Snyder v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 09 September 1876 |
| Citation | 9 W.Va. 415 |
| Parties | RUAH ANN SNYDER, ADMX., v. A. J. W. SNYDER AND JACOB SNYDER. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
In a joint action upon a joint, or joint and several, instrument with process served upon all defendants before judgment, it is a long and well established rule that there must be a joint judgment, and it is error to render separate judgments but it is not a universal rule. Whenever a defendant pleads matter which goes to his personal discharge, such as bankruptcy, infancy, or any matter that does not go to the nature of the writ, or pleads, or gives in evidence, a matter which is a bar to the action against himself only, and of which the others could not take adavantage, judgment may be for such defendant and against the rest; and this rule is also subject to the exceptions prescribed by the nineteenth section of chapter one hundred and thirty-one in the Code of West Virginia.
A further exception to the rule of law that in a joint action there must be a joint judgment, is found in the fifty-second section of chapter one hundred and twenty-five of the Code of West Virginia.
In a joint action against A. J. W. S. and J. S. on a joint obligation and process served on each of them, A. J. W. S. confessed judgment which, as to him, a separate judgment was entered. J S. plead to the action and had a trial before a jury, and on verdict found against him at a subsequent term of the court, a separate judgment was entered against him on the verdict, from which he appealed to the Court of Appeals.--HELD:
1. The separate judgments were erroneous and should be reversed, and joint judgment entered against both A. J. W. S. and J S.
2. And further that the judgment entered on the " cognobit actionem" of A. J. W. S. did not merge the plaintiffs cause of action, so as to exonerate the said J. S.
3. A verdict in an action of debt, in which there are several issues, in these words, does respond to the issues, and is not so defective that judgment cannot be entered thereon.
Supersedeas to a judgment of the circuit court of Jefferson county rendered on the twenty-fifth day of April, 1872, in a cause therein pending, in which Ruah Ann Snyder, administratrix of Simon P. Snyder, was plaintiff, and said A. J. W. Snyder and Jacob Snyder were defendants, granted on the petition of said Jacob Snyder, plaintiff in error.
The facts fully appear in the opinion of the Court.
Hon. Ephraim B. Hall, judge of said circuit court presided at the trial below.
D. B. Lucas for plaintiff in error.
George W. Beltzhoover for defendant in error.
In the circuit court of Jefferson county, the defendant in error brought an action of debt against A. J. W. Snyder and Jacob Snyder, upon a bond executed by them to her intestate, for the sum of one thousand dollars. Process was duly served upon each of the defendants, declaration filed, and an office judgment had. At the next term of the court, the defendant, Jacob Snyder, filed four special pleas, to the first, third, and fourth of which, the plaintiff below entered demurrers, and replied generally to the second. The demurrers were overruled, and issue taken upon four of the special pleas. A jury was sworn, and rendered a verdict in the following words:
Thereupon the defendant, Jacob Snyder, moved the court to set aside the verdict, as contrary to evidence, and not responsive to the issues, and also because it found for the plaintiff, and assessed damages at a sum exceeding those laid in the writ and declaration; which motion the court continued until the next term of the court.
At the same term at which the trial was had before the jury, the other defendant appeared in open court, and confessed judgment for the debt in the declaration mentioned, subject to the credits endorsed on the obligation sued on, of $60, as of March 20, 1868, and $60, as of March 10, 1869; and judgment was entered on that confession for the sum of eleven hundred and eight dollars and thirty-three cents, and costs.
Afterwards, at a term of the said court, continued and held on the twenty-fifth of April, 1872, the court overruled the motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff released ten dollars for excess of interest allowed by the jury in the verdict, and asked for a judgment for $1,092, with interest from the date of the judgment.
Whereupon the defendant moved in arrest of judgment, and the court overruled said motion (no grounds for the motion are set out), and judgment was entered for the sum of $1,092, with interest and costs. To this judgment, Jacob Snyder has obtained a supersedeas, and brings the case to this Court for review.
The first error to be considered is, that the declaration is defective, because it does not show when the bond declared on was payable. It is claimed that the demurrer to the pleas goes back to the first error, and that is the error in the declaration. The description of the bond in the declaration is: " For that, whereas, the said defendants heretofore, and in the lifetime of said Simon P. Snyder, since deceased, to-wit: on the twenty-fifth day of March, 1867, by their certain writing obligatory, sealed with their seals, the date whereof is the day and year last aforesaid, acknowledged themselves to be held, and firmly bound, to the said Simon P. Snyder in the sum of one thousand dollars, with interest to be paid annually, above demanded, to be paid to the said Simon P. Snyder, or his heirs or assigns."
This bond, as described, would evidently be due, and payable, at its date. It would be the same as if it had been written payable on demand; and, although it may have been payable at a future time, as would be indicated by the expression, " with interest to be paid yearly," still, from the description given, it shows it was payable at its date, and does not show that it was not payable until a future period. The defendant might have craved oyer of the bond, and when produced, if it was payable at a future day, there would have been a variance, which might have been taken advantage of by demurrer; but this he did not do. I do not think the point is well taken.
The first error assigned in the petition is, that " the verdict is for more damages than are claimed in the writ and declaration, and is not responsive to the issues."
This is an action of debt, and the declaration demands the debt of $1,000, with interest, and $500 damages, for its detention. It is not like an action sounding in damages, where the recovery is limited to the amount of damages claimed in the writ and declaration. There certainly can be nothing in this point, because it does not fall within the rule that requires the party to claim damages equal to the amount that he may claim the right to recover; and no point of this kind would have been made, if the verdict had been in the usual form. The argument would, it seems to me, rest against the form of the verdict, so far as the question of damage is concerned. The counsel do not claim, directly, that the verdict is wholly defective; the most they say is, that it is incomprehensible. While it is very informal, I do not see that it is, necessarily, wholly defective, the jury find for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial