Davis v. Searcy
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Grenada county. HoN. James F. McCool, Special Judge. Davis, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Searcy, the appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment adverse to the plaintiff, he appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts. 1. Two of the jurors were related to the defendant. This was unknown to plaintiff until after the verdict had been returned.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Grenada county. HoN. James F. McCool, Special Judge. Davis, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Searcy, the appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment adverse to the plaintiff, he appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts. 1. Two of the jurors were related to the defendant. This was unknown to plaintiff until after the verdict had been returned. Worse than this, there was an actual concealment of the relationship by the jurors themselves; they were asked along with the entire panel if they were related to either party to the…
1Opinion of the CourtTerral, J.
Davis sued Searcy on a note, to which Searcy pleaded non est factum. Two relatives of Searcy, not disclosing their relationship when asked, were impaneled, and sat upon the case. There being no evidence whatever in regard to fraud, the court instructed the jury that Searcy was not liable, even if he signed the note, if his signature was procured by fraud. The *294verdict of the jury was: “We, the jury, find for defendant, and assess the cost of court equally between plaintiff and defendant. It is our wish that, if this verdict will not stand, to enter a mistrial. ’ ’ And of these several matters…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mississippi Power Co. v. StriblingMississippi Supreme Court · 1941
- MFA Cooperative Ass'n of Ash Grove v. ElliottMissouri Court of Appeals · 1972
- Industrial Loan & Investment Co. v. MillerMississippi Supreme Court · 1932
- Cantrell v. BurgessMississippi Supreme Court · 1954