Smith v. Ireland

• Citation: 4 Utah 187,7 P. 749
• Court: Supreme Court of Utah
• Decision Date: 07 August 1885
• Parties: BEDELL SMITH, APPELLANT, v. ELWIN A. IRELAND, RESPONDENT

7 P. 749

4 Utah 187

BEDELL SMITH, APPELLANT, v. ELWIN A. IRELAND, RESPONDENT

Supreme Court of Utah

August 7, 1885

APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the first district and from an order refusing a new trial. The opinion states the facts.

Affirmed.

Messrs Williams & Renich, for the appellant.

Messrs Kimball & Heywood, for the respondent.

ZANE, C. J. EMERSON, J., and TWISS, J., concurred.

OPINION

ZANE, C. J.:

This is an action of claim and delivery, appealed from the first district court.

The defendant pleaded justification, as marshal, under an execution issued on a judgment against W. S. Hopson, in favor of Idleman Bros., and that the property described in the complaint was owned by Hopson, and by him sold to plaintiff before the levy, to hinder and delay Idleman Bros. and other creditors in the collection of their debts. Under the instructions of the court the evidence was submitted to a jury with directions to find on the following questions: 1st. Was Hopson, at the time of sale, indebted to Idleman Bros.? 2d. Did Hopson sell to plaintiff, to delay, hinder or defraud his creditors generally, in the collection of their debts, or the firm of Idleman Bros.? 3d. Did plaintiff, at the time of sale, have notice that Hopson was indebted to Idleman Bros., and that the sale was made to hinder and delay them in the collection of this debt? 4th. What was the value of the property taken by defendant? 5th. Is the defendant entitled to a return of the property described in the complaint?

To the fourth question the jury answered one thousand five hundred dollars; and to each of the others, simply "yes." When considered with respect to the question alone the second answer is quite indefinite; but, viewed with the other questions and answers, the intention of the jury is sufficiently clear. The plaintiff's counsel makes the point, that, the fifth interrogatory submitted a question of law to the jury. Section 1400 compiled laws of Utah, 1876, declares; "A general verdict is that by which they (the jury) pronounce generally upon all or any of the issues either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant; a special verdict is that by which the jury find the facts only, leaving the judgment to the court. The special verdict shall present the conclusions of fact as established by the evidence, and not the evidence to prove them; and those conclusions of fact shall be so presented as that nothing shall remain to the court but to draw from them conclusions of law." This statute contemplates three classes of verdicts. 1st, general; 2d, special; 3rd, general and special. A general verdict is a direct statement of a conclusion of law, and an indirect statement of the facts from which the conclusion is drawn; it expressly affirms the law and inferentially the facts. The jury are directed by the court to indicate the facts found from the evidence by the statement of a conclusion of law. If they believe certain facts, they are told to state a certain conclusion, and if they do not believe such facts to state another conclusion.

The court states the law applicable to the facts which the evidence tends to prove, and if the jury find the facts they state the conclusion as charged. In case of a general verdict, the court states the law applicable to the facts before they are found by the jury, and in a special verdict the jury find the facts first, and the court declares the law applicable to them afterwards. In either case, the jury judge of the facts and the court of the law. In the third class of verdicts, the jury state the conclusion of law applicable to the material facts as to which there is but little or no room for controversy, without mentioning them in their verdict, and specifically name the material facts mainly contested on the trial, without stating the conclusion of law applicable to them; the court reserves the right to make that statement after the finding of the jury.

There was no room for controversy as to the existence of the material facts of the case aside from those specifically found. The controverted facts essential to the conclusion of law, of which the fifth finding was a statement, were specifically stated in other findings. It was within the discretion of the court to direct a general or special verdict, or special as to the controverted facts and general as to those not controverted on the trial. We find no error in the submission of questions to the jury, or in the refusal to submit others requested by the plaintiff. And the...