Sweetser v. Dobbins

California Supreme Court Feb 28, 1884Published

Before: Myrkick

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. In an equity action to reform a deed, the court held that the jury's verdict is merely advisory and that the standard of proof required to establish a mistake in a written instrument is 'clear and convincing' evidence, rather than a mere preponderance.

Issues

Whether the court erred in instructing the jury that the evidence to establish a mistake in a written instrument must be 'clear and convincing.'
Whether the trial court was bound by the jury's verdict in an equity case.
Whether the court erred in its evidentiary rulings regarding witness testimony and the admissibility of prior documents.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“to establish a mistake in the execution of a written instrument the evidence as to the mistake must be clear and convincing; that the evidence must be more than mere preponderance; it must be clear and convincing.”

“In cases at law the decision of the jury is final, unless set aside; but in equity cases it is merely advisory, and may be adopted or not, as the court shall be convinced.”

“It cannot be that the legislature intended one rule regarding the weight of evidence to apply to a court and another rule to a jury in arriving at a decision in the same case.”

Synopsis

Trial.—The Findings of a Jury on Special Issues are Merely Advisory to the court, and, if adopted, are the findings of the court. If a general verdict be rendered by the jury, the court can set it aside and find the facts and render judgment on the testimony taken, and in ease of a general verdict must, notwithstanding the verdict, find the facts.

Equity—Verdict of Jury Advisory Merely.—In eases at law the verdict of a jury is final, unless set aside; but in equity it is merely advisory, and may be adopted or not, as the court sees proper.

Equity—Sufficiency of Evidence.—Where in an Equity Case, if Tried Alone by the Court, the evidence would be required to be clear and convincing, the same rule must apply to the jury as to evidence submitted to them in the same case. A mere preponderance of testimony will not be sufficient.

Equity.—There is No Error in Regard to the Admission of the Evidence herein; and it does not appear that the judge assumed that he was conclusively bound by the verdict of the jury, though he arrived at the same conclusion.

MYRKICK, J. The complaint in this case was filed to obtain a decree reforming a deed executed by defendant to plaintiffs’ testator, so as to include a tract of land not included therein, and that said tract be conveyed to them in their representative capacity. The plaintiffs alleged that by the agreement of their testator and the defendant the tract was agreed to be embraced in the deed, and was omitted therefrom by the mistake and inadvertence of the scrivener. The defendant denied such agreement and mistake, and alleged that the deed contained all the land which he had agreed to convey. Special issues were submitted to a jury, and the verdict was, in effect, in favor of defendant. The court filed findings as to all the facts in issue, in which, after reciting the fact that a jury had been impaneled to try special issues, and had rendered a verdict, it is stated: “Now, from said verdict and the testimony adduced in said cause, after due consideration, the court finds the following facts,” etc. On this appeal points are presented by the plaintiffs, viz.:

1. The court instructed the jury that as to the first issue presented to them (which was merely as to whether the land of defendant was divided into seven or eight parcels) the rule was that a preponderance of evidence should.govern them-, but as to the other evidence (which related to the alleged agreement and mistake) a different rule obtains from that in ordinary civil actions; that to establish a mistake in the execution of a written instrument the evidence as to the mistake must be clear and convincing; that the evidence must be more than mere preponderance; it must be clear and convincing.

[279]The plaintiffs allege this instruction to be error; that subdivision 5, section 2061, Code of Civil Procedure, furnishes the rule in all civil cases; that “when the evidence is contradictory the decision must be made according to the preponderance of evidence”; that the instruction gave one rule to one class of civil cases, viz., an action to reform an instrument, and another rule to other civil cases. It was decided by this court in Bates v. Gage, 49 Cal. 126, that the findings of a jury on special issues are merely advisory to the court, and, if adopted by it, are the findings of the court. In Wingate v. Ferris, 50 Cal. 105, it was held that if a general verdict be rendered by the jury, the court can set aside the verdict (without motion for a new trial), and find the facts, and render judgment on the testimony already taken; and in Brandt v. Wheaton, 52 Cal. 430, it was held that in ease of general verdict the court must, notwithstanding the verdict, find the facts.

Sweetser v. Dobbins

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief