John Catron

“ That the jury having given a general verdict for entire damages on both counts of the declaration, which verdict was received by the court, and entered of record without objection from the plaintiff, and the jury having separated, the court have not the legal right, and if they possess the legal right, ought not, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to modify the verdict of the jury in the manner proposed by the plaintiff's counsel ”

“ First. As to the declaration. It may be alleged that the first count is bad, and that the verdict, being general on both counts, is thereby vitiated. The reply is:-1. The count is not bad. It provides for the event of no special damage being made out. It would, at least, justify nominal damages. It alleges that the defendants were engaged in a duty to the public as carriers of passengers; that they undertook to carry the plaintiff safely, and failed to do so. ”

“ Had such averment been necessary, the omission would be cured after verdict, on the principle heretofore noticed.
Second. As to any irregularities committed by the jury in making up their verdict, they are not examinable in a court of error. 1 Peters's C. C. R. 159. All these matters are referred to the sound discretion of the court below. The refusal to grant a new trial is not the subject of a writ of error. 4 Wheat. 223; 6 Wheat. 547.
Nothing, however, can be better settled, than that the Circuit Court was right in refusing to act upon the affidavit of a juror. ”

“ BISHIP v. STOCKTON ET AL. Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The defendants, by Cornelius Darragh, their attorney, come and defend the wrong, when, &c., and for plea say, that they are not guilty of the matters and things alleged against them in the plaintiff's declaration, and of this they put themselves upon the country. ”

“ And whereas also, heretofore, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at Baltimore aforesaid, the said plaintiff, at the said special instance and request of the said defendants, became and was a passenger by a certain other coach, to be safely and securely carried and conveyed thereby on a certain journey, to wit, from Baltimore aforesaid to Wheeling aforesaid, for certain rewards to the said defendants in that behalf ”

“ The allegation in this case should have been, that the defendants were common carriers; there is none of a contract for hire. 2 Wash. 187; 2 New Hamp. R. 289.
Mutual promises must be averred. 1 Cain. 583; 5 Serg. & Rawle, 358.
Every material fact must be averred with precision. 9 Johns. 291.
Will the verdict cure these defects of pleading? The general rule is, that nothing is to be presumed after verdict, except what is stated in the declaration, or necessarily implied. 1 T. R. 145; 7 T. R. 521 ”

“ As to the errors in pleading which will lead to a reversal, see 9 Wheat. 720.
In this case there is no plea, and of course no replication; docket entries are no part of the record. 10 Ohio Rep. 200; 5 Peters, 254; 12 Wheat. ”