Elliott v. Gilmore

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Elliott v. Gilmore

145 F. 964, 15 Pa. D. 514, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4812

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 17, 1906

DocketNo. 60

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 145 F. 964 (Elliott v. Gilmore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott v. Gilmore, 145 F. 964, 15 Pa. D. 514, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4812 (circtedpa 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLLAND, District Judge.

It is very evident that the jury in this case intended to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $2,500, with interest from the 1st day of July, 1902, to the date of the rendition of the verdict, which was April 20, 1906, so that the verdict should have been for $3,070.40 instead of $2,500. The verdict was rendered late in the day, and the jury separated. The following day, however, all the jurors signed an affidavit that it was their intention that the verdict should be for $2,500, with interest thereon from July 1, 1902. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion [965]*965íhat the court is authorized to correct the verdict to conform to the intention of the jury. Burlingame v. Central Railway (C. C.) 23 Fed. 706; Cope v. Kidnev, 115 Pa. 228, 8 Atl. 836; Murphy v. Stewart, 43 U. S. 263, 11 L. Ed. 261.

The order of the court, therefore, is that judgment he entered in favor of the plaintiff, Thomas R Elliott, and against the defendants, John O. Gilmore and Charles 4'. Schoen, for the sum of $3,07'0.40.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOLLAND, District Judge.

It is very evident that the jury in this case intended to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $2,500, with interest from the 1st day of July, 1902, to the date of the rendition of the verdict, which was April 20, 1906, so that the verdict should have been for $3,070.40 instead of $2,500. The verdict was rendered late in the day, and the jury separated. The following day, however, all the jurors signed an affidavit that it was their intention that the verdict should be for $2,500, with interest thereon from July 1, 1902. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion [965]*965íhat the court is authorized to correct the verdict to conform to the intention of the jury. Burlingame v. Central Railway (C. C.) 23 Fed. 706; Cope v. Kidnev, 115 Pa. 228, 8 Atl. 836; Murphy v. Stewart, 43 U. S. 263, 11 L. Ed. 261.

The order of the court, therefore, is that judgment he entered in favor of the plaintiff, Thomas R Elliott, and against the defendants, John O. Gilmore and Charles 4'. Schoen, for the sum of $3,07'0.40.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F. 964, 15 Pa. D. 514, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-gilmore-circtedpa-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack