Walters v. Junkins
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county, in a suit brought by John Junkins, plaintiff below and defendant in error, against David Walters, plaintiff in error. After the cause was tried in the court below, the jury retired in the evening, and by consent were to give in their verdict in writing; next morning the court met, the jury appeared in their box, and returned a verdict in writing, “ we find for the plaintiff six cents damages.”
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county, in a suit brought by John Junkins, plaintiff below and defendant in error, against David Walters, plaintiff in error. After the cause was tried in the court below, the jury retired in the evening, and by consent were to give in their verdict in writing; next morning the court met, the jury appeared in their box, and returned a verdict in writing, “ we find for the plaintiff six cents damages.” The court asked them if they found the defendant to pay all costs, or only the legal costs. The foreman replied f‘ six cents damages…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
I am not aware, that fhis precise question has been settled by any express adjudication. Several cases have arisen, where jurors have been permitted to dissent from a verdict, before it is received and recorded, as in the case of a sealed verdict, and this has been the practice in Pennsylvania, although regretted by some of our wisest judges. After the jury have rendered their verdict, it is read to them, that they may say, whether the court have recorded it according to their finding. If any mistake should have occurred, it may be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wolfran v. EysterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Lamb v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 2011
- T.D.M. v. State of Alabama.Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2010