Case Name: Anderson v. Lane
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1869-11
Citations: 32 Ind. 102
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anderson v. Lane.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 102–104

Head Matter:
Anderson v. Lane.
Replevin.—Verdict.—In an action, of replevin, the propertymvolvedjíii te1 suit was. specifically described ih: the-complaint, and'was referred to in the. verdict as “said property.”
Held, that a more specific description, of the property in the verdict was unnecessary.
Same.—Assessment of Damages.—Harmless Error.—-Where,, in an. action of replevin, there is a verdict for the plaintiff," the defendant cannot complain of the failure of the jury to assess damages for the detention-, of the property.
Practice.—Evidence.—Bill of Exceptions.^-The question, whether a verdict was sustained by sufficient evidence or not, cannot be raised'! in the Supreme Court without a proper presentation, of all the evidence as it was given on. the trial;—a certificate by the judge of what the- evidence proved; or tended! to prove, as to- certain-questions of fact, is not sufficient-.
APPEAL from the Porten Common, Pleas.
Suit by tbe appellee against theappellant-,to recover certain personal property, specifically described in the complaint. Issues were formed and submitted for trial to- a jury, who» returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff; that at the time of the commencement of this-suit lie was. the owner, and, entitled-to.-the possession,of said property; that it was unlawfully detained by the defendant; that'it was of the value of seventy-five dollars; and that the plaintiff is damaged in the sum of $-by detention thereof.
(Signed) William Stoddard, Foreman.”
The appellant thei'eupon moved the court for a venire de novo, for the following reasons: “ 1. That the verdict does
not describe the property which it says was unjustly detained. 2. That the verdict does not find any damages, as alleged in the complaint.” Which motion was overruled.
A motion for a new trial was also made, and overruled. These rulings were severally excepted to, and judgment was rendered on the verdict.
The errors assigned are:
1. Overruling the appellant’s motion for a venire de novo.
2. Overruling the appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Opinion:
Elliott, J.
The motion for a venire de novo, was properly overruled. The property involved in the suit was specifically described in the complaint, and is referred to in the verdict as " said property." This refers to the property in suit, as described in the complaint, and is sufficient.
The failure of the jury to assess damages for the detention of the property did not injure the appellant, and he cannot, therefore, complain of it. It was a benefit to him, and not an injury, and hence he cannot claim a reversal of the judgment for such a reason.
One of the reasons urged for a new trial is, that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. This is the question discussed by the appellant's counsel under the'second error' assigned.
It is certified in a bill of exceptions that it contains all the evidence given in the cause. But this is an evident error, as the bill of exceptions does not, in fact, contain any part of the evidence, as given on the trial. It simply contains a certificate by the judge of what the evidence proved, or tended to prove, as to certain questions of fact. It commences thus: " There was-competent and proper evidence introduced tending'to prove that the defendant was, at the date of the commencement of this suit, sheriff of Starke county," &c. This 'is a fair specimen of the whole. We cannot look to -such a statement, to determine the question whether the .verdict was or was not sustained by sufficient evidence. That question can only be raised in this court by a proper presentation of all the evidence as it was given on the trial in the lower court.
W. PI. Calkins, for appellant.
M. A. Ó. Packard and S. P. Anthony, for appellee.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.