Patton v. Caldwell
PATTON verʃus CALDWELE.
T
HIS was an action on a policy of infurance, upon the trial of which, Lewis, for the Plaintiff , offered to read in evidence a fpecial verdict that had been given in another action upon the fame policy, but againft a different underwriter. Sergeant and Ingerʃol objected, that the verdict was given between other parties, and, therefore, not admiffible ; upon which Lewis proved an agreement of all the underwriters to be bound by one verdict.
M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice.– The objection turns upon this principle, that the Defendant had no opportunity of crofs-examining upon the former trial; and the anfwer is, that he, with the reft of the underwriters, had agreed to be bound by one verdict; which is certainly the only ground for offering the evidence propofed by the Plaintiff's counfel.
1789.
Whether this agreement was made in perfon, or by a Broker, mutually employed, it is equally binding on the parties ; and, under the agreement,all the underwriters were fully entitled to interfere upon the former trial, and to crofs-examine the witneffes then produced. Although, therefore, we fhould not have allowed the fpecial verdict to be read without full proof of the agreement; yet, on receiving that fatisfaction, we think it would be unfair to fupprefs it ; and, for the future, we defire, that all fuch agreements may be entered on the records of the Court.
The admiffion of this evidence, however, cannot be conclufive ; as it is manifeft, that teftimony has been given on the prefent occafion, different from what was given on the former ; and, confequently , a very different verdict may with great juftice and propriety take place.