Heiser v. Van Dyke, Martin & Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Lee District Court. The facts material to the question made in this case are as follows : There was a jury trial lasting ten days ; the jury retiring to deliberate upon their verdict about 12 o’clock m. of the 21st Feb., 1868. In the evening of that day, the judge said to the officer in charge of the jury, if they agreed, report to him and he would come to the court room and receive the verdict; if he was not at his chambers, that the verdict should be sealed and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lee District Court. The facts material to the question made in this case are as follows : There was a jury trial lasting ten days ; the jury retiring to deliberate upon their verdict about 12 o’clock m. of the 21st Feb., 1868. In the evening of that day, the judge said to the officer in charge of the jury, if they agreed, report to him and he would come to the court room and receive the verdict; if he was not at his chambers, that the verdict should be sealed and reported the next morning. On the 22d, when court met, the jurors were called, and responded to the usual inquiry, that…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
In overruling this motion the court below did not err. The Code of 1851 (§§ 1780-1786) is not unlike the provisions of Revision, sections 3062-3076.
The case of Cook & Owsley v. Walters (4 Iowa, 72) was decided in 1856, under the Code of 1851, and clearly sustains this ruling. There the jury separated without the leave of the court or the consent of the parties. It was held that the separation did not necessarily make the verdict void, nor so taint it as to prevent its reception. Not being otherwise attacked (and the same is true in this case) it was held good, and see the many cases there…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cook v. WaltersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
- Miller v. MabonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
3Cited by2 opinions
- Caplan v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1921
- Walker v. DaileySupreme Court of Iowa · 1893