{ "id": 11269676, "name": "J H. COX v. HIGH POINT, RANDLEMAN & SOUTHERN R. R. COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Cox v. High Point, Randleman & Southern R. R. Co.", "decision_date": "1908-11-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "86", "last_page": "89", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "149 N.C. 86" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "94 N. C., 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Tex. Civ. App., 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex. Civ. App.", "case_ids": [ 223706 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tex-civ-app/4/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 N. M., 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 How., 39", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "How.", "case_ids": [ 3365030 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/53/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 U. S., 513", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 N. C., 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8697295 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/80/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 N. C., 292", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276432 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/15/0292-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 349, "char_count": 5136, "ocr_confidence": 0.471, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4956650691260435e-07, "percentile": 0.6638369650122459 }, "sha256": "fa078d052bc4df886b9bb7313cf07b66c3b6929b40a87dcd72816c1328278bfd", "simhash": "1:8e9386916f8ce6cc", "word_count": 903 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:43.519867+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J H. COX v. HIGH POINT, RANDLEMAN & SOUTHERN R. R. COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clare, C. J.\nAction for damages for wrongful death. In response to the issue as to damages, the jury responded \u201cfive thousand.\u201d The Court entered judgment for \u201cfive thousand dollars.\u201d This was not error.\nDamages are necessarily found in money values. The only words that could be entered after \u201cfive thousand\u201d were either \u201cdollars\u201d or \u201ccents,\u201d and no one ever says \u201cfive thousand cents.\u201d The U. S. Compiled Statutes, sec. 3563, provides that the \u201cdollar,\u201d not \u201ccent,\u201d shall be the unit of value.\nBesides, the verdict, like the charge, must be construed with reference to the trial. The complaint was for thirty thousand dollars. The evidence as to damages was expressed in dollars. The Judge charged the jury that the plaintiff\u2019s contention was that he was entitled to recover \u201ca certain amount of damages; I mean a certain amount of compensation, so many dollars to compensate for the value of his life.\u201d The evidence for plaintiff\u2019s intestate was that his income was $1,000 per year. The table of expectancy showed 28 9-10 years. The Judge submitted to the jury the proper rule for damages and also left to them the defendant\u2019s contention for reductions. The whole controversy before the jury on this issue was in terms of \u201cdollars,\u201d not \u201ccents,\u201d and the verdict must be construed in that connection.\n\u25a0 In Stevens v. Smith, 15 N. C., 292, where the plaintiff sued on a note for four hundred and forty-seven dollars and sixty-six cents,\u201d this Court held (Gaston, J.) that it was not a variance that by the instrument put in evidence the defendant promised to pay \u201cfour hundred and. forty-seven and sixty-six cents,\u201d saying that the note being for the payment of money, it was payable in our currency, and \u201cdollars\u201d were meant, unless \u201ccents\u201d were named, because tbe Act of Congress, 2 April, 1792 (now IT. S. Compiled Statutes, sec. 3563), makes tbe dollar tbe unit; that all other coins were recognized as multiples or fractional parts thereof, and that' tbe same was true of our State, Laws 1809, cb. 775, adding, \u201cthis note could not be understood by tbe parties, by a court, or by a jury, in any other sense than as stipulating for tbe payment of four hundred and forty-seven dollars (or units)- and sixty-six cents (or hundredth parts thereof). This case is cited and approved in State v. Keeter, 80 N. C., 474.\n\u201cThe omission of the word \u2018dollars\u2019 in a verdict for a money recovery does not affect the validity of the judgment, when it is manifest that dollars were meant, though it would be more regular to amend the verdict before judgment.\u201d Hopkins v. Orr, 110 U. S., 513; Parks v. Turner, 12 How., 39; Beall v. Territory, 1 N. M., 519; R. R. v. Fink, 4 Tex. Civ. App., 269. \u201cFrom the earliest period the courts have freely, exercised the power of amending verdicts so as to correct manifest errors, both of form and of substance, to make them conform to the intention of the jury.\u201d 2 Thompson Trials, sec. 2642, and cases cited.\nOf course, if the verdict had been returned in open court, the Judge should and doubtless would have called the omission of the word \u201cdollars\u201d to the attention of the jury. State v. Godwin, 138 N. C., 585. But we learn that, by consent, the verdict was rendered to the Clerk. If the matter had been called to the attention of the Judge, on the reassembling of the Court, he would have called the jury together. Petty v. Rousseau, 94 N. C., 362, and cases there cited. But they may have dispersed. At any rate the matter does not appear to have been called to the attention of the Judge by exception, in apt time, nor indeed at all. The case is presented here simply by the appeal and assignment of error, both of which-Could have been entered at any time within ten days after Court had adjourned.\nIn view of the pleadings, the evidence, the nature of the case, the contentions of the parties as arrayed by the Judge in his charge, his instructions to the jury and the absence of any exception in apt time, it would be \u201csticking in the bark,\u201d indeed, to hold that the verdict was not meant to be expressed in dollars.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clare, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Justice & Broadhurst, Murphy & Wright and B, 0. Strud-wich for plaintiff.", "Wilson & Ferguson for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J H. COX v. HIGH POINT, RANDLEMAN & SOUTHERN R. R. COMPANY.\n(Filed 11 November, 1908).\n1- Damages \u2014 Verdict\u2014The Word \u201cDollars\u201d Omitted \u2014 Judgment.\nWhen the jury, in response to an issue on damages, had answered the issue \u201cfive thousand,\u201d it was not error in the trial Judge to add the word \u201cdollars\u201d in rendering judgment, when the pleadings, the evidence, the nature of the case and contention of the parties conclusively so indicated; and an exception taken thereto after the jury has been discharged cannot be upheld.\n2. Same \u2014 Unit of Currency.\nWhen, to an issue in a suit for a demand for damages, the jury has answered in an amount, leaving off the word \u201cdollars,\u201d the Judge may, in the judgment rendered', supply the word, for the dollar is the unit of our currency, in which the judgment is ' to be paid, and all other coins are recognized as multiples or fractional parts thereof.\nActioN tried before Webb, J., and a jury, June Term, 1908, of Guilford.\nJustice & Broadhurst, Murphy & Wright and B, 0. Strud-wich for plaintiff.\nWilson & Ferguson for defendant." }, "file_name": "0086-01", "first_page_order": 120, "last_page_order": 123 }