Case ID: f_145/html/0964-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HOLLAND, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ELLIOTT v. GILMORE et al.
    (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
    May 17, 1906.)
    No. 60.
    Trial — Amendment op Verdict jiy Court — Addition or Interest.
    A verdict may lie íUiiemlcd by Hie court by the addition ol' interest -where, it is conclusively shown by the affidavit of all of the jurors that it was their intention that interest should be computed on the amount awarded from a prior date.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, § 799.]
    On Motion to Amend Verdict.
    Keator & Johnson, for plaintiff.
    Albert B. Weimer and John G. Johnson, for defendants.
   HOLLAND, District Judge.

It is very evident that the jury in this case intended to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $2,500, with interest from the 1st day of July, 1902, to the date of the rendition of the verdict, which was April 20, 1906, so that the verdict should have been for $3,070.40 instead of $2,500. The verdict was rendered late in the day, and the jury separated. The following day, however, all the jurors signed an affidavit that it was their intention that the verdict should be for $2,500, with interest thereon from July 1, 1902. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion íhat the court is authorized to correct the verdict to conform to the intention of the jury. Burlingame v. Central Railway (C. C.) 23 Fed. 706; Cope v. Kidnev, 115 Pa. 228, 8 Atl. 836; Murphy v. Stewart, 43 U. S. 263, 11 L. Ed. 261.

The order of the court, therefore, is that judgment he entered in favor of the plaintiff, Thomas R Elliott, and against the defendants, John O. Gilmore and Charles 4'. Schoen, for the sum of $3,07'0.40.