Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court considered an appeal from an order denying a new trial in an action involving a land-sale contract, fraud allegations, and rescission. The court held that the evidence supported submitting the fraud and rescission issues to the jury, but that undisputed improper contact between a prevailing party and a juror created a strong appearance of misconduct and required a new trial. The order was reversed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence of fraud and rescission was sufficient to justify submitting those issues to the jury.
- Whether the private trip by the prevailing party and a juror during trial constituted juror misconduct requiring a new trial.
Holdings
- The evidence, although not conclusive, was sufficient to justify submitting the fraud and rescission issues to the jury.
- A prevailing party's private 20-minute trip alone with a juror during trial, undertaken to obtain whiskey or moonshine and lacking a reasonable innocent explanation, constituted conduct creating such a strong and well-grounded suspicion of misconduct and damage to public confidence in the verdict that the verdict could not stand and a new trial was required.
Key quotations
“The trip was uncalled for, and no reasonable explanation consistent with an innocent purpose was made or could be made.” (Page 42)
“If jurors are to dispense justice fairly, and if their verdicts are to retain the confidence and respect of litigants and the public generally, the purity of jury trials must be jealously guarded.” (Page 43)
Factual background
Plaintiffs sought $9,000 allegedly due under a contract for the sale of land in Aitkin County. Defendants admitted the contract and payment of $6,000 but asserted fraud and deceit, rescission, and a right to recover the amount paid; the jury returned a $6,000 verdict for defendants. During the last day of trial, defendant Bouck privately drove an elderly juror approximately two miles to obtain whiskey or moonshine, and the two were alone for about 20 minutes.
Procedural history
The action was commenced in September 1922 to recover $9,000 allegedly due under a land-sale contract. At trial in October 1923, the jury returned a verdict for defendants in the amount of $6,000, and judgment was entered on September 22, 1924. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied, and plaintiffs appealed.
Remand instructions
The order denying a new trial was reversed; the case was to proceed with a new trial.