Case ID: us_1/html/0434-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McKean, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patton v. Caldwell.
    
      Special verdict.
    
    Where several suits had been instituted on a policy of insurance, and an agreement had been' signed by all the underwriters, to bo bound by one verdict, it was ruled, that a special verdict given in that action might, be read as evidence, in a suit against another of the underwriters, though not as conclusive.
    This was an action on a policy of insurance, upon the trial of which, Lewis, for the plaintiff, offered to read in evidence a special verdict that had been given in another action upon the same policy, but against a different underwriter. Sergeant and Lngersoll objected, that the verdict was given between other parties, and therefore, not admissible ; upon which Lewis proved an agreement of all the underwriters to be bound by one verdict.
   McKean, Chief Justice.

The objection turns upon this principle, that the defendant had no opportunity of cross-examining, upon the former trial; and the answer is, that he, with the rest of the underwriters, had agreed to be bound by one verdict; which is certainly the only ground for offering the evidence proposed by the plaintiff’s counsel.

“’Whether this agreement was made in person, or by a broker mutually employed, it is equally binding on the parties ; and, under the agreement, all the underwriters were fully entitled to' interfere upon the former trial, and to cross-examine the witnesses then produced. Although, therefore, we should not have allowed the special verdict to be read, without full proof of the agreement; yet, on receiving that satisfaction, we think it would be unfair to suppress it; and, for the future, we desire, that all such agreements may be entered on the records of the court.

The admission of this evidence, however, cannot be conclusive ; as it is manifest, that testimony has been given on the present occasion, different from what was given on the former; and, consequently, a very different verdict may, with great justice and propriety, take place, 
      
       See Hostetter v. Kaufman, 11 S. & R. 146; Brindle v. McIlvaine, 10 Id. 382; McKinney v. Crawford, 8 Id. 851; Simonton v. Boucher, 2 W. C. C. 473.