Wood v. Jones

• Decision Date: 19 February 1930
• Docket Number: 12.
• Citation: 151 S.E. 732,198 N.C. 356
• Parties: WOOD v. JONES.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

151 S.E. 732

198 N.C. 356

WOOD v. JONES.

No. 12.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 19, 1930

Appeal from Superior Court, Pasquotank County; Sinclair, Judge.

Action by W. E. Wood against Avery Jones. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. New trial ordered. In the second issue submitted to the jury, the word "defendant" was used inadvertently by the parties instead of the word "plaintiff."

Where issue by inadvertence referred to contributory negligence of defendant instead of plaintiff, issue was ambiguous and prevented judgment on verdict, though jury found defendant negligent and assessed damages.

The issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:

"1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged? Answer: Yes.

"2. Did the defendant by his own negligence contribute to his injury? Answer: Yes.

"3. What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: $250.00."

The court below on the verdict as rendered gave judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant excepted and assigned error and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Ehringhaus & Hall, of Elizabeth City, for appellant.

Aydlett & Simpson, of Elizabeth City, for appellee.

CLARKSON J.

In the light of the record, we think the second issue ambiguous, and no judgment should have been rendered on the verdict. 27 R C. L., under ""Verdict," p. 858, part of § 30, speaking to the subject, says: "A verdict should be certain and import a definite meaning free from any ambiguity. The jury cannot find both for the plaintiff and the defendant on the same issue, as for instance, by a verdict giving the plaintiff damages and finding the defendant not guilty. And a verdict which is too uncertain or indefinite to be construed either as a general or special verdict may be rejected by the court as meaningless and of no effect." In Rankin v. Oates, 183 N.C. at page 518, 112 S.E. 32, it is said: "The court was without authority to reverse the jury's finding on the second issue, answer it himself, and then render judgment on the verdict as amended. Garland v. Arrowood, 177 N.C. 373, 99 S.E. 100; Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N.C. 163, 52 S.E. 666, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 174, 111 Am. St. Rep. 827; Hemphill v. Hemphill, 99 N.C. 436, 6 S.E. 201." See Batholomew v. Parrish, 186 N.C. 81, 118 S.E. 899; Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co., 187 N.C. 417, 121 S.E. 755; Alston v. Alston, 189 N.C. 299, 126 S.E. 737; ...