James v. Akron Tire & Rubber Co.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee brought suit on the common counts, in assumpsit to recover for goods bargained and sold to the defendant, and filed with the declaration an account showing the balance dne to he $154.82. At the trial of the case in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for “$154.82 and interest,” and there ⁴⁸⁴ upon the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment on the following grounds: (1) Because the jury “did not return a valid verdict.” (2) Because the verdict was too vagare, indefinite and uncertain to support a judgment. (3) Because the verdict “was for no' definite or ascertained sum.” The Court below overruled the motion, and entered a judgment for the plaintiff for $152.82, with interest from June 3rd, 1919 (the date of the verdict) and costs, and this appeal is from that judgment.

The contention of the appellant is, as indicated in his .motion, that “inasmuch as the verdict included an allowance for interest without stating'on what sums or from what date The -interest was allowed that it was for'that reason so uncertain and ambiguous that no judgment could properly have been entered upon it.” He relies upon the case of Gaither v. Wilmer, 71 Md. 361 , where the suit wasi on two promissory notes, and the jury, on the 21st of June, 1889, returned a ■^sealed verdict simply “for the plaintiff,” without stating the damages or the amount the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The verdict was handed to the trial judge, who stated to counsel that it was defective, and asked if they would 'consent to its being corrected. Counsel for the defendant declined to do so, the verdict was then recorded, and the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment. On the 25th of June, one of the counsel for plaintiff filed an affidavit to the effect that during the trial a calculation of the amount claimed was made by one of plaintiff’s counsel, and was reviewed by counsel for the defendant and written on the blackboard in sight of the jury; that the amount’was $5,318.12, and was still on the blackboard; that thereupon counsel for the defendant admitted that if the jury found for the plaintiff the amount so written was the “proper amount for which to find a verdict.” Counsel for the defendant objected to the affidavit being received by the Court, but the Court overruled the objection, and on the 21th day of June the Court amended the sealed verdict by inserting in the verdict after the ⁴⁸⁵ words “for the plaintiff” the words “for the sum of $5,378.72,” and on the same day entered a judgment on the verdict for that sum.

In disposing of the case, Judge Miller, speaking for the Court, said: “Without doubt, a verdict in an action like the present, simply Tor the plaintiff,’ without stating the damages, or the amount the plaintiff is entitled to- recover, is fatally defective. It is not merely an informal' verdict, which the Court can mould into proper shape by referring to the pleadings and issues, but is substantially defective. In all cases where