HARRIS VS. HARRIS (DIVORCE)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

On the merits of the divorce appeal (judgment roll alone). The decree granted the husband a divorce on the ground of three-years' separation, but the jurisdictional facts (bona fide six-week Nevada residence and three-year separation without cohabitation) had been found only in the jury's special findings, which were stricken in Harris v. Harris, 62 Nev. 473, 153 P.2d 904. Held: a special verdict must contain all facts essential to the judgment; nothing may be supplied by intendment, and no presumption of unfound facts is indulged (N.C.L. sec. 8777; Coburn Cattle Co. v. Small, 35 Mont. 288, 88 P. 953; Abraham v. Mack, 130 Or. 32, 273 P. 711). Because the special verdict did not find the jurisdictional facts and the supporting special findings were stricken, the judgment lacked a factual basis. The insufficiency appeared on the face of the judgment roll and presented a jurisdictional question reviewable without a motion for new trial. The court declined to direct entry of a separate-maintenance decree for the wife, as the trial court might, on a proper verdict, exercise its discretion to grant the husband a divorce. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

In plain language

This is the decision on the merits of the same divorce appeal, taken on the judgment roll alone. The husband had won a divorce on the ground of three years' separation, but the only facts establishing the two jurisdictional requirements - his six-week Nevada residence and the three-year separation - had been contained in the jury's "special findings of fact," which the court had already stricken. The remaining "special verdict" did not itself find those jurisdictional facts. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. A special verdict must find all facts essential to the judgment, with nothing left to intendment or presumption. Because the stricken findings had supplied the missing jurisdictional facts, the judgment resting on them had no factual basis. The defect appeared on the face of the judgment roll and raised a jurisdictional question, so it could be reviewed even without a motion for a new trial. The court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, and declined to direct entry of a separate-maintenance decree for the wife, since on a proper verdict the trial court might still, in its discretion, grant the husband a divorce.