Henley v. Arbuckle

• Decision Date: 31 January 1850
• Citation: 13 Mo. 209
• Parties: HENLEY v. ARBUCKLE, GUARDIAN OF MOBERLY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

13 Mo. 209

HENLEY

v.ARBUCKLE, GUARDIAN OF MOBERLY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1850.

APPEAL FROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT.

This was an action of detinue, for six slaves, to which the defendant pleaded the former statute general issue, applicable to all actions; upon which there was a jury trial. The record contains a formal verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. From a bill of exceptions in the cause it appears, the jury returned a verdict in which they state that they find “the slaves (specifying them) to be the property of the plaintiff, as mentioned in the declaration,” and assess the value of each slave separately, and find nothing more. Before the jury were discharged the court inquired of them, whether they were willing the court should put their verdict into form, to which they assented, and were discharged before the attestation was made, and to which there was no objection. Afterwards the defendant moved for a new trial, because (among other reasons not applicable to this ground of objection), the jury returned no verdict upon which a judgment could be rendered. There was also a motion in arrest of judgment on account of defects in the original finding of the jury. These motions were overruled and final judgment was given in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed to this court.WINSTON, for Appellant. The point which I will urge to the court is, that the finding of the jury is not such an one as authorized the court to give judgment against the defendant. The jury did nothing more than find that the slaves sued for were the property of the plaintiff, and assess the value of them, without any specific finding against the defendant, and without any finding that the same ever had been in the possession of the defendant, or that he had detained them from the plaintiff. The issue joined was not whether the slaves were the property of the plaintiff, but whether or not the defendant unlawfully detained the slaves of the plaintiff, and the finding of the jury was only a part of the issue, and the court could not properly render a judgment against the defendant, unless the jury had found the entire issue against him. From all that appears from the finding, though the slaves belonged to the plaintiff, yet the defendant might never have been in the possession of them, and never have detained them from the plaintiff, and the court could not have presumed this in favor of the verdict, for the jury did not say in their verdict that they found for the plaintiff, or that they found against the defendant, but simply found the slaves sued for to be the property of the plaintiff and assessed the separate value of each, and this was all they did find. I will cite the court to the following authorities: 5 Mo. R. 52-3; 4 Mo. R. 446; 6 Mo. R. 52; 3 Mo. R. 390; 1 Mo. R. 183, 283, 300-1; 3 Mo. R. 275. All these cases establish the doctrine that a verdict must find all the issues, or the judgment will be arrested.

LEONARD & BALLOU, for Appellees. 1. A verdict may be amended in the Circuit Court, from the minutes, or even from the memory of the judge, and so this amendment may have been made upon sufficient grounds. Logan v. Ebden, 1 Burr. 383; Newcomb v. Green, 2 Strange, 1197; Mayo v. Archer, 1 Strange, 514; Petrie v. Hannay, 3 Term R. 659; Clark v. Lamb, 8 Pick. R. 416. 2. Whether it was or was not made on sufficient grounds, does not appear in the record. The application to amend, and the grounds upon which the amendment was made, are not preserved in the bill of exceptions, and the presumption therefore stands that it was rightly made....