20 Iowa 505 | Iowa | 1866
It is to be noted, that it is tbe plaintiff and not tbe defendant who appeals. And tbe plaintiff complains of tbe action of tbe court wbicb resulted in reducing tbe amount of the verdict against bim from $283.50 to $12.
In tbe record before us be has no evidence, no exceptions to rulings upon tbe trial, nothing to show that be could have escaped from a judgment for $283.50, if tbe court bad not taken the precise course that it did. Tbe action of tbe court benefited bim, and it seems not a little ungracious in him to make it tbe subject of complaint.
Tbe amount of tbe notes was not a subject in dispute, and hence, it was overlooked. Tbe mistake was a very natural one. The jury asserted it. Tbe court was satisfied of it. Tbe plaintiff did not attempt to negative it by tbe affidavit of jurors (wbicb be took upon other points), or in any other way.
Tbe correction in tbe verdict consists simply (as a computation shows) in deducting tbe amount of tbe notes sued on and interest thereon from tbe first verdict.
They conversed with no one prior to the sealing and delivery to the bailiff of their verdict; and even after that, with no one, so far as shown, upon the merits of the case.
And it is not essential, even if it be proper, that the record should have been signed by Judge Nourse, the successor of Judge Gray.
Affirmed. '