Alderman v. Cox
| Decision Date | 31 October 1881 |
| Citation | 74 Mo. 78 |
| Parties | ALDERMAN v. Cox, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Nodaway Circuit Court.--HON. H. S. KELLEY, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
The petition alleged the sale of a threshing machine to two persons, jointly, and their joint undertaking to pay for the same, and asked judgment against one of them personally, and also against him as the administrator of the other party. His answer was a general denial. There was evidence that the machine was to be paid for in notes. The court instructed the jury that, if they found for the plaintiff, they should assess his damages at what would have been the value of the notes at the time of trial, had they been executed and delivered according to contract. The jury returned a verdict against defendant for just one-half of the amount of the notes, with interest to the time of trial.
Johnston & Jackson for plaintiff in error.
Some of the jurors must have believed that plaintiff in error was not liable, but were coaxed or induced to return a verdict against him by the reduction of the amount to one-half of the sum claimed; and this is a full answer to the argument that the error complained of, being in defendant's favor, he cannot complain. It was not an error in his favor, but an error without which a verdict must have been returned in his favor, or a mis-trial recorded. The general doctrine, therefore, should be applied. A verdict against law, or a finding contrary to the direction of the court should be set aside. R. S. 1879, § 3704; Rosev. St. Charles, 49 Mo. 511; Emerson v. County, 49 Cal. 543; Hayward v. Armsbee, 7 Wis. 99, 111; 3 Graham & W. on New Trials, 1178, 1180, 1184, 1185; Todd v. Boone Co., 8 Mo. 431, 437; Fulkerson v. Bollinger, 9 Mo. 828, 830, dissenting opinion of Napton, J.; Hearne v. Keath, 63 Mo. 84; McDonald v. Walter, 40 N. Y. 551, 553. If there has been a miscarriage of justice, or substantial justice has not been done, a new trial should be granted. Meyer v. Fiegel, 38 How. Pr. 424; Christy v. Holmes, 57 Ind. 314; Kelsey v. Hanmer, 18 Conn. 310; Johnson v. Blackman, 11 Conn. 358.
Lafe Dawson & Edwards for defendant in error.
The defendant has no ground of complaint because the jury found a verdict for plaintiff for “just one-half of the amount” the latter claimed was due him, notwithstanding the evidence as to the amount due him was uncontradicted. The defendant cannot be said to have been injured because compelled by the verdict to pay a less sum than h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
...is entitled to furnishes no ground for complaint by defendant, and the verdict must stand. Crigler v. Duncan, 121 Mo.App. 381; Alderman v. Cox, 74 Mo. 78; Beckham Puckett, 88 Mo.App. 636; 4 C. J., pp. 922, 923. T. W. Hukriede and Jones, Hocker, Gladney & Grand for appellant. (1) Aetna Life ......
-
Harrison v. Murphy
...and not the defendants can complain that the verdict was against them for a less amount than the pleadings and evidence authorized. Alderman v. Cox, 74 Mo. 78; Nance Metcalf, 19 Mo.App. 183; Gaty v. Sack, 19 Mo.App. 470. But the defendants contend that tested by the rule declared in Cole v.......
-
Crowley v. Gossett
...70 Mo. 575. The fact that plaintiff was permitted to recover less than three hundred dollars is not an error as against appellant. Alderman v. Cox, 74 Mo. 78. (7) motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence was properly overruled. The evidence of the witness was incom......
-
Cole v. Armour
...or nothing; and so the jurors were clearly and plainly instructed. The jury found for the plaintiffs in the sum of $ 2,500. In Alderman v. Cox, 74 Mo. 78, this said: "The defendant has no ground of complaint because the jury found a verdict for plaintiff for 'just one-half of the amount' th......