Goyen v. Tracy
| Decision Date | 02 December 1919 |
| Parties | GOYEN v. TRACY ET AL. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County; J. W. Knowles, Judge.
Writ of review by Carrie May Goyen to reyiew a judgment against J. A Tracy and others. From judgment sustaining the writ, the named defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant Tracy sued the plaintiff here in the justice's court for money had and received by the defendant in the amount of $213.05. The present plaintiff by her answer denied every allegation in that complaint. At the trial, after the jury had retired to consider their verdict, they returned and asked the court to instruct them relative to the number required to agree upon a verdict, and the justice instructed them that threefourths of their number would be sufficient for that purpose. Afterwards they returned a unanimous verdict as follows: "We the jury in the above-entitled action find for the plaintiff."
Before the judgment was rendered, defendant there and plaintiff here objected to the rendition of any judgment in favor of plaintiff in that action except for costs and disbursements. This objection was overruled, and the justice of the peace entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for $213.05, the full amount claimed, together with costs and disbursements, taxed at $32.05. The defendant in that proceeding sued out this writ of review, alleging as error that the court had no right to render any judgment on such a verdict; that it erred in instructing the jury; and likewise that it was wrong to render judgment for costs and disbursements without the cost bill having been served. The circuit court sustained the writ and directed the defendant to restore to the custody of the justice's court the money realized by attachment and remanded the case for a new trial in the justice's court. The defendants in the review proceedings have appealed.
L Denham, of Elgin, for appellant.
R. J Green, of La Grande, for respondent.
BURNETT, J. (after stating the facts as above).
There is no merit in the objection that the cost bill was not served. It is not required. Egan v. North American Loan Co., 45 Or. 131, 139, 76 P. 774, 77 P. 392. If it was error at all, the instruction of the justice of the peace to the jury was harmless, for it appeared by the record that the verdict was unanimous. This being an action for the recovery of money, it is required by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fischer v. Howard
...jury can be deduced from it, and, in the absence of any objection at the time of its rendition, it was sufficient; * * *.' Goyne v. Tracy, 94 Or. 216, 185 P. 584, was an action at law for money had and received, which was instituted in a justice of the peace court. The jury's verdict read: ......
-
Hall v. Cornett
...recovery, the court should cause the jury to correct the verdict or should send the jury out again for further deliberations. Goyne v. Tracy, 94 Or. 216, 185 P. 584; McLean v. Sanders, 139 Or. 144, 7 P.2d Three Oregon cases have an important bearing upon this question, although none of them......
-
Klein v. Miller
...Code 1930, § 2-405. A verdict, which does not conform to this statute, confers no authority to render a judgment upon it: Goyne v. Tracy, 94 Or. 216 (185 P. 584). In the case at bar the verdict is not for the defendant. Its assessment of "no damages" nullifies its effect as a verdict in fav......
-
Marr v. Nagel, 5744
...court held as follows: 'A verdict which does not conform to this statute, confers no authority to render a judgment upon it. Goyne v. Tracy, 94 Or. 216, 185 P. 584. 'In the case at bar the verdict is not for the defendant. Its assessment of 'no damages' nullifies its effect as a verdict in ......