Sec. 307 RETROSPECTIVE MOTIONS 575

Defects in the Verdict

FROM the logical nature of the Rules gov- erning all Common-Law Pleading, it is ap- parent that, if a Verdict is to be effective as a finding upon the Issues presented, it must conform to and include all matters of Sub- stance covered by such Issues. Judgment will consequently be Arrested when a General Verdict, awarding Entire Damages, is given on a Declaration containing Several Counts, some of which are bad, but not when it is silent as to matters which, though submitted, can have no effect upon the merits of the con- troversy.46

Relation of Motion in Arrest of Judgment and Aider by Verdict

AS we have seen,47 it is well settled that Faults in Pleading may in some cases be Aided or Cured by Verdict. Thus, where the plaintiff, in alleging a grant which must have been by deed, fails to expressly State in the Declaration that it was by deed, and the de- fendant, instead of Demurring, as he would be entitled to do, and in case of which the Declaration would be held bad, Pleads Over, and Issue is taken upon the grant, and a Ver- dict rendered for the plaintiff, the Verdict Cures the Defect in the Declaration, and no objection can be taken on that ground by motion in Arrest of Judgment, or by Writ of Error.48 The doctrine of Aider by Verdict is

824 (1837); Posnett v. Marble, 62 Vt. 481, 20 A. 813

(1890).

In most States if there is One Good Count by which a General Verdict can be supported, Judgment will not be arrested because some of the counts are de- fective. Langan v. Enos Fire Escape Co., 233 Ill. 308, 84 N.E. 267 (1908); Klofski v. Railroad Supply Co., 235 Ill. 146, 85 N.E. 274 (1908); Varn v. Pelot, 55 Fla. 357, 45 So. 1015 (1908). See, also, White v. Bailey, 14 Conn. 272 (1841), absence of finding on immaterial issues; Patterson v. United States, 2 Wheat. 221, 4 L.Ed. 224 (1817).

1096 (1622); And see, Arkansas: Knight v. Sharp,

24 Ark. 602 (1867); Illinois: Reeves v. Forman, 26

Koffler & Reppy Com.Law PIdg. H.B.—20

founded on the Common Law, and is entirely independent of any Statutory Enactment. The expressions “Cured” or “Aided by Ver- dict” signify that the Court will, after Ver- dict, presume or intend that the particular thing which appears to be Defectively or Imperfectly Stated, or Omitted, was duly proved at the Trial so as to support the Ver- dict. But, if the Declaration fails to allege any Substantive Fact which is essential to the Statement of a Cause of Action, and which is not implied in, or inferrable from the finding on those which are alleged, a Ver- dict for the plaintiff does not Cure the De- fect. Thus, for example, if in Ejectment the plaintiff Omits the Allegation of Ouster, and the Jury nevertheless finds a Verdict for the plaintiff, the Judgment must be Arrested.

The extent and principle of this doctrine has been succinctly stated in the famous Eng- lish case of Jackson v. Pesked,49 in which

Bank, 61 Ill. 482, 14 Am.Rep. 73 (1871); Compton v.

People, 86 Ill. 176 (1877); Barnes v. Brookman, 107

Bank of Metropolis, 8 Gill. (Md.) 59 (1849); Massa- chusetts: Colt v. Root, 17 Mass. 229 (1821); New

(1855); New York: Addington v. AlIen, 11 Wend.

(N.Y.) 375 (1833); Vermont: Harding v. C raigie, S

Vt. 501 (1836).

For a failure to aver full performance by plaintiff in an Action on a Contract, see Warren v. Harris, 2 Gil. (Ill.) 307 (1845); for a defective statement in an action for rent against a tenant holding over, see Clinton Wire-Cloth Co. v. Gardner, 99 Ill. 151 (1881); for failure to count on the Statute under which the action was brought, see Pearce v. Foot, 113 Ill. 228 (1885); for want of Venue, see Toledo, P. & W. fly. Co. v. Webster, 55 Ill. 338 (1870); Rob- erts v. Corby, 86 Ill. 182 (1877); for want of a sum in the Ad Damnum clause where the body of the Declaration shows a claim of Damages, see Burst v. Wayne, 13 Ill. 599 (1852); for want of formal Joinder in Issue, see Strohm v. Hayes, 70 Ill. 41 (1873); Imperial Fire Ins. Co. v. Shimer, 96 Ill. 580 (1881). See, also, note, Aider by Ver- dict, 6 Va.L.Rev. 285 (1920).

Sniith v. Eastern R. R., 35 N.H. 363 (1857); Flan- ders v. Town of Stewartstown, 47 NH. 549 (1867); Wallace v. Curtiss, 36 Ill. 156 (1864); Heiman v.