Miller v. Morgan

The 33d rule of the Superior Court, of 1874, prescribes that the general form of verdict shall be, if for the plaintiff, “ The jury find for the plaintiff, and assess damages in the sum of-.” In an action in that court against two defendants, the jury returned a paper, signed by the foreman, and not entitled with the name of the action, in the following words : “ Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of,” and stating the amount. This was accepted as a verdict, and assented to by the jury. Held, that the defendant's had no ground of exception.

Contract upon a promissory note, payable to the order of the plaintiff, and signed by the defendants. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. Payment. Trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The action was tried upon the issues presented by the pleadings. The jury retired with the papers, after being charged by the judge, and were furnished with two printed blanks in the ordinary forms required by the rules of court.* They subsequently came into court, and handed the following paper to the clerk, which was read by the clerk to the jury, and assented to by them: “First Jury, June 8, 1886. Verdict'for plaintiff in the sum of four hundred twenty-one and 78-100 dollars. $421.73. W. T. George, Foreman.” The verdict was affirmed, as appears by a copy of the record attested by the clerk, † The defendants filed a motion in arrest of judgment, for the following reasons: “ 1. That by the record the paper filed in said cause, and called a verdict, has nothing upon the face of it to indicate that it belongs to this case. 2. That said paper does not purport, upon its face, to be a finding of the jury in this cause or in any cause., 8. That said paper, neither upon its face nor elsewhere, indicates in any manner that the jury assessed damages in this cause nor any other cause.” This • motion was overruled; and the defendants alleged exceptions.