Court Opinion

ID: 9825985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:08:52.359322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:45.215720
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Gary.
Being unable to concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Pope, I will state briefly the reasons why I dissent: Rule V., from which he quotes, also provides that the “Case” shall set forth “the names of all parties to the action, designating which of them are appellants and which are respondents.” It appears in the “Case” that the plaintiff is the appellant and the defendant respondent. Such being the case, the only verdict under the pleadings which the jury could properly have rendered was: “We find for the defendant.” In the absence of a showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that the verdict was in conformity to law. Omnia presumuntur rite esse acta. The defendant has not in any *560manner been prejudiced by the inadvertent omission. The rules of Court were intended to aid-in the hearing of appeals and to prevent unnecessary delays. Technical objections play a useful part when they subserve the ends of justice, but not when they work injustice. We have no doubt, from inspection of the record, that the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant.
We, therefore, dissent.