State ex rel. Webster v. Knight
Supreme Court of Missouri
Petition for mandamus. The verdict was a good one, and should have been recorded; and in entering judgment upon it the surplusage should have been stricken out, leaving that part which was a verdict upon the issue submitted to the jury. (1 Graham & W. on New Trials, 136, and cases cited; 8 Bac.
Read the full summary
Petition for mandamus. The verdict was a good one, and should have been recorded; and in entering judgment upon it the surplusage should have been stricken out, leaving that part which was a verdict upon the issue submitted to the jury. (1 Graham & W. on New Trials, 136, and cases cited; 8 Bac. Abr. 116, and cases cited; 16 Johns. 307.) f I. The verdict alleged by relator is no verdict at all, or if it is to be treated as a verdict, it was not sensible, consistent, or responsive to the issue, (a) The vérdict was not sensible or consistent in that the jury say “we find for the defendants,…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This is a petition asking that a writ of mandamus may be issued against the respondent, who is one of the judges of the St. Louis Circuit Court, to compel him to receive a verdict rendered by a jury. It seems that there was a ease pending in said court wherein Smith and others were plaintiffs, and Webster, the relator, was defendant, in which the jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find a verdict for defendants, they to pay the costs of this suit.” This-verdict the respondent refused to receive, and discharged the jury. The refusal, it appears, -was based on the fact that the…
2Cited by27 opinions
- State ex rel. Bayha v. PhilipsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- State ex rel. Martin v. WoffordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Southern Railway Co. v. Oliver & MorrowCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- State ex rel. Knisely v. HoltcampSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- State ex rel. Snow Steam Pump Works v. HomerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.