Pierce v. Schaden (1882) · DecisionDepot

Pierce v. Schaden

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Dec 5, 1882 No. No. 8,432Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial judge erred by entering judgment based on the jury's verdict amount rather than computing the full principal and interest due on the note, as the jury's verdict regarding damages was surplusage.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in entering judgment based on the jury's verdict amount instead of the full principal and interest due on the note.

Disposition. vacated and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The jury had nothing to do with matters not in issue, and a verdict referring to such matters is, so far, surplusage.”

“The Court should have computed the amount due on the note for principal and interest, and rendered judgment accordingly.”

Synopsis

Appeal by-plaintiff from the judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento. Denson, J.

Action on promissory note. The note was given for the sum of five hundred dollars, with interest at one and one fourth per cent, per month, from February 24, 1876, until paid. The complaint admitted the payment of the interest to May 24, 1876, and also a payment of two hundred and five dollars and fifty cents, on September 10, 1878. The prayer of the complaint was for judgment for the sum of four hundred and sixty-six dollars and thirty-seven cents, and interest thereon, from September 10,1878, according to the terms of the note, and for costs. The amount claimed at the time to be due and for which the plaintiff moved the Court to give judgment was the sum of seven hundred and ten dollars. After the denial of his motion plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions and took this appeal. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Court: This was an action against indorsers to recover the amount due for the principal and interest of a promissory note. The answer denied the presentation of the note to the maker, the demand of payment, the refusal to pay, and notice of presentation, demand, and refusal. There was no denial of the execution or indorsement of the note, and no plea of payment. There was, therefore, no issue to go to the jury except as to presentation, demand, refusal to pay, and notice. The jury returned a verdict in the following form: “We, the jury in the above entitled cause, find for the plaintiff, and assess his damages at the sum of two hundred and ninety-four dollars and fifty cents.” The plaintiff moved for judgment for the amount of the note and interest, which motion was denied, and judgment was entered for the amount named in the verdict. The plaintiff was entitled to his motion. The jury had nothing to do with matters not in issue, and a verdict referring to such matters is, so far, surplusage. So far as the verdict related to matters in issue, it was in favor of plaintiff. The Court should have computed the amount due on the note for principal and interest, and rendered judgment accordingly.

Judgment vacated and cause remanded, with instructions to make computation and render judgment in accordance with this opinion.

Pierce v. Schaden

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief