{
  "id": 8614271,
  "name": "ROBERT TRANTHAM v. THE ELK FURNITURE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Trantham v. Elk Furniture Co.",
  "decision_date": "1927-11-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "615",
  "last_page": "617",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 615"
    }
  ],
  "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": "125 N. C., 301",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273584
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/125/0301-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N. C., 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275116
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/27/0401-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 311,
    "char_count": 5312,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.434,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.971555585024297e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8503275673601047
    },
    "sha256": "9519f1077415ef6532c434bb739e3cfabce2f8b8d6e84d5a2e52917b13a40991",
    "simhash": "1:72ffde8edc46f7ab",
    "word_count": 934
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT TRANTHAM v. THE ELK FURNITURE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BbogdeN, J.\nTbe only point presented in tbe case is based upon tbe following facts: \u201cTbe jury then came into tbe court, and tbrougb its foreman, banded tbe presiding judge tbe issues. Tbe first issue, answered 'No.\u2019 Tbe other issues are not answered. \"Whereupon, stated tbe court, 'You answer tbe first issue \u201cNo,\u201d all of you say that?\u2019 And tbe jury said, 'Yes.\u2019 Counsel for tbe plaintiff then moved tbe court to have tbe jury polled; whereupon tbe presiding judge requested tbe jury to stand, and said to tbe jury: 'As many of you as now favor to answer tbe issue \u201cYes\u201d will say \u201cYes,\u201d and those who favor answering it \u201cNo\u201d will say \u201cNo.\u201d \u2019 In tbe calling of tbe roll nine jurors answered 'No\u2019 and three answered 'Yes.\u2019 Tbe court stated to tbe jury that it did not understand why they should bring in a verdict with tbe issue answered 'No\u2019 when three were answering when their names were called they desired to answer it 'Yes.\u2019 Thereupon of those answering 'Yes\u2019 when called, two explained that they meant bow they stood in tbe vote before they bad reached a final answer to tbe issue as signed, and not as to bow they stood at tbe particular moment, that is tbe moment of tbe calling of tbe roll of tbe jury. \"Whereupon tbe presiding judge instructed tbe clerk to again call tbe roll of tbe jury and instructed tbe jury that those in favor of answering tbe issue at this time, at tbe time of tbe calling of tbe roll, would answer when their names were called5 those who desired to answer \u2018No\u2019 to tbe issue would say \u2018No,\u2019 and those desiring to say 'Yes\u2019 would say \u2018Yes.\u2019 Whereupon tbe clerk called tbe roll and twelve jurors answered to their names and said \u2018No.\u2019 Whereupon tbe court ordered tbe clerk to record tbe verdict of tbe jury as polled.\u201d\nTbe verdict of a jury is sacred. It should represent tbe concurring judgment, reason and intelligence of tbe entire jury, free from outside influence from any source whatever. Tbe trial judges have no right to coerce verdicts or in any manner, either directly or indirectly, intimidate a jury. But there is nothing in this record which, in our judgment, casts tbe slightest cloud or suspicion upon this verdict. Tbe jury returned a signed verdict into court. A poll was taken, and upon roll call it developed that three of tbe jurors bad originally been in favor of answering tbe issue \u201cYes,\u201d but after a full discussion in tbe jury-room these same jurors bad agreed to answer it \u201cNo,\u201d and such unanimous finding was duly reported to tbe court. Tbe poll was taken in open court and entirely free from tbe slightest intimation by tbe trial judge.\u201d\nTbe case of S. v. Godwin, 27 N. C., 401, is directly in point. In that case tbe jury brought in a verdict of guilty of murder and were polled at tbe request of tbe prisoner. \u201cEleven of them, each for himself, answered simply that be found tbe prisoner guilty. Tbe remaining juror answered that when tbe jury first went out be was not for finding tbe prisoner guilty, but tbat a majority o\u00a3 tbe jury was against bim, and tbat be tben agreed to tbe verdict as delivered by tbe foreman. He was further asked, \u2018Wbat is your verdict now?\u2019 and be replied, \u2018I find tbe prisoner guilty.\u2019 \u201d Tbe opinion of tbe court states: \u201cThere is nothing to raise a suspicion tbat tbe verdict was not tbe result of tbe conscientious and unanimous conviction of tbe jurors. One of them hesitated at first, as any man may upon so solemn a question; but, upon consultation with bis fellows, and deliberation, be united publicly and of bis own accord in tbe verdict.\u201d In like manner in tbe case at bar tbe three jurors, after tbe original verdict bad been rendered, still united publicly and of their own accord in tbe verdict. Lowe v. Dorsett, 125 N. C., 301.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BbogdeN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walser & Walser and Phillips & Bower for plaintiff.",
      "McCrary & DeLapp for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT TRANTHAM v. THE ELK FURNITURE COMPANY.\n(Filed 30 November, 1927.)\nVerdict \u2014 Polling ,Jnry \u2014 Conflict\u2014Entry\u2014Appeal and Error.\nWhere tbe jury has unanimously answered and returned their verdict to an issue in a civil action, and upon being polled three of them answer differently and explain by saying the answer first given was the one they had at first entertained before agreeing with the others, and again being polled the verdict is unanimously in accord with the answer of the issue handed in: Held, there is nothing to indicate that the verdict so entered was reached by outside influence or that its sacredness had been violated, and its entry as the verdict in the case is not erroneous.\nCivil actios, before Harding, J., at July Term, 1927, of DavidsoN.\nPlaintiff instituted an action against tbe defendant for damages for personal injury sustained by reason of what plaintiff alleged was a defective machine.\nTbe defendant, among other defenses, pleaded tbat a full settlement bad been made with tbe plaintiff and a release taken in discharge of its liability. Thereupon tbe plaintiff alleged tbat tbe release was secured by means of fraud.\nIssues arising upon tbe pleadings were submitted to tbe jury. Tbe first issue is as follows: \u201cWas tbe release set out in tbe answer,of tbe defendant procured by fraud as alleged in tbe reply of tbe plaintiff?\u201d Tbe jury answered tbis issue, \u201cNo,\u201d and did not answer any other issue. From tbe judgment rendered plaintiff appealed.\nWalser & Walser and Phillips & Bower for plaintiff.\nMcCrary & DeLapp for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0615-01",
  "first_page_order": 683,
  "last_page_order": 685
}