72 Ala. 527 | Ala. | 1882
Caldwell and Riddle jointly brought an action for a mule, against Fennell. The suit was under the statute which provides for the recovery of chattels in specie; and the plaintiffs having complied with the statute, by making oath that the property belonged to them, and by giving bond, obtained an order for the seizure of the property, and it was seized. Thereupon, St. Clair made claim to the property, under the statute, and a trial of the right to the property was then had between Caldwell and Riddle as plaintiffs, and St. Clair as claimant. The hour of adjournment having arrived, while the jury were considering of their verdict, counsel, in open court, agreed that the clerk might receive the verdict in the absence of the court. The verdict wai brought in during the recess of the court, and was received by the clerk, and the jury permitted to disperse. The verdict was in the following "form: “We, the jury, find a verdict in favor of plaintiff Rid-
As a rule, there is no particular form in which verdicts shall be rendered. General verdicts are always sufficient, if ■ they respond in substance to every material fact involved in the issue. And doing this, the court commits no error by putting the verdict in form. The verdict may be either written or oral, and it is always sufficient, if it respond substantially to the questions of right the issue or issues raise. All else is form, which the court can supply with or without the consent of the jury.—Ewing v. Sandford, 21 Ala. 157.
It is different when the verdict is imperfect in substance, and does not respond affirmatively, or by necessary implication, to the issues as formed. Such verdict is imperfect, not in form, but in substance. The presiding judge should not receive an imperfect verdict, but should remand the jury for further deliberation, under appropriate instructions. If the court were to attempt to aid such verdict, it would become, not the verdict of the jury, but of the court.—Lee v. Campbell, 4 Por. 198; Sewell v. Glidden, 1 Ala. 52; Layman v. Hendrix, Ib. 212; Wittick v. Traun, 27 Ala. 562; Clay v. The State, 43 Ala. 350; Walters v. Jenkins, 16 Serg. & R. 414; Proffatt on Jury Trials, § 456.
The ’ present action being by Caldwell and Riddle, suing jointly, the paramount fact to be found by the jury, to sustain their action, was their joint ownership of the mule. They had sued jointly, and, as the pleadings stood, must recover jointly,, or not at all. Hence, when the jury returned a verdict that Riddle was entitled to recover, they did not respond to the issue before them, and no judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, or either of them, could be rendered upon it.
Could the court, three days afterwards, re-assemble the jury, and have them perfect their verdict ?' It would be a dangerous practice, and might lead to great abuse.—Walters v. Jenkins,
Reversed and remanded.
