Duff v. Fisher

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1860Published

Before: Field

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. In an equity case where issues are submitted to a jury, the findings of the jury are treated as established facts if no motion for a new trial is made to challenge them. Parties cannot object to such findings for the first time on appeal.

Issues

What is the effect of a jury's findings in an equity case when the findings are received without objection?
Can a party challenge the findings of a jury in an equity case for the first time on appeal?
Does the Practice Act regarding motions for a new trial apply to equitable actions?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If that course be not taken, neither party can object to the finding in the appellate Court.”

“As, in the case at bar, no objection was interposed to the findings of the jury, they must be taken as established facts to support the decree.”

“It follows from the views we have expressed, that the findings of the jury cannot for the first time be questioned in this Court, and that they must, for the determination of the appeal, be taken as true.”

Synopsis

The findings of the jury on issues submitted to them in an equity case, if not objected to by motion for new trial, or if not set aside by the Court on its own motion, become established facts in the ease, and cannot be questioned in the Supreme Court for the first time.

The Practice Act applies as well to legal as equitable actions, so far as its provisions are consistent with the rights and remedies administered in Courts of Equity. And the only way in which the verdict of a jury on issues submitted can be reviewed, is by motion for new trial—except, probably, that the Court, whether sitting in equity or on the trial of a common law action, may, of its own motion, set aside the verdict of a jury when clearly and palpably against the evidence.

The old chancery rule on this subject stated.

Though, on questions of practice, previous decisions are entitled to very great weight, still a single decision, made without notice of a statute, and in fact, setting aside the statute, cannot be invoked as authority on the principle of stare decisis.

In suit by a vendee for specific performance of a contract of sale, the averment of tender of payment was in general terms—as that the tender had been repeatedly made, and that the plaintiff has been at all times, and still is ready and willing to pay; Held, that the tender should have been stated with greater particularity as to time, but that the objection, in this respect, cannot be taken for the first time in the Supreme Court.

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.

[379]This is a suit in equity, and when called for trial, issues involving the entire matters in controversy were framed by both parties, settled by the Court, and submitted without objection to a jury. These issues were all found in favor of the plaintiff, and upon his motion the decree was rendered thereon. No exception was taken to the findings, nor was any motion made to the Court to set them aside. The statement on appeal is a mere transcript of the evidence addressed to the jury, and upon this evidence the appellants insist the case must be determined, irrespective of the findings. The question is thus presented as to the effect to be given in an equity case to the findings of a jury, when they are received without objection. The question is an important one of practice, but free, as we conceive, of any difficulty.

Under the old chancery system, the issues framed were sent to the Courts of law, and upon their trial, the course of proceedings was the same as that followed in ordinary trials at law, unless special directions were given upon the subject. And the verdict or findings of the jury were certified to the Chancellor without evidence, which was not called for except upon express application, with a view to a motion for a new trial. If the findings were not challenged by the party against whom they were rendered, or disregarded by the Chancellor upon his own view of the whole case before him, they stood as conceded facts. The evidence upon such issues, taken before a different tribunal, formed, of course, no part of the record before the Chancellor. If, however, the findings were objected to, the evidence was presented upon a statement prepared for that purpose, and brought before the Court on a motion for a new trial. The evidence then became a part of the record, and the order made on the motion a subject of review on appeal.

When no motion was made, and the Chancellor rested satisfied with the verdict of the jury, the facts found were taken in the further consideration of the case as established and settled, and the decision followed in conformity therewith. (2 Daniell’s Ch. Plead. and Pr. 1301; 2 Smith’s Ch. Pr. 74; Attorney General v. Montgomery, 2 Atkyns, 378.)

As the object of the issue and trial at law, according to the theory of equity proceedings, was to inform the conscience of the Court, it followed that the findings were not held conclusive or binding, but the Chancellor was at liberty to disregard them entirely, and proceed with the hearing of the case as though no issue had been framed, or to direct the matter to be tried anew before another jury. This general discretion to disregard the findings may be qualified and controlled by statute,

Duff v. Fisher

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief