Young v. Seymour
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to tbe district court of Lancaster County. Seymour and Wardell having brought suit in tbe court below against William P. Young, the cause was called for trial at tbe November term, A. D., 1873, of said court, and submitted to tbe jury at 4 o’clock, P. PI., on tbe third day Of that term.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe district court of Lancaster County. Seymour and Wardell having brought suit in tbe court below against William P. Young, the cause was called for trial at tbe November term, A. D., 1873, of said court, and submitted to tbe jury at 4 o’clock, P. PI., on tbe third day Of that term. About 9 o’clock, P. PI., tbe judge presiding, ordered tbe sheriff to adjourn tbe court until 9 o’clock, A. PI., tbe next day, at tbe same time announcing aloud to tbe bar that the court would be at all times open for tbe purpose of receiving tbe verdict of tbe jury in this case, if they should agree upon…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
The only question presented by the bill of exceptions is whether the verdict rendered in the case is a public or privy verdict.
Sec. 290, of the code of civil procedure, provides that “when the jury have agreed upon their verdict, they must be conducted into court, their names called by the clerk, and the verdict rendered by the foreman. When the verdict is announced, either party may require the jury to be polled, which is done by the clerk asking each juror if it is his verdict. If any one answer in the negative, the j ury must again be sent out for further deliberation.” Sec. 291, provides…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2008
- Bryan v. ManchesterNebraska Supreme Court · 1924
- Longfellow v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1880
- Rigg v. BiasSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
- Peart v. Chicago, M. & St. Paul Railway Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1894