Wainwright v. Satterfield
| Decision Date | 06 October 1897 |
| Citation | 52 Neb. 403,72 N.W. 359 |
| Parties | WAINWRIGHT v. SATTERFIELD. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. The sole fact that a verdict for plaintiff was for five dollars more than claimed by him in his petition does not justify the conclusion that the verdict is the result of the jury's passion or prejudice.
2. The statute has not changed the common-law rule that an excessive verdict might be cured by a remittitur, except in so far as to entirely vitiate such a verdict when it is made to appear that it is the result of the jury's passion or prejudice.
3. An excessive verdict in an action ex contractu may be cured by a remittitur, it not appearing that the verdict is the result of the jury's passion or prejudice.
Error to district court, Sarpy county; Keysor, Judge.
Action by William F. Satterfield against John A. Wainwright. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.George A. Magney and Jas. Hassett, for plaintiff in error.
Martin Langdon, for defendant in error.
In the district court of Sarpy county, Satterfield, executor, sued Wainwright to recover a sum of money which the executor claimed Wainwright borrowed of his testatrix, and which remained unpaid. The executor sued to recover the sum of $1,150, with 7 per cent. interest thereon from October 1, 1889. In addition to a general denial of the allegations of the executrix's petition, Wainwright pleaded that he had borrowed of the testatrix $700, and no more, and that he had repaid that sum to the testatrix. The executor had a verdict and judgment, to reverse which Wainwright prosecutes here a petition in error.
The only assignment of error which we think deserves serious attention in this opinion is that the damages awarded the executor by the jury are “excessive, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice,” and for this reason the court below should have awarded the plaintiff a new trial. As already stated, the executor claimed in his petition $1,150, with 7 per cent. interest from October 1, 1889. The jury found that there was due to the executor the sum of $1,155, with 7 per cent. interest from October 1, 1889. In other words, the jury awarded the plaintiff below $5 more than he claimed in his petition, and the plaintiff in error insists that this action of the jury shows that it was influenced by passion or prejudice. There is nothing in this record which tends to show that the finding of the jury is the result of passion or prejudice, unless we shall infer prejudice on the part of the jury from the simple fact that the verdict was $5 more than that claimed by the plaintiff. However, after an examination of this record, we conclude that the amount of the verdict was not the result of passion or prejudice on the part of the jury, but resulted from a mistake or oversight. The witnesses for the executor testified that the amount which Wainwright had borrowed or owed the testatrix was $1,155, and the jury placed this sum in its verdict, instead of the sum prayed...
To continue reading
Request your trial