Case ID: wis_165/html/0346-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kerwin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alderson, Appellant, vs. Carmody and another, Respondents.
    
      March 15
    
    April 4, 1917.
    
    
      Trial: Special verdict: Changing findings: Replevin.
    
    Findings in a special verdict in an action of replevin are held, to tie supported by the evidence, and it was error for the trial court to change them.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Grant county: Geobge Clementson, Circuit Judge.
    
      Reversed.
    
    This was an action of replevin for a two-year-old steer brought in justice’s court, which resulted in judgment that the plaintiff and appellant was entitled to possession of the property, that the defendants unjustly took and detained the same, and tbat tbe damage was $1. Judgment was entered accordingly, from wbicb an appeal was taken to tbe circuit court, where tbe action was tried and tbe jury returned tbe following verdict:
    “(1) Was tbe steer tbat tbe defendants drove away from tbe cattle of tbe plaintiff upon tbe 6tb day of October last tbe steer of tbe plaintiff, Alderson? A. Yes.
    “(2) Was tbe steer tbat. tbe sheriff took possession of under tbe writ in this action and placed in the custody of James Oarmody and'took a receipt therefor from him, tbe same steer tbat tbe sheriff subsequently, on October 18th, took from James Carmody’s possession and gave to him a receipt therefor? A. No.
    “(3) Was tbe steer tbat tbe sheriff on October 18th took from James Oarmody and proffered to tbe plaintiff as bis, tbe same steer tbat tbe sheriff bad on October 8th replevied in this case? A. No.”
    Tbe plaintiff moved for judgment on tbe verdict and tbe defendants moved tbat tbe court change the answer to tbe first question to “No” and tbe answers to the second and third questions to “Yes,” and for judgment on tbe verdict as so amended. Tbe plaintiff’s motion for judgment was denied and tbe defendants’ motion granted.
    Judgment was entered accordingly in favor of the defendants, from wbicb this appeal was taken.
    
      Frank 0. Meyer and Harry H. Garthew, both of Lancaster, for tbe appellant.
    For tbe respondents there was a brief by Oleary & Oleary of Rlatteville, and oral argument by T. L. Oleary.
    
   Kerwin, J.

Tbe only question necessary to consider upon this appeal is whether tbe verdict was supported by tbe evidence. If it was, tbe court below was in error in changing tbe answers of tbe jury and in awarding judgment to tbe defendants. Careful examination of tbe evidence convinces us tbat there was ample evidence to support tbe verdict, and that the courts below committed error in changing the answers in the special verdict and denying the plaintiff’s motion for judgment upon the verdict as returned by the jury.

By the Court. — The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the action remanded with instructions to reinstate the answers in the special verdict as found by the jury, and render judgment for the plaintiff with costs.