Mccabe Lumber Co v. Beaufort County Lumber Co

• Citation: 121 S.E. 755
• Decision Date: 19 March 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 160.)
• Parties: McCABE LUMBER CO. v. BEAUFORT COUNTY LUMBER CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

121 S.E. 755

McCABE LUMBER CO.

v.BEAUFORT COUNTY LUMBER CO.

(No. 160.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 19, 1924.

(187 N. C.)

Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; Horton, Judge.

Action by the McCabe Lumber Company against the Beaufort County Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff in insufficient amount, it appeals. No error.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged trespass and for the wrongful cutting and removal of plaintiff's timber.

Upon denial of liability and issues joined, the jury returned the following verdict:

"(1) Is the plaintiff the owner of the land in controversy described in the amended complaint? Answer: Yes.

"(2) Has the defendant wrongfully trespassed on said land? Answer: Yes.

"(3) What damage is plaintiff entitled to recover by reaspn of said wrongful trespass? Answer: $10,800, with interest." (Later corrected to read $1,080, with interest.)

Plaintiff tendered judgment on the verdict as originally rendered, and objected to any correction or reformation of it by the jury. From the judgment rendered on the verdict as corrected, the plaintiff appeals.

R. A. Nunn and Guion & Guion, all of New-bern, for appellant.

Moore & Dunn, of Newbern, for appellee.

STACY, J; The single question presented by this appeal is whether the court acted without authority in permitting the jury to correct their finding after returning the verdict, and to make it speak what they had agreed and intended it should, or to reform it in accordance with what they actually found.

The material facts, briefly stated are as follows: The jury came into the court room about 12 o'clock.noon, and rendered their verdict as above set out. The issues were given to the clerk for recording. The court then excused the jury until after the noon recess. They separated and went out for dinner. About 2:00 p. m., just before the reconvening of court, several members of the jury approached the judge, and stated that a mistake had been made in the verdict, and they desired to correct it. Upon the opening of court for the afternoon session, his honor caused the jury to be reassembled in the box; and upon inquiry each and every juror stated that a mistake had been made in the answer to the third issue; that instead of being $10,800 it should have been $1,0S0. It was their finding that the plaintiff should be allowed $1 per 1, 000 feet cut, but the foreman in calculating the amount erroneously computed it on the basis of $1 per 100 feet. Whereupon the court, over plaintiff's objection, allowed the jury to retire with the issues, and to reform the answer to the third issue in accordance with their original agreement and understanding. Plaintiff objected, and tendered judgment on the verdict as originally rendered.

There is no suggestion of any tampering with the jury, or other improper influence having been exerted over them, between the time they first rendered their verdict and when they asked to be allowed to reform it Petty v. Rousseau, 94 N. C. 362.

It is firmly established in this state that jurors will not be allowed to attack or to overthrow their verdicts, nor will evidence from them be received for such purpose. Baker v. Winslow, 184 N. C. 9, 113 S. ' E. 570; Purcell v. R. R,, 119 N. C. 739, 26 S. E. 161; Johnson v. Allen, 100 N. C. 137, 5 S. E. 666; Jones v....