TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Schanler v. Porter

Schanler v. Porter, 7 Iowa 482 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 4, 1859
Judges
Woodward
Citations
7 Iowa 482
Cited by 3
Headnotes
On a motion to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial, the affidavit of one of the jurors is admissible, to show that in order to ascertain the quantum of damages, the jurors agreed that each should set down such a sum as he thought proper ; that the aggregate amount of the said several sums should be divided by twelve; that the quotient should be the verdict; that the jurors did each mark his sum, the aggregate of which sums was divided by twelve ; and that the said verdict was thus determined. An agreement by a jury that each one shall sot down such a sum as he thinks proper; that the aggregate amount of the said several sums shall be divided by twelve, and that the quotient shall bo the verdict, if carried out, and the verdict is obtained in that manner, constitutes a sufficient reason for setting aside the verdict, and granting a new trial.
Summary
Jiqyjpeojl from the Dubuque District Court. This was an action to recover'damages for injuries sustained by the overturning of the defendant’s stage coach. The jury having returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants moved that the verdict be set aside, and for a new trial, upon several grounds, one of which was, that the jury adopted an erroneous method for arriving at the amount of the verdict. To sustain this ground of the motion, the defendants offered the affidavit of George Bennett, one of the jurors, who stated, “ that in order to ascer tain the quantum of damages, the jurors agreed that each should set down such a sum as he thought proper; that the amount of the said several sums should be divided by twelve ; that the quotient should be the verdict; that the jurors did each mark his sum, and the aggregate of the said several sums was divided by twelve; and that the said verdict was thus determined.” The defendants also offered the affidavit of John Doud, Jr., who stated that M. B. Cullen, one of the jurors, stated to him the same facts as were testified to in the affidavit of Bennett. The plaintiff objected to the admission of these affidavits. The bill of exceptions recites, that the court decided that the affidavits were admissible to sustain the sixth ground of the defendants’ motion. The plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Woodward

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Woodward, J.

The decision of the court, rendered in writing, is, “ that the motion for a new trial is sustained, for the reason that the sixth ground of defendants’ motion in this behalf, is sustained by the affidavit of George Bennett. This ground being of itself sufficient, I do not deem it necessary to consider the others.”

Prom this paper, we are led to believe that the court considered the affidavit of Bennett only, and did not, in any degree, base his decision on that of Doud ; and therefore, we will not consider the admissibility of the latter. It is further manifest, that the court decided the motion for a new trial, solely upon the sixth ground, and that the others were not passed upon. For this reason, it is not deemed necessary to examine those grounds assigned for the motion.

The subject of the admissibility of jurors’ affidavits, has been before this court in two or three cases. We are aware of the rule as at common law, but have considered *484 them, receivable, with some exceptions, under the Code. Section 1810. See Forshee v. Abrams, 2 Iowa, 579 ; Cook v. Sypher, 3 Iowa, 484 . In Manix v. Maloney, ante, 81, the affidavit of the juror was to the effect, that the jury made up their verdict iu the same manner as is stated in this case. In that case, it was held erroneous in the court to refuse a new trial upon this ground. The affidavit of Bennett was admissible, and the matter constituted sufficient reason for granting a new tidal.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →
1864–1865: 11866–1867: 11914–1915: 118642026peak 1864 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wright v. Illinois & Mississippi Telegraph Co.20 Iowa 195 (1866)
  2. Barton v. Holmes16 Iowa 252 (1864)
  3. Gus Gutfreund & Co. v. Williams172 Iowa 535 (1915)

Most recent

  1. Gus Gutfreund & Co. v. Williams172 Iowa 535 (1915)
  2. Wright v. Illinois & Mississippi Telegraph Co.20 Iowa 195 (1866)
  3. Barton v. Holmes16 Iowa 252 (1864)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Forshee v. Abrams, 2 Iowa 571 (1856) 23
Cook v. Sypher, 3 Iowa 484 (1856) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list