Rice v. Manford

• Decision Date: 01 April 1887
• Docket Number: 12,534
• Citation: 11 N.E. 283,110 Ind. 596
• Parties: Rice v. Manford
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

11 N.E. 283

110 Ind. 596

Rice v. Manford

No. 12,534

Supreme Court of Indiana

April 1, 1887

Petitions for a Rehearing Overruled June 29, 1887.

From the Jefferson Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

J. M Keatinge and L. Howland, for appellant.

C. A Korbly and W. O. Ford, for appellee.

OPINION

Howk J.

In this case appellee sued appellant before a justice of the peace, of Jefferson county, upon an open account for goods sold and delivered by him to appellant, at his instance and request. The trial of the cause before the justice resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee. On an appeal to the court below, the cause was there tried by a jury, and a general verdict was returned for appellee, the plaintiff below. With their general verdict the jury also returned into court their special findings upon particular questions of fact, submitted to them by the parties under the direction of the court. Over appellant's motions (1) for judgment in his favor on the special findings of the jury, notwithstanding their general verdict, and (2) for a new trial, the court rendered judgment against him, in appellee's favor, for the damages assessed in the general verdict and the costs of suit.

Appellant has assigned here as error, that appellee's complaint herein does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint is substantially a common count for goods sold and delivered by appellee to appellant, at his special instance and request; and an itemized bill of particulars is filed with and made part of such complaint. It is very clear, therefore, that the complaint herein fully informed appellant of the nature of appellee's cause of action, and was so explicit in its statement of facts that a judgment thereon might be used as a complete bar to another suit for the same cause.

Where, as here, the suit was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, it is settled by our decisions that such a complaint is good, even when questioned by a demurrer for the want of sufficient facts, and good beyond any room for doubt when challenged for the first time by an assignment here, as error, that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Powell v. DeHart, 55 Ind. 94; DePriest v. State, ex rel., 68 Ind. 569; Beineke v. Wurgler, 77 Ind. 468; Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Zink, 92 Ind. 406; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Huff, 102 Ind. 535, 26 N.E. 85.

It is claimed on behalf of appellant, that the court below erred in overruling his motion for a judgment in his favor upon the special findings of the jury herein, notwithstanding their general verdict.

In section 547, R. S. 1881, which is substantially a reenactment of section 337 of the civil code of 1852, it is provided as follows: "When the special finding of facts is inconsistent with the general verdict, the former shall control the latter, and the court shall give judgment accordingly."

In the consideration of a motion for judgment upon the special findings of the jury, notwithstanding their general verdict, it is settled by our decisions that, while all reasonable presumptions will be indulged here in favor of the general verdict, nothing will be presumed in support of the special findings of facts. Cook v. Howe, 77 Ind. 442; Lassiter v. Jackman, 88 Ind. 118; Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Rowan, 104 Ind. 88, 3 N.E. 627.

In the decision of such a motion as the one under consideration, all the facts specially found by the jury must be construed together, for the purpose of ascertaining their true legal effect. If the facts so found, when thus construed, are so inconsistent with the general verdict that they can not be reconciled therewith on any reasonable hypothesis and are sufficient to support a judgment in favor of the moving party, then the facts so found will control the...