Gates v. Scott
| Citation | 24 N.E. 257,123 Ind. 459 |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1890 |
| Docket Number | 14,131 |
| Parties | Gates v. Scott |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From the Huntington Circuit Court.
Judgment is reversed, at costs of appellee, with instructions to overrule the demurrer to the complaint, and for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
T. G Smith, for appellant.
B. F Ibach, for appellee.
This was an action to review a judgment. The facts material to be considered in determining the question presented may be briefly stated as follows:
The appellant brought suit against the appellee to recover money collected by him as an attorney, on notes placed in his hands for collection, which he failed to pay over on proper demand. The cause was put at issue, by answer in denial, and a plea of payment denied by the plaintiff. The cause was submitted to a jury for trial.
The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for $ 149.
Also answered two interrogatories, as follows:
Answer. "Yes."
2. "What was said when the demand was made?"
Ans. "'How soon can you make collection?'"
The defendant moved the court for judgment in his favor on the answers to interrogatories, and the court sustained the motion. To which ruling of the court the plaintiff, at the time, excepted.
Within the proper time this action was brought to review the judgment for error of law. The complaint for review fairly presents this ruling of the court as a cause for review.
The appellee demurred to the complaint for review, the cause of demurrer being want of facts to constitute a cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer. The appellant declined to answer, and the court rendered judgment on demurrer for the appellee.
If the court erred in sustaining the appellee's motion, in the former action, for judgment on the answers to interrogatories, then the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint in this action for review. That the court did err in its ruling in sustaining the motion is so evident that it hardly seems necessary to point out the error, or cite authorities in conflict with such ruling.
It is a well-settled rule that a judgment will be rendered on answers to interrogatories only when they are in direct conflict and irreconcilable with the general verdict. City of Greenfield v. State, ex rel., 113 Ind. 597, 15 N.E. 241; McClure v. McClure, 74 Ind. 108; Kuhns v. Gates, 92 Ind. 66; McComas v. Haas, 107 Ind. 512, 8 N.E. 579.
It is also well settled that when answers to interrogatories are inconsistent and antagonistic to each other the general verdict remains unimpaired, and controls the judgment. Grand Rapids, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ellison, 117 Ind. 234, 20 N.E. 135; Wabash R. W. Co. v. Savage, 110 Ind. 156, 9 N.E. 85; Grand Rapids, etc., R. R. Co. v. McAnnally, 98 Ind. 412.
If the answers to both of the interrogatories under consideration can be properly considered they do no more than to contradict each other. The first finds that there was a demand made for payment; the second, if it means anything, is to the effect that the plaintiff, instead of demanding payment of defendant of the money collected, inquired of him how soon he could make collection on the notes, and is, in effect, answering that no demand was made, and is inconsistent with the first answer; but the last interrogatory, and answer thereto, are improper, and the interrogatory should not have...
To continue reading
Request your trial