Wood v. . Jones

ClaRKSON, J. In tbe light o£ tbe record, we think the second issue ambiguous, and no judgment should have been rendered on the verdict. 27 R. C. L., under “Verdict,” p. 858, part sec. 30, speaking to the subject, says: “A verdict should be certain and import a definite meaning free from ambiguity. The jury cannot find both for the plaintiff and the defendant on the same issue, as for instance, by a verdict giving the plaintiff damages and finding the defendant not guilty. And a verdict which is too uncertain or indefinite to be construed either as a general or special verdict may be rejected by the court as meaningless and of no effect.” In Rankin v. Oates, 183 N. C., at p. 518, it is said: “The court was without authority to reverse the jury’s finding on the second issue, answer it himself, and then render judgment on the verdict as amended. Garland v. Arrowood, 177 N. C., 373; Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N. C., 163; Hemphill v. Hemphill, 99 N. C., 436.” See Bartholomew v. Parrish, 186 N. C., 81; Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co., 187 N. C., 417; Alston v. Alston, 189 N. C., 299; Sitterson v. Sitterson, 191 N. C., 319. There must be a New trial.