Harrell v. Stringfield
Supreme Court of Iowa
This was an Action of Replevin, brought by the Defendant in Error vs. the Plaintiff in Error, and Verdict was for the Plaintiff in Replevin, — upon which the Defendant in Replevin moved for a new trial, on the ground that verdict was contrary to evidence. cited Cornwall us. Gould, 4 Pick. R. 446 —White vs. Snell, 9 Pick. R. 16 — Grant on New Trials, 85 — Usher vs. Dansey, 4 M. & S. 94 — Rex vs. Hayes, 2 Sir. 842 — Clarke vs. Lamb, 8 Pick. R. 512— 8 Pick. R. 415.
1Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT.
The errors relied upon for reversing the Judgment in this case, are, first, That the Verdict of the Jury does not dispose of the issue; and, second, That the. Verdict is not found in accordance with the Statute, which requires the Jury to assess the damages.
The action was originally commenced before a Justice of the Peace. In his transcript, sent up to the District Court, on appeal, he states that issue was joined, without declaring what that issue was. Upon that issue the verdict of the jury in the District Court was, “We, the Jurors, find a verdict for the defendant,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dixon v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1869