Thornton v. Boggs, 41090.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1931
• Docket Number: No. 41090.,41090.
• Citation: Thornton v. Boggs, 213 Iowa 849, 239 N.W. 514 (Iowa 1931)
• Parties: THORNTON v. BOGGS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

213 Iowa 849

239 N.W. 514

THORNTON

v.BOGGS.

No. 41090.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 17, 1931.

Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; B. O. Tankersley, Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant to recover rent alleged to be due for the use of a certain farm.This action was aided by a landlord's attachment.By way of answer, the defendant interposed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract.A jury returned a verdict for the defendant, fixing the recovery at $196.19.Thereafter the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and the district court granted that relief.From this ruling, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

W. D. Kearney, of Marshalltown, for appellant.

M. M. O'Bryon and E. N. Farber, both of Marshalltown, for appellee.

KINDIG, J.

Some time before March 1, 1928, Mary L. Thornton, the plaintiff-appellee, leased to the defendant-appellant, J. P. Boggs, eighty acres of land in Marshall county.Possession of the farm was taken by appellant on March 1 of that year.

It is claimed that appellant did not pay all the rent due, and on February 14, 1930, the appellee commenced this action to recover such unpaid rent.By way of answer, the appellant first denied the allegations of appellee's petition; and, second, filed a counterclaim for $342, alleged to be due him because the appellee failed to comply with the terms of the lease.

A trial was had to a jury, which returned a verdict denying the appellee anything on her petition, but allowing the appellant $196.19 on his counterclaim.Thereafter, on October 9, 1930, the appellee filed a motion for a new trial, alleging therein, among other grounds, that the jury returned a quotient verdict.Accordingly the district court sustained the motion, and granted appellee a new trial.From this ruling of the court below, the appellant appeals.

[1][2][3] At the hearing on appellee's motion for a new trial, affidavits and testimony of certain jurors were taken.This evidence related to the manner in which the jury reached its verdict.Two of the jurors, as shown by the amended abstract, said that the fact finding body agreed beforehand that each juror should vote on the amount he thought the appellant should recover.Then the twelve amounts thus indicated were to be added together and the total divided by twelve.Such result, these witnesses say, was to be their verdict.Likewise, at least one of these jurors testified, that after such quotient verdict was reached, no further discussion followed.The foreman, these witnesses suggest, placed in the formal verdict the amount indicated by the foregoing quotient.Other jurors disputed this and said that the quotient...