99 Mich. 504 | Mich. | 1894
Plaintiff sued defendants for a bill of merchandise. With the declaration was served an affidavit
“ 1. Was there any agreement made by plaintiff and defendant Charles R. Hawley for the return of any goods in question if they were not sold?
“ 2. If there was any agreement upon that subject, was the agreement between them that such of the goods designated as ‘ reefers ’ as defendants could not sell by the 1st day of January, 1892, could be returned by them to plaintiff?”
To each of these the jury answered, “Yes,” and they rendered a general verdict for $204.54, which, upon motion of plaintiff’s counsel, the court raised to $236.34.
It is contended that this action of the court was erroneous—
1. Because the court can consider only the pleadings, bill of particulars, and verdict in rendering a judgment.
2. Because the questions were ambiguous, and the general and special verdicts were not inconsistent.
3. Because, if there was an inconsistency, there was a mistrial.
The claim of the plaintiff is apparent from the bill of ■ particulars and affidavit, viz., $219.75, with 'interest from November 29, 1891, to July 10, 1893. Moreover, the charge states it at $240.06. It also states the amount of the claim upon defendants’ theory, viz., $204.55. The
The judgment must be affirmed.