Opinion
(December Term, 1830.)
Where the jury do not respond to all the issues on the record their verdict is defective and no judgment can be rendered on it.
Detinue for sundry slaves, to which the defendant pleaded — first, non detinet; second, a release; third, the statute of limitations. Issue was taken on the two first pleas, and to that of the statute of limitations the plaintiff replied a former suit and a nonsuit herein, and that the present action was commenced within a year and a day. On this replication issue was taken by the defendant. The cause was tried before DONNELL, J., when the jury found "that the defendant does detain (538) negroes, etc. (identifying them and fixing their value); and they further find, that the statute of limitations is no bar, and they assess," etc. Judgment was rendered according to the verdict, and the defendant appealed.
Gaston, for the defendant.
Mordecai, for the plaintiff.
FROM GREENE.
The decision at the bar turned altogether upon the effect of the verdict as entered on the issue joined on the plaintiff's replication to the plea of the statute of limitations. It certainly is very badly expressed, and much as we are disposed to make every inference to support verdicts, we might have found much difficulty in doing so here, were the case depending on that point only. But there is another objection apparent on the record, which was overlooked by the counsel, and which is decisive, without expressing any opinion on the former. One of the defendant's pleas is a release, on which an issue was joined. To that the jury has not made, nor attempted to make, any response. The verdict is, therefore, so defective, that no judgment can be given, and there must be a venire de novo.
PER CURIAM. Venire de novo.
Cited: Rogers v. Ratcliff, 48 N.C. 236.