6 How. Pr. 492 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1852
This was an action to recover money only, and in such cases, the jury in their discretion, may render a general or special verdict {Code, § 261). But .the court may require the jury “ to find upon particular questions of fact” {id). And this finding controls the general verdict {id. § 262). It is not necessary, in this case, to decide whether the court, where a trial by jury is waived, may make a general decision, without finding all the issues, separately. In strictness, as I understand the old practice, although in many cases, a general verdict was taken; yet, particularly where there were different causes of action, or where the finding upon one issue did not necessarily dispose of all of the rest, the issues were, as a general rule, all passed upon (1 Burr. Pr. 236; Van Benthuysen vs. DeWitt, 4 J. R. 213; Graves vs. Morley, 3 Lev. 55; Patterson vs. U. S., 2 Wheat. R. 22; Hanna vs. Mills, 21 Wend. 90; Boynton vs. Page, 13 id. 425; 3 Chitt. Gen. Pr. 476-7; and see Moore vs. Butlin, 7 Ad. & E. 595; 1 Saund. R. 27, 28, n. d., 6 ed.). That would seem to be correct practice under our new system of pleading.
Where all the issues are referred, the prevailing party need not give notice of the report, or furnish a copy of it. Judgment is of course {Code, §278, 272).
Perhaps the report could be amended, nunc pro tunc, but this might deprive the defendant of his appeal. The report must be corrected, and a new judgment can then be entered up thereupon.
Ordered accordingly.