Consolidated Ice-Mach. Co. v. Trenton Hygeian Ice Co.

• Decision Date: 26 September 1893
• Citation: 57 F. 898
• Parties: CONSOLIDATED ICE-MACH. CO. v. TRENTON HYGEIAN ICE CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

57 F. 898

CONSOLIDATED ICE-MACH. CO. v. TRENTON HYGEIAN ICE CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

September 26, 1893

John H Kitchen and Gilbert Collins, for plaintiff.

C. H Beasley and Allan L. McDermott, for defendant.

GREEN District Judge.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the consideration price of an ice plant made constructed, and set up by the plaintiff for the defendant in the city of Trenton. The defendant insisted that the ice plant was in various respects defective, and not in accordance with the written contract which had been made by the parties; that it was impossible to produce good merchantable ice by it when in operation; and that in consequence of the impure character of the ice which had been made by the machine great loss had accrued to the defendant. Upon the trial the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $78,363.42. A motion was immediately made for a new trial, and two causes were assigned therefor: (1) That the verdict which had been rendered was technically a 'quotient' verdict; (2) that the verdict was invalid because of the misconduct of the jury during the trial.

While it may be accepted as settled that a verdict rendered in pursuance of an agreement by the jurors to accept one-twelfth of the aggregate amount of their several estimates, without the assent of their judgment to such a sum as their verdict is invalid, yet it is equally well settled that, although jurors divide the aggregate of their several estimates by 12, and return the quotient as their verdict, it will not be held to be legally objectionable if, after the amount has been ascertained, the respective jurors deliberately assent to and accept the amount so obtained as, in their opinion, a just verdict, and so return it. The essential ingredient of a 'quotient' verdict which renders it objectionable in the eye of the law is that there should be an antecedent agreement between the jurors to accept the result of the division without hesitation as the proper and true verdict to be rendered. The testimony taken on the rule to show cause in this case shows that upon the suggestion of one of the jurors, after the jury had retired to their room for the consideration of the issues to be decided by them, it was agreed that each juror should write upon a slip of paper that amount which should be allowed to the defendant for the damages which the defendant claimed to have sustained by the imperfect condition and operation of the ice plant after it had been delivered to it, and that the total amount of these sums should be divided by 12, and the result, if satisfactory, should be the verdict on that branch of the case. It will be noticed that this proposed course of action related to but one of the various defenses which had been interposed by the defendant to the plaintiff's claim. The affidavit before the court shows that this agreement was attempted to be carried out but in fact was carried out only partially; for the result turned out to be so unsatisfactory, when the division was made, that a number of jurors declined to accede to it, and insisted that another ballot should be taken. Even that produced an unsatisfactory result. And still...