Hyperlawhypertext legal database Mais v. Ruh 57 A.D. 15

← Cases

Mais v. Ruh

57 A.D. 15 Court N.Y. App. Div. English

Delivered by Goodeich, P. J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 15
Anna Barbara Mais, as Administratrix, etc., of Joseph Henry Mais, also Known as Henry Mais, Deceased, Appellant, v. Henry Ruh and Katharine Ruh, Respondents.

Headnote

Verdict — not impeached by the affidavit of jurors nor by the affidavits of others as to statements by the jurors — validity of a quotient verdict.
Neither the affidavits of jurors nor the affidavits of third persons as to statements made by jurors are admissible to impeach a verdict.
Quare. whether a verdict reached by having each juror name the amount of damages he is willing to give, adding the different amounts and dividing the aggregate by twelve, is valid.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Anna Barbara Mais, as administratrix, etc., of Joseph Henry Mais, also known as Henry Mais, deceased, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered' in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 2d day of June, 1900, denying a motion for an order vacating and setting aside the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of twenty-five dollars rendered on the 12th day of January, 1900.
August P. Wagener, for the appellant.
Piehard Cohn, for the respondents.

The action was for the recovery of damages to real property by the maintenance of a nuisance. The jury rendered a verdict of

p. 16
twenty-five dollars for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered on the verdict for the amount of the defendants’ taxable costs. less the • amount of the verdict. The plaintiff made a motion to set aside the verdict and the judgment entered thereon, on the ground that it was a quotient verdict, reached by having each juror name the amount of the damages and dividing the aggregate by twelve. The court denied the motion and the plaintiff appeals.

The only evidence in support of the motion is the affidavit of a Mr. Storey, that he had conversed with three of the jurors, and that they had stated that “ in their opinion the verdict was reached by compromise,” and that one of the jurors said that “ some one suggested that each man should take a slip of paper, put down the amount he was willing to give; that this was done; that the different amounts were added together and divided by twelve, and that that was the way in which the verdict of twenty-five dollars ($25) for the plaintiff was obtained.”

The defendants produced the affidavit of Mr. Laskey, that he had conversed with each of the three jurors and that each denied having had the conversation stated in Mr. Storey’s affidavit.

The law is well settled that the affidavits of jurors will not be, admitted to impeach the verdict. ( Williams v. Montgomery, 60 N. Y. 648 ; Dalrymple v. Williams, 63 id. 361.) It is quite as clearly settled that affidavits of statements made by jurors may not be received for the like purpose. (Clum v. Smith, 5 Hill, 560 ; Mitchell v. Carter, 14 Hun, 448 .)

The subject of a quotient verdict was considered also in an able opinion by the third department, Mr. Justice Herrick writing, in Hamilton v. Owego Water Works ( 22 App. Div. 573 ), where the court reversed an order setting aside a verdict which appeared to be quotient.

The order should be affirmed.

All concurred, except Sewell, J., taking no part.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cases cited