Smith v. Jenks

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Smith v. Jenks

10 Serg. & Rawle 153, 1823 Pa. LEXIS 65

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 14, 1823

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 Serg. & Rawle 153 (Smith v. Jenks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Jenks, 10 Serg. & Rawle 153, 1823 Pa. LEXIS 65 (Pa. 1823).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This verdict is too uncertain — a judgment cannot be entered on it. The ejectment is for S acres of land. The jury find that the defendant is entitled to one third of the 41 acres, and 32 perches, and if any overplus, it goes to the plaintiff. What these 41 acres and 3.2 perches are, or where they lie, is unknown, or in what part of them the defendant is'to have his one third. Nor do the jury find whether there was any overplus, or whether any thing was in possession of the defendant which belonged to the plaintiffs. The court cannot say, from this finding, whether the defendant was guilty of any trespass. If the verdict was uncertain in itself, the court could not mend it, by sending out surveyors to carry into effect what they supposed to be the intent of the jury. ‘ They could but guess at their meaning. A verdict is not good, unless it carries certainty upon its face, or refers to things by which it may be rendered certain.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

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

Per Curiam.

This verdict is too uncertain — a judgment cannot be entered on it. The ejectment is for S acres of land. The jury find that the defendant is entitled to one third of the 41 acres, and 32 perches, and if any overplus, it goes to the plaintiff. What these 41 acres and 3.2 perches are, or where they lie, is unknown, or in what part of them the defendant is'to have his one third. Nor do the jury find whether there was any overplus, or whether any thing was in possession of the defendant which belonged to the plaintiffs. The court cannot say, from this finding, whether the defendant was guilty of any trespass. If the verdict was uncertain in itself, the court could not mend it, by sending out surveyors to carry into effect what they supposed to be the intent of the jury. ‘ They could but guess at their meaning. A verdict is not good, unless it carries certainty upon its face, or refers to things by which it may be rendered certain.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Serg. & Rawle 153, 1823 Pa. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-jenks-pa-1823.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack