Clement v. Barnes
| Decision Date | 19 January 1895 |
| Citation | 61 N.W. 1126,6 S.D. 483 |
| Parties | CLEMENT v. BARNES. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
A verdict of a jury, to which neither party has objected, should not be vacated by the court on its own motion, unless there has been such a clear disregard of the instructions or the evidence in the case that the court is at once satisfied without mature reflection or the aid of argument that such verdict is the result of passion or prejudice, or was rendered under a misapprehension of the court's instructions, and the order should be made promptly upon the coming in and entry of the verdict.
Appeal from circuit court, Grant county; J. O. Andrews, Judge.
Action by Foster R. Clement against James W. Barnes. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.H. H. Potter and Thomas L. Bouck, for appellant. John W. Bell, for respondent.
To recover the possession of certain wheat alleged to be wrongfully detained by defendant, to the immediate possession of which plaintiff avers that he is entitled, this action was brought in claim and delivery, and is based upon a certain chattel mortgage executed by defendant to plaintiff, and a subsequent written agreement between the parties, by which it is claimed defendant voluntarily delivered the wheat in question to plaintiff, for the purpose of having the same sold at private sale, and the proceeds thereof applied upon the mortgage indebtedness. The complaint is in the usual form, and the answer is, in effect, a general denial. Upon the issues thus raised the case was tried to a jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant for a return of the property, or the value thereof, which was found to be $600. This appeal is from an order made by the trial court on the day following the return and entry of said verdict, by which the same was vacated and set aside on the court's own motion, and on the grounds specified in said order as follows: “First, that it appears that said verdict was rendered under a plain disregard by the jury of the evidence, or a material part thereof; and, second, that it appears that said verdict was rendered under a misapprehension of the instructions of the court.”
Section 5091 of the Compiled Laws provides that “the verdict of a jury may also be vacated, and a new trial granted by the court in which the action is pending, on its own motion, without the application of either of the parties, when there has been such plain disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court, or the evidence in the case, as to satisfy the court that the verdict was rendered under a misapprehension of such instructions, or under the influence of passion or prejudice.” It is urged by counsel for appellant that the court was without power to set aside a verdict, on its own motion, the day after the same was received and entered, and that there is nothing in the record to warrant the court in so doing. In order to justify and sustain the order appealed from in any event, the jury must have so plainly disregarded their instructions or the evidence in the case as to satisfy the court, without the aid of argument, that the verdict was rendered under a...
To continue reading
Request your trial