Case: Patton v. Caldwell
Abbreviation: Patton v. Caldwell
Decision Date: 1789-04
Docket Number: 
Citation: 1 Dall. 419
Volume: 1
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Parties: Patton v. Caldwell.
Judges: 
Pages: 434–434

Head Matter:
Patton v. Caldwell.
Special verdict.
Where several suits had been instituted on a policy of insurance, and an agreement had been' signed by all the underwriters, to bo bound by one verdict, it was ruled, that a special verdict given in that action might, be read as evidence, in a suit against another of the underwriters, though not as conclusive.
This was an action on a policy of insurance, upon the trial of which, Lewis, for the plaintiff, offered to read in evidence a special verdict that had been given in another action upon the same policy, but against a different underwriter. Sergeant and Lngersoll objected, that the verdict was given between other parties, and therefore, not admissible ; upon which Lewis proved an agreement of all the underwriters to be bound by one verdict.

Opinion:
McKean, Chief Justice.
The objection turns upon this principle, that the defendant had no opportunity of cross-examining, upon the former trial; and the answer is, that he, with the rest of the underwriters, had agreed to be bound by one verdict; which is certainly the only ground for offering the evidence proposed by the plaintiff's counsel.
"'Whether this agreement was made in person, or by a broker mutually employed, it is equally binding on the parties ; and, under the agreement, all the underwriters were fully entitled to' interfere upon the former trial, and to cross-examine the witnesses then produced. Although, therefore, we should not have allowed the special verdict to be read, without full proof of the agreement; yet, on receiving that satisfaction, we think it would be unfair to suppress it; and, for the future, we desire, that all such agreements may be entered on the records of the court.
The admission of this evidence, however, cannot be conclusive ; as it is manifest, that testimony has been given on the present occasion, different from what was given on the former; and, consequently, a very different verdict may, with great justice and propriety, take place,
See Hostetter v. Kaufman, 11 S. & R. 146; Brindle v. McIlvaine, 10 Id. 382; McKinney v. Crawford, 8 Id. 851; Simonton v. Boucher, 2 W. C. C. 473.