Bunnell v. Bunnell

• Decision Date: 23 February 1884
• Docket Number: 8961
• Citation: 93 Ind. 595
• Parties: Bunnell v. Bunnell et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

93 Ind. 595

Bunnell v. Bunnell et al

No. 8961

Supreme Court of Indiana

February 23, 1884

From the White Circuit Court.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and cause remanded with instructions to sustain the motion for a venire de novo, and for further proceedings.

A. W Reynolds, E. B. Sellers, R. Gregory and T. N. Bunnell, for appellant.

J. H Wallace, for appellees.

OPINION

Howk C. J.

This was a suit by the appellant against the appellees to obtain the specific performance of an alleged contract for the conveyance of certain described real estate in White county. The cause was pet at issue, and tried by a jury, who returned into court their verdict, as follows: "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and that he have specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of the following described real estate in White county, Indiana, to wit: Five-eighths of one acre, more or less, out of the southwest corner of the southeast quarter of section thirty-four, in township twenty-seven north, range four west, bounded as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said tract, thence east ten rods on the township line of townships twenty-six and twenty-seven north, range four west, thence north 34 1/2 [degrees] west twenty rods and three links to the intersection of the west line of the said southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section thirty-four, thence south on said west line to the place of beginning; and as to the residue of said real estate, described in the complaint, we find for the defendant."

(Signed) "Wm. F. Keister, Foreman."

Over the appellant's motions for a venire de novo, and for a new trial, the court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict.

The first error complained of, in argument, by the appellant's counsel, is the overruling of his motion for a venire de novo. We are of opinion that the court clearly erred in overruling this motion of the appellant, and that, for this error, the judgment below must be reversed. In his complaint the appellant sought to enforce the specific performance of a parol contract, whereby, it was alleged, the appellee Barzilla Bunnell undertook and promised, for certain considerations expressed in the complaint, "to convey by a good and sufficient deed the following lands in the county of White, and State of Indiana: Commencing at the northeast corner of the northwest fourth of the northeast fourth of section three, town. twenty-six north, in range four west; thence west to the southwest corner of the southeast fourth of the southeast fourth...