St. John v. Lyon

Headnote

A motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit will be denied with costs, where it appears that a prior suit was tried upon which the same questions depended to maintain the action, and important questions of law were raised, and exceptions taken on the trial, and the circuit judge refused to try any more causes depending upon the same questions of law and same state of facts, until this court had determined those questions; and where in addition it appeared one of the plaintiffs had died after issue joined, and no proceedings had been taken to revive the suit.

Motion by defendant for judgment as in case of nonsuit. These causes were actions of ejectment, issues joined in all of them in August, 1844; the plaintiffs all resided in Europe; defendant’s papers stated that three circuits had passed at which the causes might have been tried. On the part of the plaintiffs, it appeared that the same plaintiffs commenced a suit against one West, in an action of ejectment, by which they claimed to recover on the same title and on the same state of facts, as they claimed to recover upon in these suits; the cause against West was tried at the Ontario circuit, in May, 1844, and a verdict taken for the plaintiffs, for three-fifths of nine-elevenths of the premises claimed; there were other causes at the same circuit on the calendar in favor of the same plaintiffs against different defendants, depending upon the same title and state of facts as in the case of West. The circuit judge refused to try any more of the causes .until the case or bill of exceptions taken by defendant’s counsel should be determined by this court, as there were important questions of law involved in the case; the recovery in the suit against West was in favor of William James St. John, one of the plaintiffs, a titk as was held by the circuit judge having been shown in T-fim. Subsequent *to joining the issues in these causey William James St. John died, and since his death no proceedings had been taken to revive the suits; such delaj

was alleged to have been occasioned by reason of a question of difficulty, arising out of the will of William James St. John, and some doubt as to the persons who were entitled to recover as his heirs at law.