Hurlburt v. Leachman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In tbe matter of tbe estate of Roswell R. Hurlburt, William Frank Hurlburt appealed from tbe probate court for Hennepin county to tbe district court for that county. Tbe appeal was tried before Hale, J., and a jury. Hpon tbe return of tbe verdict William Frank Hurlburt objected to tbe reception of tbe verdict, for tbe reason that tbe jury bad not deliberated 12 hours and that the verdict was not a unanimous verdict. Tbe verdict was signed by 10 jurors.
Read the full summary
In tbe matter of tbe estate of Roswell R. Hurlburt, William Frank Hurlburt appealed from tbe probate court for Hennepin county to tbe district court for that county. Tbe appeal was tried before Hale, J., and a jury. Hpon tbe return of tbe verdict William Frank Hurlburt objected to tbe reception of tbe verdict, for tbe reason that tbe jury bad not deliberated 12 hours and that the verdict was not a unanimous verdict. Tbe verdict was signed by 10 jurors. From tbe order denying bis motion to vacate tbe verdict and for a new trial, William Frank Hurlburt appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
Section 1805, G. S. 1913, is as follows:
“In all civil actions or proceedings in any court of record of this state, after twelve hours’ deliberation, the agreement of five-sixths of any jury therein shall be a sufficient and valid verdict; the deliberation of the jury shall be deemed to have commenced when the officer taking charge of the jury has been sworn, and the clerk shall enter such time in bis records.”
*182In the present case 10 jurors agreed to and returned a verdict to which the other two did not assent. Appellant made a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial on…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. GutSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
- Bayard v. KlingeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Rush v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- State v. LentzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- State v. MimsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
- Custom Farm Services, Inc. v. CollinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Hursh v. EdgerlySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- State v. McReadySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Paul v. PyeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.