Hickman v. Ford & Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Benton Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Pittman Circuit Judge. It was error to permit plaintiff, after submission of the case to the jury to amend the complaint. Gantt’s Dig., Secs. 4613-4616. The jury should have found the separate value of each article. 37 Ark., 545. The bill of exceptions not setting forth the instructions nor all the evidence, this court will affirm. 40 Ark, 185. The amendment was proper.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Benton Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Pittman Circuit Judge. It was error to permit plaintiff, after submission of the case to the jury to amend the complaint. Gantt’s Dig., Secs. 4613-4616. The jury should have found the separate value of each article. 37 Ark., 545. The bill of exceptions not setting forth the instructions nor all the evidence, this court will affirm. 40 Ark, 185. The amendment was proper. Gantt’s Dig., 4616; 33 Ark, 811; 1 Mete. 339. So the sending the jury back to amend their verdict. Gantt’s Dig., Sec. 4699, 4619; 7 How., 21; Hilliard on New Trials, p. 107-8-9.
1Opinion of the Court
Smith J.
This was replevin for a stock of merchandize against a sheriff, who had seized the same by virtue of sundry attachments against parties from whom the plaintiffs had previously purchased. The jury found the issues for the plaintiffs and ascertained the aggregate value of the goods. This verdict the court refused to receive and directed the jury to find the separate value of each article. As there were several hundred articles and it was obviously impossible, for the jury to remember all of them and the value of each, they were permitted to take with them to the jury-room a certain…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Phœnix Insurance v. Public Parks Amusement Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Williams v. First SEC. Bank of SearcySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
- Swanson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947