There is another method of finding a spe cial verdict : this is when the jury find a ver dict generally for the plaintiff, but subject nevertheless to the opinion of the judges or the court above on a special case, stated by the counsel on both sides, with regard to a matter of law ; 3 Bla. Com. 378. See Porter v. Rummery, 10 Mass. 64.
A juror may dissent at any time from a verdict to which he had before agreed until the same is recorded ; 15 Am. L. Rev. 423. A mistake in the verdict may be corrected be fore it is recorded and the jury discharged ; State v. Shelly, 98 N. C. 673, 4 S. E. 530.
Where a jury being equally divided in opinion come to an agreement by lot, it was formerly held that its verdict was legitimate ; 1 Keble 811; but such verdicts are now held to be illegal, and will be set aside. The "quotient" verdict is so called from the fact that the jurors, having agreed to find for the plaintiff, furthei: agree that their verdict shall be in such sum as is ascertained by each juror privately marking down the sum of money to which be thinks the plaintiff entitled, the total of these sums being divided by twelve. This method is almost universally condemned, the ground of the objection being that such an agreement cuts off all delibera tion on the part of the jurors, and places it in the power of one of their number by nam ing a sum extravagantly high or ridiculously low to make the quotient unreasonably large or small ; Goodman v. Cody, 1 Wash. Ty. 329, 34 Am. Rep. 808; Chicago & I. Coal R. Co. v. McDaniel, 134 Ind. 166, 32 N. E. 728, 33 N. E. 769 ; so of a verdict in a criminal case fix ing the term of ' imprisonment ; Pruitt v. State, 30 Tex. App. 156, 16 S. W. 773 ; contra, in the case of a fine in a criminal case for libel ; Smith v. Corn., 98 Ky. 437, 33 S. W. 419. But where the calculation is purely informal, for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of the jury, the objection is obviated, and the verdict will stand ; Cochlin v. Peo ple, 93 Ill. 410; Sullens v. R. Co., 74 Ia. 659, 38 N. W. 545, 7 Am. St. Rep. 501; Ponca v. Crawford, 23 Neb. 662, 37 N. W. 609, 8 Am. St. Rep. 144 ; Hunt v. Elliott, 77 Cal. 588, 20 Pac. 132 ; Kinsley v. Morse, 40 Kan. 588, 20 Pac. 222. A verdict obtained by taking one twelfth of the aggregate amount of the sev eral estimates of the jurors is not objection able when there was no antecedent agree ment to be bound by the result, and when each juror deliberately accepted the amount thus ascertained; Consolidated Ice-Mach. Co. v. Ice Co., 57 Fed. 898 ; Cortelyou v. Mc Carthy, 37 Neb. 742, 56 N. W. 620 ; but if in pursuance of an agreement to be bound by the result, the verdict must be set aside; East Tennessee & W. N. C. R. Co. v. Win ters, 85 Tenn. 246, 1 S. W. 790; Roy v. Goings, 112 Ill. 656; Congdon v. Winsor, 17 R. I. 240, 21 Atl. 540. So where two of the jurors agree that if one places a coin and the other guesses heads or tails, and the guess is right, they will agree with the majority ; Donner v. Palmer, 23 Cal. 47 ; or where a verdict is
reached by drawing lots it will be set aside ; Obear v. Gray, 68 Ga. 182 ; Wright v. Abbott, 160 Mass. 395, 36 N. E. 62, 39 Am. St. Rep. 499. See JURY.
A verdict allowing a larger sum than is claimed in the petition must be set aside; Harwick v. Weddington, 73 Ia. 300, 34 N. W. 868. Where a verdict in an action for breach of covenant is larger than the plaintiff's claim a remittitur is properly allowed ; Tar bell v. Tarbell, 60 Vt. 486, 15 Atl. 104 ; and a remission of a part of the verdict, followed by a judgment for the remaining sum, as a condition of the denial of a new trial, does not deprive the defendant of his constitution al right to have the question of damages tried by a jury, or constitute a re-examina tion of the facts tried by the jury in violation of the 7th amendment of the United States constitution ; Arkansas Val. L. & C. Co. v. Mann, 130 U. S. C9, 9 Sup. Ct. 458, 32 L. Ed. 854.
A verdict received on Sunday is valid ; Stone v. U. S., 64 Fed. 607, 12 C. C. A. 451, 29 U.• S. App. 32; a third successive verdict was set aside in Brown v. U. S., 164 U. S. 225, 17 Sup. Ct. 33, 41 L. Ed. 410.
A verdict of "no cause of action" is a 'ver dict for defendant; Felter v. Mulliner, 2 Johns. 181; a verdict is good if the court can understand it; Jones v. Julian, 12 Ind. 274.
Where a verdict allows interest, but does not compute it, the court may compute it, if it can be done by a mathematical calculation; Miller v. Steele, 153 Fed. 714, 82 C. C. A. 572; Martin v. Silliman, 53 N. Y. 615. Where a master states an account between partners, but without adding interest, the court may add interest from the filing of the bill; Young v. Winkley, 191 Mass. 575, 78 N. E. 377. Where there is a verdict on a note, but without interest, the court may add interest in judgment ; Fletcher v. Nelson, 6 N. D. 94, 69 N. W. 53 ; otherwise where the jury did not include interest and interest was not a legal incident of the debt ; Akin v. Jefferson, 85 Tex. 137; the court cannot add it in entering judgment ; Butler v. Holmes, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 48, 68 S. W. 52. Where, on the day after the verdict, all the jury made affidavit that they had to add interest, the court added it in entering judgment ; Elliott v. Gilmore, 145 Fed. 964. But where the jury were directed to find for the debt, interest and attorney fees, and failed to find interest, the court refused to add the interest ; McCrary v. Gano, 115 Ga. 295, 41 S. E. 580. So in the case of an action on a foreign judgment ; Helium v. Dickinson, 47 Ark. 120, 14 S. W. 477.
In eminent domain proceedings, if the jury find a lump sum, the court cannot add inter est, though the jury were instructed to do it ; Butte Electric Ry. Co. v. Mathews, 34 Mont. 487, 87 Pac. 460.
See NEW TRIAL; TRIAL ; AFFORCE THE As SIZE ; JURY ; AIDER BY VERDICT.