Burt v. Panjaud

Decision Date01 October 1878
Citation25 L.Ed. 451,99 U.S. 180
PartiesBURT v. PANJAUD
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. H. Bisbee, Jr., for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. James M. Baker, contra.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of ejectment brought in the Circuit Court of St. John's County, Florida, by Maria M. Panjaud, to recover the possession of two lots or parcels of land in the city of St. Augustine. The suit was subsequently removed to the Circuit Court of the United States. The defendant set up no title whatever to the lots, nor, as far as the record shows, did he even rely upon the Statute of Limitations, although he had been in possession of the demanded premises for several years before the commencement of the suit. Judgment was rendered against him, and he sued out this writ of error.

A bill of exceptions presents the errors we are called upon to examine.

It appears that, before the jury was sworn to try the case, one of the panel, Henry Holmes, was sworn on his voire dire, and was asked whether or not he had aided or abetted the late rebellion against the United States, when he was told by the presiding judge that it was optional with him whether he would answer the question or not; and said Holmes declined to answer. The defendant excepted to this ruling, and then moved that Holmes be excluded for cause, which the court overruled, and defendant excepted again.

It appears affirmatively that Holmes was not sworn as one of the jury, and no reason is given for it.

1. We are of opinion that, since Holmes did not sit on the jury, no harm was done to defendant. The object of both motions was to exclude him as one incompetent to sit. It is immaterial to the defendant how this was brought about. It is possible that if defendant had shown affirmatively that he was excluded by reason of his peremptory challenge, and that in doing so the exercise of his right of peremptory challenge had been abridged, the result might be otherwise. It is sufficient to say that the record does not show that he was on the jury, but in fact that he was not, or that in getting rid of him any right of defendant was abridged or lost.

2. But we are further of opinion that a juror is no more than a witness obliged to disclose on oath his guilt of any crime, or of any act which would disgrace him, in order to test his qualification as a juror. The question asked him, if answered in the affirmative, would have admitted his guilt of the crime of treason. Whether pardoned by a general amnesty or not pardoned, we think the crime was one which he could not be required to disclose in this manner. Nor would this ruling deprive the party of his right of challenge. Like a conviction for felony, or any other disqualifying circumstance, the challenger was at liberty to prove it by any other competent testimony.

He did not offer to do this, and as the juror's incompetency was not proved, the court was not bound to exclude him.

All the other exceptions relate to the insufficiency of plaintiff's title to recover, it being conceded that defendant showed none in himself.

It is true that plaintiff does not trace her title to any acknowledged source. But as to lot 4, she produces a deed from M. C. Mordecai and Thomas Kerr, dated April 30, 1845, conveying the lot to her; and she proves by a competent witness that there were two houses on this lot, and that she lived in one or both of them from 1845 to 1847, and that one Solonoa, as agent for plaintiff, returned this property for taxes and paid the taxes from 1857 to 1860, and that the two houses were occupied.

As regards the other lot of ground, no written evidence of title is proved, but the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Elliott
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 9 Abril 1900
    ... ... jurors that tried the case, and, as they 'did not sit on ... the jury, no harm was done to defendant. ' Burt v ... Panjaud, 99 U.S. 180, 25 L.Ed. 451. And, while the name ... of the third juror does appear in the panel, it nowhere ... appears in the ... ...
  • Holden v. Lynn
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 12 Diciembre 1911
    ...Attwood v. Fricot, 17 Cal. 37 ; English v. Johnson, 17 Cal. 107, 76 Am. Dec. 574; and Hess v. Winder, 30 Cal. 349." ¶12 In Burt v. Panjaud, 99 U.S. 180, 25 L. Ed. 451, it is said in the syllabus: "In an action of ejectment or trespass to land, actual possession, or receipt of rent by plaint......
  • Dodge v. Irvington Land Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 3 Julio 1908
    ... ... asserting a flaw in the title of the one against whom the ... wrong has been by him committed." So, also, in Burt ... v. Panjaud, 99 U.S. 180, 182, 25 L.Ed. 451, it was said ... by Mr. Justice Miller, expressing the opinion of the court: ... "In ejectment, or ... ...
  • Frost v. Crockett
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 12 Junio 1936
    ...Duren v. Strong, 53 Tex. 379; Caplen v. Drew, 54 Tex. 493; Parker v. Fort Worth Ry. Co., 71 Tex. 132, 133, 8 S.W. 541; Burt v. Panjaud, 99 U.S. 180, 25 L.Ed. 451; Saxton v. Corbett (Tex.Civ. App.) 122 S.W. 75; Adels v. Joseph (Tex. Civ.App.) 148 S.W. We also think that the evidence raised t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT