed to his deposition, which corresponded in its outlines with that annexed to the original grant, “Completely .covering the premises in dispute;” which he designated on the plat:
' • The plaintiff then called a witness, who testified that W. A. Grymes was in possession of the premises at the commencement of the action, and then closed his testimony.
The defendant’s counsel, thereupon, moved for a nonsuit, on the following grounds:
1st. Because the plaintiff had failed to make out his title by the documentary evidence on which he rested his case.
2d. Because there was no sufficient evidence of possession, to give a. title, under and by force of the statute of limitations of Georgia.
The Circuit Court ordered a nonsuit to be entered, against, the consent of the plaintiff; and a writ of error was prosecuted by him, and the cause brought before this Court.
Upon the judgment of nonsuit, the defendants in error claimed to maintain before the Court-—
That the Circuit Court had powér to order a nonsuit, without the assent of the plaintiff.
The case was argued by Mr. Wild and Mr. M’Duffie for the plaintiff in-error, and by Mr. Berrien for the defendant.
Mr. Berrien.—
-The doctrine laid down in the books of practice, and adopted in some of the state Courts, i,s not supported by any express decision in the Courts of Great Britain. That proposition is, that a pláintiff, on the bare allegations of his declaration, without a tittle of proof, is entitledi.to demand the verdict of a jury in his cause.
Any modification of this proposition admits the power, and objects only to the mode of its exercise. An examination of the adjudged cases in England will- show that they do not warrant the position. Watkins vs. Towers, 2 T. R.-.275, was a motion to enter nonsuit after verdict.
Santler vs. Heard, was a verdict taken subject to, the opinion, of the Court, whether plaintiff ought not to have been nonsuit-ed. 2 Bl. Rep. 1031. 2 Salk. 669.
Macbeth vs. Haldermand, 1 T. R. 172. The. point was not made, on a motion for a new trial. On reporting the fact, Butter J. said, that on the. trial, he had thought the plaintiff ought to be nonsuited; but his counsel appearing, when plaintiff was called, he had left the question to the jury. It is said — that the plaintiff .would be deprived of his writ of error to this Court. This is not so.
Mnal judgments spoken of in the judicial Act, are meant to be contradistinguished from interlocutory judgments.
. Any judgment which is fined in the suit, though not final, as between' the parties, with the exceptions mentioned in the Act, may be brought here by writ of error.
A judgment of nonsuit is such a judgment, and may be the foundation of a writ of error. The defendant is entitled to judgment and execution for costs. The suit is finally disposed of. It is a final judgment in a civil-action. In England, error lies on such a judgment. Box vs. Bennet,l H. Bl. 432. Kemp-land vs. Macauley, 4 T. B: 436. Evans vs. Phillips, 4 Wheat. 73, does not contradict this. The ground ef that decision was that the plaintiff had assented to the nonsuit. Why may not! the errors of the Court below, be corrected 'in this form, as ’• well as by an exception to instructions, or the.refusal to give them.
- Mr. Wilde and Mr. M’Duffle, for the plaintiff in error.—
1. It has always been considered that a nonsuit cannot be or"-•dered without the consent of the plaintiff, who has a right to submit his case to a jury and the Court; and the Court, should the jury érr,may order a new trial.
In the Courts of the United States, another obligation exists to the exercise of such a power, as the Court has decided that a writ of error will not lie on a judgment of nonsuit; (Evans ■vs.' Phillips, 73,) it not being a final judgment. If the Courts below should have this power, a plaintiff may be prevented the opportunity of bringing his case before the highest judicial, tribunal of the, United States. If a Court, can-in any instance order a nonsuit against the consent of the plaintiff, it may only be when no questions of facts are involved, but the only matter before,the Court is a question of -law. This case exhibits facts upon which a jury were the proper judges. The plaintiff claimed .the land by possession, this, and the extent of the possession, was exclusively for the consideration of the jury.
■ The practice of the state of .Georgia as to the entry of non-suits, has been fluctuating. The' judicial system of that state does, not comprehend an appellate Court, with exclusive final judicial powers, but each Cir cuit Court has a right of granting appeals to itself, and on such appeals a second trial takes place, Hence, this point has been decided differently in different Courts, and at different periods; and hence the practice of the .Courts-of Georgia is unsettled, and as various, as it necessarily must} be, in the absence of a Supreme Court to regulate and determine the same.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.-—
The Court has had this, case under its consideration, and is of opinion that the Circuit Court had no authority to order a peremptory nonsuit, against the will pf the plaintiff. He had a right by law to a trial by a jury; and to have had the case submitted to them.- He might agree to a nonsuit;- but if he did not so choose, the Court; could not compel him- to submit to it. But the state.of the' record does not en.able'this Court to render a final judgment, because the record is defective, in not shiow-inga judgment of nonsuit, entered in the Circuit Court. Although the bill of. exceptions states that fact yet the-record does not contain the judgment itself..
The plaintiff may therefore apply for a. certiorari, tp bring up a perfect record,-or dismiss-.the present writ of error and proceed anew; as his counsel may think best for the interest of their client. '*