# Maring-Crawford Motor Co. v. Smith > Supreme Court of Alabama · January 22, 1970 · 285 Ala. 477 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698998 ## Case - **Full name:** MARING-CRAWFORD MOTOR CO., Inc., a Corp. v. Julia Emma SMITH - **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama - **Decided:** January 22, 1970 - **Citations:** 285 Ala. 477; 233 So. 2d 484; 1970 Ala. LEXIS 1057 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** On rehearing by Harwood - **Judges:** Harwood, Livingston, Lawson, Merrill, Maddox - **Cited by:** 55 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698998 ## Opinion text On Rehearing HARWOOD, Justice. We extend this opinion on rehearing in deference to the insistence of counsel for appellant. It appears that several of the grounds of the motion for a new trial attack the verdict as being a quotient verdict. Attached to the motion as an exhibit is an affidavit by Mr. Donald L. Collins, attorney for appellant. In this affidavit Mr. Collins deposes that immediately after the rendition of the verdict and dismissal of the jury, he met Willard Jay Wilson, foreman of the jury, and questioned him as to the method by which the jury had arrived at the sum of $15,000 awarded in the verdict. Mr. Wilson stated in substance that the jurors had agreed to write a figure on separate pieces of paper which would be totaled and the total divided by twelve, which quotient would be the amount to be awarded the plaintiff. The affiant then proceeded to the jury room and found in a trash can twelve pieces of paper, each bearing a certain figure, and a thirteenth piece of paper upon which appeared the total of the figures, and the division of this sum by twelve. The total of the sums was $193,500, the one-twelfth quotient of said sum being $16,125. The thirteen pieces of paper found in the jury room were attached to the affidavit. The appellee moved to strike those parts of the affidavit relating to the alleged conversation between Mr. Collins and the juror on the grounds that the same- was hearsay, and on the further grounds, that *487 the affidavit sought to impeach the verdict of the jury. The court reserved his ruling on this motion to strike. The appellee offered in evidence an affidavit by the juror Wilson, counsel stating he had sent to Mr. Collins a copy of the affidavit on 2 December 1967, some 24 days prior to the hearing. Juror Wilson’s affidavit set forth that all members of the jury agreed that a verdict should be rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Thereafter each juror wrote down a figure he thought would be a fair award, “but at no time during the deliberations did the members of the jury agree in advance of writing the figures to be bound by the figures- or an average thereof or a quotient or any resulting amount.” Affiant Wilson further stated that the sum of the figures when divided by twelve amounted to $16,126, as he recalled, and the amount of damages awarded was $15,-000, and he had never made a statement to anyone that the jury had agreed to be bound by an average of the figures, but that the amount awarded was arrived at after a full and fair discussion and deliberation with no commitment by any member of the jury. Objection was interposed to the admission of this affidavit on the grounds that it was “a self-serving illegal affidavit, and not subject to cross examination for either the contents of it or either any prior inconsistent statements made by the affiant to the counsel in this case.” The court reserved a ruling on this objection. Upon completion of the hearing the court took the matter under consideration and overruled the same on 2 February 1968. That portion of Mr. Collins’ affidavit pertaining to his conversation with the juror Wilson was hearsay, and further, tended to impeach the jury verdict. Neither testimony nor affidavits of jurors are admissible to impeach their verdicts. Finney v. Newson, 203 Ala. 191 , 82 So. 441 ; Bank of Cottonwood v. Hood, 227 Ala. 237 , 149 So. 676; Fortson v. Hester, 252 Ala. 143 , 39 So.2d 649 ; Lackey v. Lackey, 262 Ala. 45 , 76 So.2d 761 . The affidavit of Mr. Collins as to the juror Wilson’s statement to him tending to impeach the verdict would indirectly permit that to be done which could not be done directly. In view of the ’court’s denial of the motion for a new trial, we assume that this inadmissible portion of Mr. Collins’ affidavit was not considered. .. . ..... :" | This then leaves that portion of Mr. Collins’ affidavit relative to finding the above mentioned papers in the jury room. As stated in Mobile and O. R. Co. v. Watson, 221 Ala. 585 , 130 So. 199 : “The rule has long prevailed in Alabama that, when there are shown figures used by a jury in its deliberations from which’ a fair inference may be drawn that the verdict was a quotient, the court will so hold, and that it was the result of a previous agreement unless the contrary is shown. Southern Ry. Co. v. Williams, 113 Ala. 620 , 21 So. 328 ; Birmingham R. Light & Power Co. v. Clemons, 142 Ala. 160 , 37 So. 925 ; George’s Restaurant v. Dukes, 216 Ala. 239 , 113 So. 53 ; Alabama City G. & A. Ry. Co. v. Lee, 200 Ala. 550 , 76 So. 908 ; International Agr. Corp. v. Abercrombie, 184 Ala. 244 , 63 So. 549 , 49 L.R.A.,N.S., 415. “Also that evidence of jurors is admissible to sustain their verdict, George’s Restaurant v. Dukes, supra; New Morgan County Building & Loan Ass’n v. Plemmons, 210 Ala. 286 , 98 So. 12 ; Birmingham, R. L. & P. Co. v. Clemons, supra (and many others), but jurors cannot testify to facts which tend to impeach it. Birmingham, R. Light & Power Co. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115 , 42 So. 1024 ; *488 George’s Restaurant v. Dukes, supra; Finney v. Newson, 203 Ala. 191 , 82 So. 441 ; Continental Casualty Co. v. Ogburn, 186 Ala. 398 , 64 So. 619 (and many others). (Emphasis ours.) The affidavit of the juror Wilson submitted by the appellee, negatives the existence of the inference created by the papers found in the jury room of any agreement of the jurors to be bound by an average of the figures noted individually by the jurors. Such agreement to be bound is essential before a verdict may be declared a quotient verdict. Fleming v. Knowles, 272 Ala. 271 , 130 So.2d 326 ; Southern Elec. Generating Co. v. Howard, 275 Ala. 498 , 156 So.2d 359 . Clearly, the affidavit of the juror Wilson offered by the appellee was properly before the court for consideration. As set forth in the recent case of Jones v. State, 284 Ala. 343 , 224 So.2d 890 : “But, Rule 22 of the Rules of Practice in the Circuit and Inferior Courts, Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, as last amended, specifically provides for affidavits in support of motions for new trial. We have said, ‘The general rule is that the affidavit of a juror may be allowed to disclose facts to sustain the verdict.’ Harris v. State, 241 Ala. 240 , 2 So.2d 431 ; Leith v. State, 206 Ala. 439 , 90 So. 687 ; Echols v. State, [ 34 Ala.App. 305 , 39 So.2d 44 ] supra. See, also, 7 Ala. Dig., Criminal Law, <®=’957(1), p. 106.” We find no basis for disturbing the lower court’s order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial on the ground and contention that the verdict was a quotient verdict. We have considered the other matters argued in the brief of counsel in support of the application for rehearing. As to these matters, we adhere to our former opinion. Opinion extended; application overruled. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, MERRILL and MADDOX, JJ., concur. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698998. Public record. Not legal advice.