Case ID: johns-cas_1/html/0399-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eagle against Alner.
    When a verdict is taken subject to the opinion of the court on points reserved, the plaintiff must make up the case, and have it settled, and cannot move for judgment, because no case is made.
    The right of proposing amendments to a case made, does not authorize the party to substitute a new case.
    On the trial of this cause a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on certain points which were reserved.
    
    No case having been settled, Miinro moved for judgment on the verdict.
    
      
      
         The practice of finding a general verdict for the plaintiff; subject to- the opinion of the court upon the whole case, is abrogated, and no verdicts.are permitted to be taken subject to the opinion of the supreme court, except where the parties shall agree on the facts proved, or where such fact shall be found by the jury. Gra. Prac. 2 ed, 330.
    
   Per Curiam.

It is incumbent on the plaintiff to make up the case, and if amendments are offered to have it settled. The points reserved must be disposed-of before, he can have judgment, and the motion is therefore denied.

On a representation of the proceedings of the parties relative to the case proposed to be made, The Court said, that where a case is mia.de by one party, and intended to be amended by the other, the right of amending will not authorize a new case to be made, by way of a substitute for the first.(a)

Rule refused. 
      
      ) Williard v. Hallett, I Caines’ R, 344. “ This rule, however, ought, perhaps, to be taken with some qualifications. If the case proposed should be so totally defective, either in manner, or matter, as to render it impossible to propose amendments, other- than by writing it anew, it would seem that the rule could not apply. The great object is, to present the case fairly to the court; and nq rule can exist, calculated to defeat that Object. Besides, a reference to the .case just cited, will justify the inference, that the rule is intended merely for the convenience of the judge, and to save- him the necessity of wading through two cases instead of one. This view has been taken of it, in several case, within my knowledge ; and in one cases, in particular, a feigned issue, Judge Edwards received amendments, proposed in this way on, account of the inaccuracy of the original case, and adopted them as the basis of the qase. Doe v. Roe, MS. April, 1831.” Gra. Prae. 2d edit. 332'.