Smith v. S & F Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 36578,36578 |
| Citation | 383 P.2d 300,62 Wn.2d 479 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Dale E. SMITH and Shirley M. Smith, husband and wife, Respondents, v. S & F CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Appellant. |
Cashatt, Williams, Connelly & Rekofke, Spokane, for appellant.
Fredrickson, Maxey & Bell, Leo H. Fredrickson, Spokane, for respondent.
This is an appeal on a short record from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the plaintiffs (respondents) in an action against the defendant (appellant) for the maintenance of a nuisance.
The only question presented by the defendant's statement of points and brief on appeal relates to whether the verdict of the jury was sufficient to support the judgment entered by the trial court. The defendant contends the trial court erred in extensively questioning the jurors after two jury polls had disclosed that only nine jurors, instead of ten, agreed with the verdict as read by the jury foreman.
The facts necessary to this issue are as follows:
After both parties rested their case, the court instructed the jury that when ten jurors could agree on a verdict they were to have it signed by the foreman and were to return with it to the court. Realizing the jury might deliberate until late afternoon or early evening before reaching an agreement, the parties stipulated that the verdict, as signed by the foreman, could be sealed and retained by him until the following morning when court reconvened. This the foreman did.
On the following morning, the court asked the foreman if a verdict had been reached, to which he answered affirmatively. The verdict was then read and the jurors polled, asking each one whether, first, this was his verdict and, second, that of the jury. Upon being polled, three of the jurors answered that it was not their verdict, but it was the verdict of the jury. By agreement of the parties, the jury was re-polled and the same three jurors reiterated their previous answers.
The defendant then moved the court to dismiss the jury and hold the verdict void. The motion was denied and the court proceeded to interrogate the foreman. In response to the court's questioning, the foreman said that ten jurors had agreed to the verdict the night before, as was evidenced by the fact that, when polled, all twelve jurors agreed to this effect. The trial judge then stated that he would try to 'see if the situation [could] be clarified.'
After examining one of the three dissenting jurors, the court asked juror No. 9, Mrs. Baker, if she had agreed to the verdict the night before, to which she answered affirmatively. The court then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tough v. Ives
...of a juror's response is not erroneous. See United States v. Brooks, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 147, 420 F.2d 1350, 1353; Smith v. S & F Construction Co., 62 Wash.2d 479, 383 P.2d 300; 5A Moore, Federal Practice (2d Ed.), p. 2239; notes, 71 A.L.R.2d 640, 25 A.L.R.3d 1149. Only when such inquiry is co......
-
Vance v. Enogex Gas Gathering, L. L.C.
...Nat. Bank & Trust v. Exchange Nat. Bank & Trust , 1973 OK CIV APP 7, ¶¶ 22–23, 517 P.2d 805 (quoting, Smith v. S & F Construction Co., Inc. , 62 Wash.2d 479, 383 P.2d 300 (1963) ; Turon v. J. & L. Const. Co. , 8 N.J. 543, 86 A. 2d 192 (1952) )¶ 19 The unsigned note does raise several possib......
-
Hawley v. Mellem
...the jury as to the intent of the verdicts. This the trial judge had authority to do. RCW 4.44.400, 4.44.460; Smith v. S & F Const. Co., Inc., 62 Wash.2d 479, 383 P.2d 300. Interrogation of the jury at this point would have either clarified beyond dispute any ambiguities relative to its inte......
-
Vance v. Enogex Gas Gathering, L.L.C.
...First Nat. Bank & Trust v. Exchange Nat. Bank & Trust, 1973 OK CIV APP 7, ¶¶ 22-23, 517 P.2d 805 (quoting, Smith v. S & F Construction Co., Inc., 62 Wash.2d 479, 383 P.2d 300 (1963); Turon v J. & L. Const. Co., 8 N.J. 543, 86 A. 2d 192 (1952)) ¶19 The unsigned note does raise several possib......