Davis v. Searcy
| Citation | 79 Miss. 292,30 So. 823 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1901 |
| Parties | VERNON L. DAVIS v. PATRICK M. SEARCY |
October 1901
FROM the circuit court of Grenada county. HON. JAMES F. MCCOOL Special Judge.
Davis the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Searcy the appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment adverse to the plaintiff, he appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts.
Reversed and remanded.
William C. McLean, for appellant.
1. Two of the jurors were related to the defendant. This was unknown to plaintiff until after the verdict had been returned. Worse than this, there was an actual concealment of the relationship by the jurors themselves; they were asked along with the entire panel if they were related to either party to the suit and answered that they were not, either affirmatively, or by failure to answer, diverting attention therefrom. This vitiates the verdict.
2. The verdict itself is conditional, invalid and will not support the judgment appealed from. It is manifest that the words of the verdict by which the jury undertook to apportion costs are not surplusage, but impose a condition on the finding, without which it cannot be said that a verdict for defendant would have been rendered; in fact, the language of the jury negatives the idea that such a verdict would have been returned.
3. There was absolutely no evidence tending to show that defendant's signature was fraudulently obtained to the note, and the instruction given for defendant to the effect that he was not liable, although he signed the note, if his signature was fraudulently obtained, is not predicated of evidence, and, of course, under many decisions of this court, is erroneous.
J. H. Barksdale, for appellee.
This case involves, simply and purely, a matter of fact, to be determined by a jury; the plea of non est factum presenting the controlling issue, and the jury decided for appellee. Davis had a fair trial and lost. No error of law was committed to his prejudice.
That part of the verdict attempting to apportion costs is mere surplusage. The jury had nothing to do with costs, a subject matter left entirely with the court. Code 1892, § 886.
Davis sued Searcy on a note, to which Searcy pleaded non est factum. Two relatives of Searcy, not disclosing their relationship when asked, were impaneled, and sat upon the case. There being no evidence whatever...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v. State
...in conjunction, it is clearly apparent that the juror was not an impartial juror, free and unbiased. 16 R. C. L. 77; Davis v. Searcy, 79 Miss. 292; v. State, 76 Miss. 515; Ledford v. State, 75 Ga. 856. B. H. Loving, of West Point, and Webb M. Mize, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.......
-
Mississippi Public Service Co. v. Colder
...party litigant makes the juror incompetent. There are very few cases in this jurisdiction upon the question. In the case of Davis v. Searcy, 79 Miss. 292, 30 So. 823, this court passed upon the relationship of a juror to one the parties as it affects the verdict. It held that relatives of S......
-
Jackson v. Board of Mayor and Aldermen of Town of Port Gibson
...This was error. Relationship to a party to the suit creates such implied bias or prejudice as will disqualify a juror. Davis v. Sarcy, 79 Miss. 292, 30 So. 823; Garner v. State, 76 Miss. 515, 25 So. Of course, neither the juror nor his father would have to pay the judgment rendered by the j......
-
National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Williams
... ... elementary that giving an instruction which assumes a theory ... of the facts of which there is no evidence is reversible ... Davis ... v. Searcy, 79 Miss. 292, 130 So. 823; Mayor, etc., Town ... of Hickory v. Semmes, 123 Miss. 436, 86 So. 272; 14 R ... C. L. 927, sec. 103 ... ...