Young v. Seymour

Nebraska Supreme Court

Young v. Seymour

4 Neb. 86

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 4 Neb. 86 (Young v. Seymour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. Seymour, 4 Neb. 86 (Neb. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Maxwell, J.

The only question presented by the bill of exceptions is whether the verdict rendered in the case is a public or privy verdict.

Sec. 290, of the code of civil procedure, provides that “when the jury have agreed upon their verdict, they must be conducted into court, their names called by the clerk, and the verdict rendered by the foreman. When the verdict is announced, either party may require the jury to be polled, which is done by the clerk asking each juror if it is his verdict. If any one answer in the negative, the j ury must again be sent out for further deliberation.” Sec. 291, provides that “the verdict shall be written, signed by the foreman, and read by the clerk to the jury, and the inquiry made whether it is their verdict. If any juror disagree, they must be sent out again, but if no disagreement be expressed, and neither party require the jury to be polled, the verdict is complete and the jury discharged from the case.”

Blackstone says “a verdict vere dictum is either privy or public. A privy verdict is where the judge hath left or adjourned the court, and the jury being agreed, in order to be delivered from their confinement, obtain leave to give their verdict privily to the judge out of court, which privy verdict is of no force unless afterwards affirmed by a public verdict, given openly in court, where[90]*90in the jury may, if tbey please, vary from the privy verdict; so that a privy verdict is indeed a mere nullity. 3 Blackstone, 377. And it is held that a sealed verdict partakes of all the characteristics of a privy verdict, and is no verdict of itself, but must be affirmed by tbe jury in open court.

The verdict in this case is clearly a privy verdict, and of no force and validity unless affirmed by the jury in open court. The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed and a new trial granted. ' '

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Gantt, concurred. Mr. Chief Justice Lake, having tried the cause in the court below, did not sit.

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

Maxwell, J.

The only question presented by the bill of exceptions is whether the verdict rendered in the case is a public or privy verdict.

Sec. 290, of the code of civil procedure, provides that “when the jury have agreed upon their verdict, they must be conducted into court, their names called by the clerk, and the verdict rendered by the foreman. When the verdict is announced, either party may require the jury to be polled, which is done by the clerk asking each juror if it is his verdict. If any one answer in the negative, the j ury must again be sent out for further deliberation.” Sec. 291, provides that “the verdict shall be written, signed by the foreman, and read by the clerk to the jury, and the inquiry made whether it is their verdict. If any juror disagree, they must be sent out again, but if no disagreement be expressed, and neither party require the jury to be polled, the verdict is complete and the jury discharged from the case.”

Blackstone says “a verdict vere dictum is either privy or public. A privy verdict is where the judge hath left or adjourned the court, and the jury being agreed, in order to be delivered from their confinement, obtain leave to give their verdict privily to the judge out of court, which privy verdict is of no force unless afterwards affirmed by a public verdict, given openly in court, where[90]*90in the jury may, if tbey please, vary from the privy verdict; so that a privy verdict is indeed a mere nullity. 3 Blackstone, 377. And it is held that a sealed verdict partakes of all the characteristics of a privy verdict, and is no verdict of itself, but must be affirmed by tbe jury in open court.

The verdict in this case is clearly a privy verdict, and of no force and validity unless affirmed by the jury in open court. The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed and a new trial granted. ' '

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Gantt, concurred. Mr. Chief Justice Lake, having tried the cause in the court below, did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Neb. 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-seymour-neb-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack