Case Name: Johnson v. Harmon
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1876-10
Citations: 94 U.S. 371
Docket Number: 
Parties: Johnson v. Harmon.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 371–382

Head Matter:
Johnson v. Harmon.
1. A bill of exceptions cannot be taken on the trial of a feigned issue directed by a court of equity, or, if taken, can only be used on a motion for a new trial made to that court.
2. As the verdict may or may not have been the ground for the decree, an appeal from the latter cannot be made to turn on the judge’s rulings at the trial of . the feigned issue, but must be decided upon the whole case, pleadings, evi- . dence, and verdict,'giving to the latter as much effect as it is worth.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the. District of Columbia.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court..
Argued by Mr. A. 6r. Riddle for the appellant.
The court declined to hear Mr. M. Thompson for the appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a bill in equity, involving, amongst other questions, the validity of a trust deed given by the complainant (the appellee here) to secure certain notes. The complainant charges' in his bill that he was so intoxicated when he executed the deed and notes as to be incapable of understanding what he was doing. The court below, after considerable testimony had been taken, directed an issue to- try the question whether the complainant, at the time of the execution of the deed of tiust and notes, was capable of executing a valid deed or contract. The issue so directed was tried, and resulted in a verdict for the complainant; namely, that' he was not capable of executing a Valid deed or contract. The defendants took a. bill of exceptions to the charge given by the judge who tried the issue, which was allowed, and signed by him. The. cause afterwards came on to be heard upon the exceptions, and they were overruled. Subsequently a final hearing was had upon the pleadings, evidence, and verdict, and a decree was rendered for the complainant, directing the trust deed and notes in question to be vacated and set aside. From that decree this appeal was taken, and the only errors - assigned are to the charge given by the judge to the jury on the trial of the feigned issue.
This is totally inadmissible. A bill of exceptions cannot be taken on the trial of a feigned issue directed by a court of equity, or, if taken, can only be used on a motion for a new-trial made to said court. 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. (3d Am. ed.) 1106; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 3 Myl. & K. 52; Ex parte Story, 12 Pet. 343. See the cases on new trials on feigned issues collected in 3 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, 1553, &c. The issue is directed to be tried for the prirpose of informing the conscience of the Chancellor, and aiding him to come to a proper conclusion. If he thinks the' trial has not been a fair one, or for any other reason desires a new trial, it is in his discretion to order it. But he may proceed with the cause though dissatisfied with the verdict, and make a decree contrary thereto, if in his judgment the law and the evidence so requires. A decree in equity, therefore, when appealed from, does not stand or fall according to the legality or illegality of the proceedings on the trial of a feigned issue in the cause; for the verdict may or may not have been the ground of the decree. It is the duty of the court of first instance to decide (as was done here) upon the whole case, pleadings, evidence, and verdict, giving to the latter so much effect as it is worth. An appeal from the decree must be decided in the same way, namely, upon the whole case, and cannot be made to turn on the correctness or incorrectness of the judge's rulings at the trial of the feigned issue.
Decree affirmed.