Case ID: scl_49/html/0314-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DUNKiN, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Z. W. Carwile, Commissioner in Equity, vs. W. H. Harvey and others.
    
      New Trial— Verdict against evidence.
    
    In an action on bond, where no evidence is given by the defendant, a verdict for only one-fourtli of the debt is in violation of law, and a new trial will be ordered.
    BEFORE GLOVER, J., AT EDGEFIELD, SPRING TERM, 1868.
    The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows :
    “ The plaintiff sued in debt, on a bond dated November ■5, 1860, with a condition to pay nine hundred and forty-eight dollars and seventy cents, twelve months after date, with interest from January 1, 1861. The jury found three hundred and fifty-six dollars and fifty-two cents for the plaintiff.”
    The plaintiff appealed, and now moved this Court for a new trial, on the ground:
    That the jury scaled the plaintiff’s demand, finding for him only .three hundred and fifty-six dollars and fifty-two cents — one-fourth of the principal and interest due — without evidence, and contrary to Judge’s charge.
    
      Bonham, for the motion.
    In this case, the action was debt on a bond to the Cóm-missioner in Equity, to secure the purchase-money of a tract of land. It affords an instance of a gross violation by the jury of the legal rights of the plaintiff, and of the parties be represents. Munro vs. Gardiner, 1 Mill, 328; Gity Council vs. Talch, 4 Eich. 299; McNair vs. S. C. R. R. Co., 10 Eich. 284.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

DUNKiN, C. J.

The presiding Judge reports that the plaintiff sued on a bond dated 5th November, 1860, with a condition to pay nine hundred and forty-eight dollars and seventy cents, twelve months after date, with interest from January 1st, 1861. The consideration of the bond was to secure the purchase-money of a tract of land sold by the Commissioner in Equity. No evidence was offered by the defendant. The jury, contrary to the charge of the presiding Judge, found for the plaintiff a verdict of three hundred and fifty-six dollars and fifty-two cents, being one-fourth of the principal and interest due on the bond.

A motion for a new trial is submitted on the ground that the verdict is in violation of law and against the evidence.

The motion is granted. See Carmichael vs. Buck, (12 Rich. 460.)

Wardlaw and Istglis, A. JJ., concurred.

Motion granted.