Wallingford v. Dunlap

• Decision Date: 09 September 1850
• Citation: 14 Pa. 31
• Parties: Wallingford <I>versus</I> Dunlap.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 31

14 Pa. 31

WallingfordversusDunlap.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

September 9, 1850.

ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny.

The case was argued by Thomas Williams, with whom was Kuhn, for plaintiffs in error.

McCandless for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered Sept. 9, by COULTER, J.

The judgment in the court below is founded partly on facts found by a special verdict, and partly on what the court say are undisputed facts.The court enumerates to the jury what are the undisputed facts, and directs them to find a special verdict on the disputed facts.The court say to the jury, "It is therefore agreed that you shall find a special verdict on the disputed facts, and that the court shall enter such judgment thereon, and on the facts not disputed, as the law requires."The paper book states that the jury returned negative answers to the two first points submitted to them, and then found specially, as to the disputed facts.

This proceeding is entirely anomalous.It is unknown, and unrecognised by the common law, or by the practice under the statute of Westminster the 2d, 13 Edw. 1, ch. 30, which in fact originated the special verdict, as it now exists.There did exist another species of special verdict, as where the jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff, subject, nevertheless, to the opinion of the court, on a special case, stated by the counsel, on both sides, on a matter of law: 3 Black. 378.But this proceeding has gone out of practice, perhaps never existed in Pennsylvania, and is nothing like the present case.A special verdict is where the jury find the facts of the case, leaving the ultimate decision of the cause upon those facts, to the court, concluding conditionally, that if upon the whole matter thus found, the court should be of opinion that the plaintiff had a good cause of action, they then find for the plaintiff, and assess his damages; if otherwise, then for the defendant: 3 Black 378;Boote on Suit at Law, 158.It is of the very essence of a special verdict that the jury should find the facts, on which the court is to pronounce judgment according to law;1 East 111;Lord Raymond 1581.And the court will not intend any thing, especially any fact not found by the jury; 1 Wilson 55; 1 Caine 60;20 Johns. Rep. 294.An instance of which is found in 11 Wheaton 445, where the assent of an executor is necessary, if the jury find a special verdict stating facts from which they might have inferred such assent, but do not find it expressly, the court cannot intend it.I apprehend there is no reported case, of any authority, where the court have gone beyond the facts found in the special verdict; for it is the province of the jury to judge of and find the facts, and the province of the court to declare the law on the facts so...