Case ID: ohio_2/html/0317-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Brice J. Sterret v. John Creed.
    Verdict against plaintiff in error for $10,953 no remittitur. Judgment for $6,600, no ground to reverse judgment.
    This was a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Fair-field county, reserved for decision here by the Supreme Court sitting in that county. The principal and only material error assigned was that the judgment did not agree with the verdict. It was an action on the case, by a subsequent against his immediate previous indorser, on a negotiable promissory note. The jury found a verdict for ten thousand nine hundred and fifty-three dollars; the judgment was for six thousand five hundred dollars, and the record contained no remittitur of any part of the damages assessed by the jury. The defendant sued the writ of error.
    Irwin, for plaintiff in error:
    It is the province of the jury, or of the court, by consent of the parties, to assess the damages. If the jury assess damages, not warranted by the proof in the case, the court may grant a new trial, but can not render judgment for any other sum than that found by the jury. To do so would, in fact, be a new assessment of damages. The question is not who is benefited, but have the court power? 4 Bac. 490.
    If judgment be rendered for a sum exceeding the amount of the award it is error. 2 Johns. Cas. 66.
    If the error assigned be the act of the court, it is immaterial whether it is beneficial or detrimental to the party assigning it. The judgment should be reversed. 8 Coke, 58; 1 Swift’s Dig. 791; 3 Bac. 772; Cro. Ja. 211; Cro. Eliz. 84.
    Ewing, for defendant in error;
    Writs of error, like other writs, are allowed for the purpose of redressing injuries, and only lie in favor of a party who has been injured by the erroneous judgment of an inferior court. And it is settled that a man shall not reverse a judgment for error, unless he can show that the error is to his disadvantage. F. N. B. 21, F.; 5 Rep. 29, 86.
    ^Before the statute of jeofails, the exceptions to this rule were, in cases where the form of the judgment was erroneous, as “ in mis ere cor dia,” instead of “ quod capiatur.” The reason for this was altogether technical and peculiar to the jurisprudence of the times, as explained in 8 Rep. 59. And it is to cases of this character that the authorities refer when they speak of the act of the court. He cited 2 Saund. 101; 3 Saund. 257; 2 Bac. 223; Yel. 45; 8 Johns. 76; 2 Johns. Cas. 66; 2 Johns. 46; 3 Caine, 218; 4 Term, 510; 4 Bibb, 182; Hard. 77.
   By the Court :

No case is cited to us; we have found none in which a judgment has been reversed for error manifestly beneficial to the party that asks the reversal. Had the plaintiff below, in this case, asked for a reversal we should .be bound to reverse; for, on the record, the judgment is to his prejudice. But the plaintiff in error has no ground of complaint. The cases cited by the counsel for the defendant in error, and the reason of the thing, unite in proving that a judgment ought not to be disturbed for an error beneficial to him who complains. He is not injured, so that his request is in contradiction to the allegations of the writ, that error has intervened to his prejudice. It is, in fact, to his advantage. There is a wide difference between a judgment in favor of a party and error in his favor. A man may be prejudiced by a judgment in his favor, where it is not for the thing he asks, or for less than he asks. But he never can be prejudiced by an error in his favor, such as rendering judgment against him for six thousand five hundred dollars, instead of ten thousand nine hundred and fifty-three dollars.

There may be cases where the court would feel justified in reversing a judgment for errors, apparently beneficial to the plaintiff in error. But this is not one of them. The judgment must be affirmed. 
      
      NoTE by the Editor. — That can not be assigned for error by which the party assigning it would gain, xii. 112, 210; xiii. 131. This rule not applicable to errors of the court, ii, Swan’s Prac. 1136, and casos cited.