North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Braithwaite

Supreme Court of Dakota

North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Braithwaite

34 N.W. 68, 4 Dakota 454, 1887 Dakota LEXIS 18

CourtSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota

DecidedMay 26, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 N.W. 68 (North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Braithwaite) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Braithwaite, 34 N.W. 68, 4 Dakota 454, 1887 Dakota LEXIS 18 (dakotasup 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Francis, J.

This was an action in the nature of an action in claim and delivery to recover the possession of certain personal property consisting of boots, shoes, etc., or the value thereof in case a delivery could not be had, and damages for the detention thereof.

On the trial the jury rendered the following verdict: “We, the jury, find in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and that the defendant is entitled to the return of the property mentioned and described in the complaint, or if a return thereof cannot be had, that he recover from the plaintiff the sum of 82,700, which sum we find to have been the value of said property on the day the plaintiff took the same, viz., January 26, 1885, together with 8228.37 interest thereon from January 26, 1885, to this date, April 9, 1886, at seven per cent, making in all the sum of 82,928.37.

The motion for a new trial was made and denied pro forma by the court, without argument.

April 9, 1886, judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict.

The highest value of the goods in question, proved in the evidence, was 82,316.11. The variance between the proof, as to the value, 82,316.11, and the verdict of the jury fixing the value at 82,700 was not called to the attention of the court at the time the jury rendered their verdict and before they were discharged.

[455]*455Such, matters should always be brought to the knowledge of the court before the jury is discharged, in order that the verdict may be corrected while it is the power of the ' court to have such correction made. Much unnecessary litigation and cost may be saved thereby, and often, hardship or injustice prevented.

The judgment of the district court is reversed and a new trial ordered, unless both parties consent to a modification of the judgment, by reducing to the sum of $2,316.11, together with interest thereon from January 26, 1885, to-April 9, 1886, at seven per cent, $195.00, making in all the sum of $2,511.11.

All the justices concurring.

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

Francis, J.

This was an action in the nature of an action in claim and delivery to recover the possession of certain personal property consisting of boots, shoes, etc., or the value thereof in case a delivery could not be had, and damages for the detention thereof.

On the trial the jury rendered the following verdict: “We, the jury, find in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and that the defendant is entitled to the return of the property mentioned and described in the complaint, or if a return thereof cannot be had, that he recover from the plaintiff the sum of 82,700, which sum we find to have been the value of said property on the day the plaintiff took the same, viz., January 26, 1885, together with 8228.37 interest thereon from January 26, 1885, to this date, April 9, 1886, at seven per cent, making in all the sum of 82,928.37.

The motion for a new trial was made and denied pro forma by the court, without argument.

April 9, 1886, judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict.

The highest value of the goods in question, proved in the evidence, was 82,316.11. The variance between the proof, as to the value, 82,316.11, and the verdict of the jury fixing the value at 82,700 was not called to the attention of the court at the time the jury rendered their verdict and before they were discharged.

[455]*455Such, matters should always be brought to the knowledge of the court before the jury is discharged, in order that the verdict may be corrected while it is the power of the ' court to have such correction made. Much unnecessary litigation and cost may be saved thereby, and often, hardship or injustice prevented.

The judgment of the district court is reversed and a new trial ordered, unless both parties consent to a modification of the judgment, by reducing to the sum of $2,316.11, together with interest thereon from January 26, 1885, to-April 9, 1886, at seven per cent, $195.00, making in all the sum of $2,511.11.

All the justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.W. 68, 4 Dakota 454, 1887 Dakota LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-star-boot-shoe-co-v-braithwaite-dakotasup-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack