Crawford v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 26 November 1929
• Citation: 22 S.W.2d 93,231 Ky. 675
• Parties: CRAWFORD et al. v. CRAWFORD.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

22 S.W.2d 93

231 Ky. 675

CRAWFORD et al. v. CRAWFORD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

November 26, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court, Carter County.

Suit in ejectment by Ed Crawford and others against W. V. Crawford. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

R. C Littleton and Thos. S. Yates, both of Grayson, for appellants.

G. W E. Wolfford and Counts & Jarvis, all of Grayson, for appellee.

LOGAN J.

Ed Crawford, Will Crawford, and Leslie Crawford instituted suit in ejectment against W. V. Crawford seeking to recover the possession of a small parcel of land in Carter county containing between four and five acres. The defendant answered denying that the plaintiffs owned the property and alleging ownership in himself. In the third paragraph he set up his chain of title from George W. Prichard to whom the property was conveyed about the year 1874 through mesne conveyances to himself. The plaintiffs were claiming title through George W. Crawford, and it was made to appear, by the introduction of a deed, that George W. Crawford conveyed the tract of land belonging to defendant to George W. Prichard. As the pleadings were finally made up, and with the introduction of the evidence by plaintiffs, it was established that the plaintiffs and the defendant were claiming under George W. Crawford as a common vendor.

At the conclusion of the evidence offered by plaintiff the defendant moved the court to allow him to withdraw that part of his answer in which he alleged that he was the owner of the property through certain deeds carrying the title back to George W. Crawford. The court sustained his motion, and that part of the answer was withdrawn. The plaintiffs in the action forthwith moved the court for a continuance, or for a recess, so that they might have time to procure and introduce evidence carrying their title back to the commonwealth. An affidavit was filed by one of them in which it was shown that they had relied on the allegations in the answer as to the claim of title which would be made by the defendant, and that, knowing that the title of plaintiffs and the title of defendant ran back to a common vendor, they had made no preparation to show by evidence that their chain of title went back to the commonwealth. The court overruled this motion, and, upon motion of the court, the jury was instructed to return a verdict for defendant.

Motion and grounds for a new trial were filed by plaintiffs, and the chief ground relied on was that there had been such an irregularity in the proceedings of the court as to prevent them from having a fair trial, and that they had been taken by surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. Their motion for a new trial was overruled, and as appellants they are now seeking relief in this court which is resisted by the defendant in the lower court, who is appellee here.

Certain rules of procedure have been established for the trial of civil cases. These rules grow out of the combined experience of the years. The trial court is the referee whose duty it is to see that all trials are conducted substantially according to the rules or procedure. The rules are intended to insure to all parties a fair trial. When a party does not have a fair trial, according to the rules of procedure a verdict against him should not be allowed to stand, and he should have another trial in conformity with the rules established for the government of his case.

Appellants knew that it was unnecessary to trace their title back further than the vendor under which both they and the appellee claimed. Gary et al. v. Woosley, 199 Ky 748, 251 S.W. 1015; Middleton et al....