HARRIS VS. HARRIS (DIVORCE)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

On motions in a divorce appeal taken on the judgment roll alone. The jury had returned both a "special verdict" and a separate document titled "Special Findings of Fact by the Jury." Held: special findings of fact by a jury have no force unless accompanying a general verdict, and are distinct from a special verdict (Pickett v. Handy, 5 Colo. App. 295, 88 P. 606); the separate findings were unauthorized, form no part of the judgment roll (N.C.L. sec. 8829), and the trial court had no authority to give them effect by adopting them in its decree. The court declined to treat the mislabeled findings as a second special verdict, as doing so would amend the record contrary to the jury's evident intention. Motion to strike the "Special Findings of Fact by the Jury" granted; motion to strike specified portions of the divorce decree denied, those provisions to be tested on the appeal itself.

In plain language

In a divorce appeal brought on the judgment roll alone, the wife asked the Supreme Court to strike from that record a paper the jury had filed labeled "Special Findings of Fact by the Jury." The jury had returned a separate "special verdict," and there was no general verdict. The Nevada Supreme Court granted the motion. It held that special findings of fact by a jury have no validity unless they accompany a general verdict, and that a special verdict is a different thing from special findings on particular questions. The jury's separate "findings of fact" were therefore unauthorized, formed no part of the judgment roll, and the trial court had no power to give them effect by adopting them in its decree. The court refused to treat the mislabeled findings as a second special verdict. The wife's separate motion to strike certain parts of the divorce decree was denied, so those provisions could be tested on the appeal itself.