KOON
v.
INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a dispute over a bond debt, the Supreme Court held that a stipulation allowing a jury to seal and deliver their verdict outside of court hours was equivalent to an agreement permitting the court to open the sealed verdict in the jury's absence and reduce it to proper form if necessary. The Court affirmed that the lower court properly entered judgment for $7,500 based on the jury's finding, as the court was merely giving legal effect to the jury's unmistakable verdict and acting within its authority under applicable statutes.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The stipulation “ that the jury might, when they had agreed on their, verdict, if the court should not then be in session, sign and seal the same,, and deliver the same to the officer in charge and disperse,” was equivalent to an agreement by both parties, on the retirement of the jury, that the court might, when 'the sealed verdict was handed in by the officer, open it in the absence of the jury and reduce it to proper form, if necessary.' The stipulation was also a waiver of the right to poll the jury if they should not be in court.
The issue to be tried was on a plea of nil debet. This admitted the execution of the bond, and required the jury only to find the amount due.. If anything was found to be due, the law fixed the form of the verdict and judgment. The jury found there was $7,500 due on the debt and one cent damages for the detention. That finding, reduced to proper form, was in favor of the plaintiff for the penalty of the bond, to be discharged on payment of $7,500. All the court did was to enter the verdict in that form. In doing so it only gave legal effect to what the jury unmistakably found. This was allowable,, both under sect.' 954 of the Revised Statutes aiid the Practice Act of Illinois.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smyth Sales, Inc. v. Petroleum Heat & Power Co., Inc., 141 F.2d 41 (3d Cir. 1944)…his court. If such a remittitur is filed the judgment, less the amount so relinquished, will be affirmed, otherwise the judgment will be reversed and a new trial ordered. Parks v. Turner, 1851, 53 U.S. 39, 13 L.Ed. 883; Koon v. Insurance Co., 1881, 104 U.S. 106, 26 L.Ed. 670; Snyder v. United States 1884, 112 U.S. 216, 5 S. Ct. 118, 28 L.Ed. 697; Gay v. Joplin, C.C.E.D.Mo., 1882, 13 F. 650. Snyder v. United States, 1884, 112 U. S. 216, 217, 5 S.Ct, 118, 28 L.Ed. 697. Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 18…
-
Shaffer v. Great Am. Indem. Co., 147 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1945)…tatutes of the United States, Sec. 954; 28 U.S.C.A. § 777, Note 66; Roach v. Hulings, 41 U. S. 319, 320, 10 L.Ed. 979; Parks v. Turner, 53 U.S. 39, 12 How. 39, 13 L.Ed. 883; Downey v. Hicks, 55 U.S. 240, 14 L. Ed. 404; Koon v. Phoenix Mut. Ins. Co., 104 U.S. 106, 26 L.Ed. 670; Gay v. Joplin, 8 Cir., 13 F. 650; Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. Smith-McCord Dry Goods Co., 8 Cir., 85 F. 417; Miller v. Steele, 6 Cir., 153 F. 714; American Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Mill & Lumber Co., 3 Cir., 290 F. 632; Solom…