Barnes Vs. Williams

Barnes vs Williams

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1826

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/79072

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/79072
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1826
Case Number: 24 U.S. 415
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Barnes

Respondent

Williams

Excerpt

.....facias de novo. mr. chief justice marshall stated that upon inspecting the record, it had been discovered that the special verdict found in the case was too imperfect to enable the court to render a judgment upon it. the claim of the plaintiffs being founded upon a bequest of certain slaves, it was essential to a recovery at law that the assent of the executor to the legacy should be proved. although, in the opinion of the court, there was sufficient evidence in the special verdict from which the jury might have found the fact, yet it has not found it, and the court could not, upon a special verdict, intend it. the special verdict was defective in stating the evidence of the fact instead of the fact itself. it was impossible, therefore, that a judgment could be pronounced for the plaintiff. so, as to the defendant's defense under the statute of limitations, the special verdict did not find any facts by which the court could ascertain at that time the right of action accrued. it was not stated that the plaintiff and defendant were ever resident in the same state at the same time. although it was found that e. d. barnes, one of the plaintiffs, came into the state of tennessee after he arrived at the age of twenty-one years and more than three years before the suit was brought, yet it was not found that during any part of that time the defendant williams was resident in that state. the case was therefore too imperfectly page 24 u. s. 417 stated to enable the court to decide the questions upon which the opinions of the judges of the circuit court were opposed, and the cause was remanded to that court with directions to award a venire facias de novo.

Full Judgment

Barnes v. Williams - 24 U.S. 415 (1826)
U.S. Supreme Court Barnes v. Williams, 24 U.S. 415 (1826)

Barnes v. Williams

24 U.S. 415

SYLLABUS

Where, in a special verdict, the essential facts are not distinctly found by the jury, although there is sufficient evidence to establish them, this Court will not render a judgment upon such an imperfect special verdict, but will remand the cause to the court below with directions to award a venire facias de novo.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL stated that upon inspecting the record, it had been discovered that the special verdict found in the case was too imperfect to enable the court to render a judgment upon it.

The claim of the plaintiffs being founded upon a bequest of certain slaves, it was essential to a recovery at law that the assent of the executor to the legacy should be proved. Although, in the opinion of the court, there was sufficient evidence in the special verdict from which the jury might have found the fact, yet it has not found it, and the court could not, upon a special verdict, intend it. The special verdict was defective in stating the evidence of the fact instead of the fact itself. It was impossible, therefore, that a judgment could be pronounced for the plaintiff. So, as to the defendant's defense under the statute of limitations, the special verdict did not find any facts by which the court could ascertain at that time the right of action accrued. It was not stated that the plaintiff and defendant were ever resident in the same state at the same time. Although it was found that E. D. Barnes, one of the plaintiffs, came into the State of Tennessee after he arrived at the age of twenty-one years and more than three years before the suit was brought, yet it was not found that during any part of that time the defendant Williams was resident in that state. The case was therefore too imperfectly

Page 24 U. S. 417

stated to enable the court to decide the questions upon which the opinions of the judges of the circuit court were opposed, and the cause was

Remanded to that court with directions to award a venire facias de novo.