Gray v. Gardiner
| Decision Date | 31 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 6597,6597 |
| Citation | 92 Ariz. 208,375 P.2d 562 |
| Parties | Hollis GRAY, Appellant, v. Laurabel GARDINER and Mary Jane Gardiner, Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Harry A. Stewart, Jr., Phoenix, for appellant.
Moore & Romley, Phoenix, for appellees.
PATTERSON, W. E., Superior Court Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellees brought suit against defendant-appellant for damages alleged to have arisen from defendant's breach of a contract to clear and level certain farmland. Plaintiffs prayed for damages for rents lost on the farmland, for the cost of re-leveling a portion thereof, and for the cost of leveling and clearing another portion which they alleged the defendant had agreed to clear and level for the contract price but had not, this latter item of damages amounting to $630.
Defendant filed a counterclaim for the balance alleged due for certain services in clearing ditches in the amount of $225.
After the cause was submitted, the jury returned verdicts as follows:
'We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our oaths, do find for the Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' Complaint and against the Defendant and assess Plaintiffs' damages in the sum of $ no money.'
'We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our oaths, do find for the Defendant on Defendant's counter claim and against the Plaintiffs and assess Defendant's damages in the sum of $ none.'
When the verdicts were received in open court and recorded by the clerk, the plaintiffs moved for a mistrial. The court took the motion under advisement and ordered oral arguments to be presented on the 20th day of June, 1957. On June 27, 1957, the court set aside the verdicts and granted the motion for a mistrial in language as follows:
'ORDER declaring mistrial of the above entitled matter.'
'FURTHER ORDER setting aside the verdicts and granting a new trial.'
Defendant appealed from the trial court's rulings, contending that the trial court erred in declaring a mistrial, setting aside the verdicts and granting plaintiffs a new trial for the reason that the verdicts returned by the jury were as a matter of law proper, were in proper form and judgment should be entered thereon.
The basic question is to determine whether or not the jury's verdicts may stand.
The issues tried in the lower court were based upon plaintiffs' complaint for damages for breach of contract and upon a counterclaim by defendant for balance due for services rendered. The jury found the issues in favor of plaintiffs on their complaint but awarded 'no money' for damages, although defendant admitted liability in the sum of $630. The jury also found the issues in favor of defendant on his counterclaim, but awarded '$ none' for balance due on account.
A patent inconsistency is created for the reason that it is impossible in this case to find the issues in favor of the plaintiffs and not assess some damages. Likewise, it is impossible to find the issues in favor of defendant and not to make an award in some amount. In view of the non-awarding verdicts, could the jury have offset plaintiffs' damages against defendant's damages and found nothing due each? We cannot answer this question, but mention the possibility to show the uncertainty created by the verdicts.
16 A.R.S. R. Civ. P. Rule 49(d) provides:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The jury's verdicts create uncertainty and do not comply with Rule 49(d).
Defendant has cited Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Mitchell, 80 Ariz. 50, 292 P.2d 827, wherein this Court held that the trial court has power to put a manifestly irregular or defective verdict in such form as to make it conform to the intention of the jury where the intention can be ascertained with certainty. Here, however, the intention of the jury remains uncertain, and that case does not assist the defendant's contentions.
This Court held in Ward v. Johnson, 72 Ariz. 213, 232 P.2d 960 that a jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants which assessed the former's damages as 'no dollars' was improper and could not stand. We indicated there that if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hansen
...a new trial. ¶ 7 Although a new trial typically follows the declaration of a mistrial, see Gray v. 237 Ariz. 65345 P.3d 120Gardiner, 92 Ariz. 208, 211, 375 P.2d 562, 564 (1962), there are situations that plainly illustrate both the distinct nature of these orders and the fact a new trial is......
-
Murray v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 2 CA–CV 2014–0123.
...P.3d 121resubmit a case to the jury where its verdict is clearly inconsistent, defective, or nonresponsive. See, e.g., Gray v. Gardiner, 92 Ariz. 208, 210, 375 P.2d 562, 563 (1962) ("patent inconsistency" where "impossible" to find issues in favor of either plaintiffs or defendant and not m......
-
Wilcox v. BNSF Ry. Co.
...v. State, 203 Ariz. 139, 142, ¶ 9 (App. 2002). We review rulings on motions for mistrial for abuse of discretion. See Gray v. Gardiner, 92 Ariz. 208, 210 (1962).DISCUSSION¶11 Plaintiff presented evidence at trial to support several theories of liability: (1) BNSF was negligent in not granti......
-
Carlson v. Locatelli
...P.2d 301, 308 (1959), cert. denied, Nelson v. New Mexico, 361 U.S. 877, 80 S.Ct. 142, 4 L.Ed.2d 115 (1959). But see Gray v. Gardiner, 92 Ariz. 208, 375 P.2d 562, 564 (1962) (declaration of mistrial is proper until judgment is rendered on the Although captioned an order declaring a mistrial,......