Case ID: tenn_5/html/0474-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee CüRIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen Anderson v. William Anderson.
    
      [Defective Verdict. — Plea of Set-off. — New Trial.']
    
   Pee CüRIAM.

An action was commenced in Jackson County, by William Anderson against Stephen Anderson, on a plea of debt, that he render to him the sum of $625, &c. * The defendant prays.oyer, and on the docket put in the pleas payment and set-off; on which there were issues joined. After several continuances a jury was impaneled at September term, 1817, and sworn to speak the truth, on the issue joined ; and on their oath said that the defendant hath not paid the sum of $625, as the plaintiff against him hath complained, and by reason thereof they assess the plaintiff’s damages to $136.13-1- for detention of said debt. On this verdict, judgment was entered for the plaintiff.

The error alleged is, that the verdict is only on the issue of the payment and nothing found respecting the set-off; that the court ought not to have rendered judgment on this finding, but should Rave directed a new trial on both issues. The record was filed in this office on the' 1st of December, 1817. The term commenced on the 15th ; the defendant in error prayed the court to dismiss the appeal or writ of error, because the appellant had not brought up the record 15 days before the term agreeably to the rules of practice heretofore established. See rules 21, 22, Tennessee Reports, 524 ; We are of opinion that there is no part of those rules which authorizes a dismission of the appeal brought up by the plaintiff within 15 days next before the term, he assigning errors on the first day of the term or before.

As to the verdict which finds one only of the issues, it is imperfect; for though the defendant hath not paid the money due by the bond, he may have a set-off of an equal or a greater amount. And of this the jury hath not informed us whether it exist or not, and until that be done we cannot give judgment upon any certain ground. 2 R. Ab. 722; 5 C. D. “ Pleader,” Sig.; Co. Lit. 227 a.

Reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court, and remand the cause to be tried de novo.

See Carr v. Stevenson, 5 Hum. 559; and authorities collected in King’s Digest, 9490 et seq.