Nebraska Revised Statute 25-1120

Chapter 25 Section 1120

25-1120.

Special verdict; controls general verdict.

When the special finding of facts is inconsistent with the general verdict, the former controls the latter, and the court may give judgment accordingly.

Source

  • R.S.1867, Code § 294, p. 443;
  • R.S.1913, § 7859;
  • C.S.1922, § 8803;
  • C.S.1929, § 20-1120;
  • R.S.1943, § 25-1120.

Annotations

  • 1. Construction

  • 2. Inconsistency

  • 3. Miscellaneous

  • 1. Construction

  • Special findings that testatrix was incompetent and that will was procured by undue influence do not invalidate a general verdict denying validity of will. Anderson v. Claussen, 196 Neb. 787, 246 N.W.2d 586 (1976).

  • Special finding of facts controls verdict. Carlson v. Hanson, 166 Neb. 96, 88 N.W.2d 140 (1958).

  • Court will, when possible, construe special findings as consistent with general verdict. Havlik v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 87 Neb. 427, 127 N.W. 248 (1910).

  • Special findings, to be in conflict with general verdict, must be clearly so; special finding on irrelevant issue will be disregarded. Citizens National Bank of Grand Island v. Wedgwood, 45 Neb. 143, 63 N.W. 375 (1895).

  • 2. Inconsistency

  • General verdict is not required where a special verdict is submitted. Baum v. County of Scotts Bluff, 172 Neb. 225, 109 N.W.2d 295 (1961).

  • Special verdict controls general verdict in case of conflict. Sohler v. Christensen, 151 Neb. 843, 39 N.W.2d 837 (1949).

  • Special finding of fact controls general verdict; if difference between two, it is proper and necessary to require remittitur of such difference as condition on which case affirmed. McGrew Machine Co. v. One Spring Alarm Clock Co., 124 Neb. 93, 245 N.W. 263 (1932).

  • Special findings control general verdict, where inconsistent as to liability of each of two defendants. Walker v. McCabe, 110 Neb. 398, 193 N.W. 761 (1923).

  • In equitable action judgment will be reversed if essential special findings are in conflict with general findings, and former are sufficiently supported by evidence. Carpenter Paper Co. v. News Pub. Co., 63 Neb. 59, 87 N.W. 1050 (1901).

  • Where special findings establish contributory negligence they are inconsistent with general verdict for plaintiff. Norfolk Beet-Sugar Co. v. Preuner, 55 Neb. 656, 75 N.W. 1097 (1898).

  • Special findings to warrant judgment, notwithstanding general verdict to contrary, must include all facts from which such judgment results as a necessary legal conclusion. Omaha Life Assn. v. Kettenbach, 55 Neb. 330, 75 N.W. 827 (1898).

  • General verdict will be set aside if in irreconcilable conflict with special findings on a material fact. Culbertson I. & W. P. Co. v. Olander, 51 Neb. 539, 71 N.W. 298 (1897).

  • Special findings control general verdict. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. McGinnis, 49 Neb. 649, 68 N.W. 1057 (1896); Johnston v. Milwaukee & Wyoming Inv. Co., 49 Neb. 68, 68 N.W. 383 (1896).

  • 3. Miscellaneous

  • A general verdict cannot rectify improper or erroneous special findings. Wagner v. State, 176 Neb. 589, 126 N.W.2d 853 (1964).

  • It is error for court, after jury discharged, to vacate special finding and enter judgment on general verdict. Story v. Sramek, 108 Neb. 440, 187 N.W. 881 (1922).

  • Motion for judgment on special findings is not waiver of right to be heard on motion for new trial. Kafka v. Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha, 87 Neb. 331, 127 N.W. 129 (1910).

  • New trial will not be allowed for failure of jury to answer questions not material to issues. Modlin v. Jones & Co., 84 Neb. 551, 121 N.W. 984 (1909).

  • Special findings, unsupported by evidence, will not support judgment. American Fire Ins. Co. v. Buckstaff Bros. Mfg. Co., 52 Neb. 676, 72 N.W. 1047 (1897).