Case Name: Smith v. Harmanson
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1791-04
Citations: 1 Wash. 6
Docket Number: 
Parties: Smith v. Harmanson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
Smith v. Harmanson.
April Term, 1791.
Appeals — Beneficial Error — Effect. — In an action upon a bond, with a penalty, for the payment of money, the jury may make their verdict of the aggregate of principal and interest, and the defendant cannot appeal for that cause, since the mode of finding the verdict is for his benefit.
This was an action of debt brought upon a bond in the county court of Accomack by the appellant. Plea owe nothing, with leave to give the special matter in evidence ; hut oyer is not prayed. Verdict “that the defendant doth owe to the plaintiff ^1147 18 4 parcel of the debt in the bill aforesaid mentioned.” Judgment is entered that the plaintiff recover against the defendant ^2000 the debt in the declaration mentioned and his costs, to he discharged by the payment of the said £114-7 18 4 and the costs. The bond appears upon the record and is with a condition to pay ¿1000.
"Upon appeal to the District court, this judgment was reversed, “the same having been entered for the aggregate sum of the principal and interest thereon to the day of the said judgment.” The judgment of the District Court is for ¿2000 and costs, but to be discharged by the payment of ¿1000 with interest from the time it was payable and the costs. — From this judgment Smith appealed.
Appeals — Beneficial Error — Effect.—jt is contrary to the uniform decisions in this court to permit a party to object to an error which is for his own benefit, and has arisen from his own act. Kirtley v. Deck, 8 H. & M. 393. Citing Hammitt v. Bullett, 1 Call 567; Smith v. Harmanson, 1 Wash. 6. Por the above proposition the principal case is cited and approved in Preston v. Harvey, 2 H. & M. 66; Stegarv. Eggleston, 5 Call 457; foot-note to Hammitt v. Bullett, 1 Call 567. See also, Pendleton v. Vandevier, 1 Wash. 381; Eib v. Pindall, 5 Leigh 109; monographic note on “Appeal and Error” appended to Hill v. Salem and Pepper’s Perry Turnpike Co., 1 Bob. 263.

Opinion:
The PRESIDENT.
— The judgment of the District Court is more beneficial to the appellant than that of the County Court (with which the defendant in that Court was discontented) because it entitled him to the continuing interest after the judgment. Yet he appeals to this Court; so that each party in his turn has complained of an error in judgment, which operated beneficially for himself.
The District Court have erred upon their own principles; for if the judgment of the County Court should have been for principal and continuing interest, yet as the ¿1147 18 8 found by the jury did not appear otherwise than by calculation to be the aggregate of principal and interest, they should in that case have reversed the judgment, and remanded the cause to the inferior court for a new trial, to ascertain the principal sum due which was to bear, interest. This court considering that the judgment of the District Court must be reversed, the next question was, what judgment they should have pronounced.
Upon this, there was some difficulty and contrariety of opinion, whether we should pursue the principle of the District Court, and in doing so, direct a new trial in the County Court, or as their judgment attained the real justice of the case, and saved expence, it should be sustained ? or whether the judgment of the County Court should be affirmed ? a majority of the Court thinking the jury might make their verdict of the aggregate of principal and interest, which tending to the -benefit of the defendant, he did not object to it at the time, and could not appeal or complain of it, are for affirming that judgment, pursuing in this, the judgment of the General Court in the Norfolk case mentioned at the bar, which-was the same as this; except that here there was leave to give special matter in evidence, from whence the jury might have drawn some ingredients for compounding the ¿1147 18 4, besides the aggregate of principal and interest, either to increase or dimin-, ish that .aggregate.
The judgment of the District Court must be reversed with costs, and that of the County Court affirmed with damages from the time •of entering-it, to that of the judgment of the District Court. _