Case Name: Joseph Powell v. Andrew Harter
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1831-12
Citations: 5 Ohio 259
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Powell v. Andrew Harter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 5
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
Joseph Powell v. Andrew Harter.
General issue and special pleas, verdict on the general issue only erroneous..
This was a writ of error, adjourned here from the county of Delaware. The original cause was assumpsit. They pleaded nonassumpsit, and two special pleas of the statute of limitations, upon which issues were taken. The damages claimed in the declaration were eight hundred dollars. The jury found the first issue •for the plaintiff, and'assessed the damages to eight hundred and fifty-three dollars seventy-five cents. The verdict was silent as-to the special pleas. Judgment, in the common pleas, upon the verdict, for the plaintiff, to reverse which the writ of error is-brought.
*G. Swan, for plain-tiff’ in error.
Parish, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Judge Hitchcock
delivered the opinion of the court:
Two errors are assigned in this case, to which the attention of the court has been turned:
1. That the jury did not find all the issues joined and submitted 'to their consideration, notwithstanding which the court rendered judgment upon the verdict.
2. That the damages demanded in the declaration are eight hundred dollars, and verdict and judgment for a greater sum, to wit: eight hundred and fifty-three dollars seventy-five cents.
The question arising under the first error assigned has been determined in the case of Hanly et al. v. Levin, and it is unnecessary again to consider it.
The judgment being for a greater sum than the damages demanded in the declaration is undoubtedly erroneous. If there were no other error in the case this court might, perhaps, after reversing the judgment, enter such judgment as the court of common pleas ought to have rendered. This would be done, however, only upon condition that the plaintiff below remits the excess in the verdict. It would be useless to do it in the present case, as the first error assigned is fatal, and that defect would not be cured.
The judgment must be reversed.