Non Obstante Veredicto

Notwithstanding the verdict. See "Judgment" NON OFFICIT CONATUS NISI SEQUAtur effectus. An attempt does not harm unless a consequence follow. 11 Coke, 98. NON OMITTAS (Lat. more fully, won omittas propter libertatem, do not omit on account of the liberty or franchise).

In practice. A writ which lies when the sheriff returns on writ to him directed, that he hath sent to the bailiff of such a franchise, which hath return of writs, and he hath not served the writ; then the plaintiff shall have this writ directed to the sheriff, that he "omit not on account of any franchise," This clause is now usually inserted in all processes addressed to sheriffs. Wharton; 2 Wm. IV. c. 39; 3 Chit. St. 494; 3 Chit. Prac. 190, 810. NON OMNE DAMNUM INDUCIT INJUriam. Not every loss produces an injury, i. e., gives a right of action. See 3 Bl. Comm. 219; 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. 131; Broom, Leg. Max. 93; 2 Bouv. Inst, note 2211, NON OMNE QUOD LICET HONESTUM est. It Is not everything -which Is permitted that is honorable. Dig. 50. 17. 144. NON OMNIUM QUAE A MAJORIBUS nostris constituta sunt ratio reddi potest. A reason cannot always be given for the institutions of our ancestors. 4 Coke, 78; Broom, Leg. Max. (3d London Ed.) 149; Branch, Princ. NON PERTINET AD JUD^CEM SECUlarem cognoscere de lis quae sunt mere splrituaila annexa. It belongs not to the secular judge to take cognizance of things which are merely spiritual. 2 Inst. 488. NON PONENDIS IN ASSISIS ET JURAtls. A writ formerly granted for freeing and discharging persons from serving on assizes and juries. Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 165. NON POSSESSORI INCUMBIT NECESsltas probandl possesslones ad se pertinere. It is not incumbent on the possessor of property to prove his right to his possessions. Code, 4. 9. 2; Broom, Leg. Max. (3d London Ed.) 639. NON POTEST ADDUCI EXCEPTIO ejusdem rei cujus petitur dissolutlo. A plea of the same matter, the dissolution of which is sought by the action, cannot be brought forward. Bac. Max. reg. 2. When an action is brought to annul a proceeding, the defendant cannot plead such proceeding in bar. Broom, Leg. Max. (3d London Ed.) 154; Wingate, Max. 647; 3 P. Wms. 317. NON POTEST PROBARI QUOD PROBAtum non relevat. That cannot be proved which, proved, is irrelevant. See 1 Exch. 91, 92, 102. NON POTEST QUIS SINE BREVI agere. No one can sue without a writ. Fleta, lib. 2, c. 13, § 4. NON POTEST REX GRATIAM FACERE cum Injuria et damno aliorum. The king cannot confer a favor which occasions injury and loss to others. 3 Inst. 236; Broom, Leg. Max. (3d London Ed.) 60; Vaughan, 338; 2 El. & Bl. 874. NON POTEST REX SUBDITUM RENItentem onerare imposltionibus. The king cannot load a subject with imposition against his consent. 2 Inst. 61. considered as having ceased to have a thing, who never had it. Dig. 50. 17. 208. NON PRAESTAT IMPEDIMENTUM quod de Jure non sortitur effectum. A thing which has no effect in law is not an impediment. Jenk. Cent. Cas. 162; Wingate, Max. 727.

Notwithstanding the verdict. See Judgment. Judgment non obstante veredicto, strictly and technically, is a judgment given for the plaintiff, on his motion, where the defendant had a verdict, but it appears from the record that, either from some matter growing out of the pleading or because the fact found by the jury is immaterial, the defendant is not, In law, entitled to the judgment. In such cases where the common-law practice prevails, a writ of inquiry is awarded to assess the damages; 2 Tidd, Pr. 920. “The right method... is not to state the entry of judgment upon the verdict by rule, but to enter the verdict upon record, and then the judgment for the plaintiff non obstante veredicto.” id. For a statement of the nature and effect of such a judgment at common law, see Judgment. As appears from the definition there given, this was a judgment for the plaintiff, and in many of the states, it has been uniformly held that judgment non obstante veredicto can only be given for a plaintiff; the remedy for a defendant is to have the judgment arrested; Buckingham v. Mc Cracken, 2 Ohio St. 287; Bellows v. Shannon, 2 Ilill (N. Y.) 86. A motion by a defendant for a judgment non obstante veredicto is never allowable; Smith v. Powers, 15 N. H. 546; Sheehy v. Duffy, 89 Wis. 6, 61 N. W. 295; Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. Caswell, 65 Vt. 231, 26 Atl. 956; Tillinghast v. Mc Leod, 17 Freem. Judg. § 7; 1 Black, Judg. § 16; unless the well-settled common-law rule has been relaxed by statute or decisions; German Ins. Co. v. Frederick, 58 Fed. 144, 7 C. C. A. 1213, 19 U. S. App. 24. A motion for such judgment must be founded on the record alone; Stenrn v. Clifford. (12 Yt. 92, 18 Atl. 1045; Smith v. Smith, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 624; it cannot be rendered after a judgment upon a verdict has been entered; State v. Bank, 6 S modes & M. (Miss.) 218, 45 Am. Dec. 2S0; Scheible v. I lart (Ky.) 12 S. AY. 628. It is allowed where a verdict has been found for the defendant on an insufficient plea in avoidance; Jones v. Fennimore, 1 G. Greene (Iowa) 124; Dewey v. Humphrey, 5 Tick. (Mass.) 187; that is, where the plea confesses the action and entirely fails to avoid it; Martindale v. Price, 14 Ind. 115; or if found true, is neither bar nor answer; Sullenberger v. Gest, 14 Ohio 204; or if an immaterial issue tendered by the plaintiff was found for the defendant and a repleader was unnecessary to effect justice; Shrove v. Whittlesey, 7 Mo. 473; or if on motion for a new trial it is clear that in no event could damages be recovered on the cause of action; Ballou v. Harris, 5 It. 1. 419. But such a judgment will not be entered where the evidence on material issues of fact was con dieting to such an extent as to require the submission of such issues to the jury; Blazosseck v. Sherman Co., 141 Fed. jU22. In Pennsylvania, under a statute, where a point of law is reserved at the trial, the jury is instructed to find for the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant moves for judgment on the point reserved non obstante veredicto. See 2 Brewster, Prac. 1219. This statute is held by the United States supreme court to be not enforceable in the federal courts as being in conllict with the seventh amendment to the constitution; Slocum v. Ins. Co., 228 U. S. 364, 33 Sup. Ct. 523, 57 L. Ed. 879. See New Trial. And in some other states, the technical common-law rule that this form of judgment should not be given for the defendant, has not been observed; though it would seem that this change of practice is due, in some degree, to the confusion of this subject with judgment on special verdicts and points reserved, and to the fact that judgments are frequently entered under the name non obstante veredicto, which properly and technically would not be such if the common-law distinctions were carefully observed. Such judgment for defendant has been entered in an action for damages where a plea of contributory negligence was not controverted; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mayfield (Ky.) 35 S. W. 924; or where plaintiff’s evidence is a mere scintilla; Holland v. Kindregan, 155 Pa. 156, 25 Atl. 1077; or where fendant moved for judgment on the remaining findings and undisputed evidence; Menominee R. S. & Door Co. v. R. Co., 91 Wis. 447, 65 N. W. 176. But such statute does not apply to a case in which the jury disagreed; Mc Kinnon v. Rynkievicz, 145 Fed. 863; and such motion by defendant will not be granted where the defence is a general denial; Virgin Cotton Mills v. Abernathy, 115 N. C. 402, 20 S. E. 522; or where the pleadings and evidence raise questions of fact proper for a jury; Slivitski v. AVien, 93 AVis. 460, 67 N. AV. 730; or where the evidence supports a verdict for plaintiff, but the undisputed facts show the transaction to be within the statute of frauds; Ternpieman v. Gibbs (Tex.) 25 S. W. 736. A reservation of “the question whether there is any evidence in this case, to be submitted to the jury, on which plaintiff is entitled to recover,” docs not present a “point reserved” to authorize judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto; Yerkes v. Richards, 170 Pa. 346, 32 Atl. 1089; nor can such judgment be rendered for plaintiff where verdict is for defendant, subject to the question reserved whether, notwithstanding the findings, plaintiff was not entitled to recover; Hosier v. Hursh, 151 Pa. 415, 25 Atl. 52. Where there was a verdict for plaintiff subject to the opinion of the court on the question of law reserved, the court directed judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto, saying that it had the same effect as a directed verdict; Casey v. Pav. Co., 109 Fed. 744, affirmed 114 Fed. 189, 52 C. C. A. 145. A motion for such judgment is properly denied, after verdict upon an issue distinctly raised by the answer and submitted to the jury without objection; Lewis v. Foard, 112 N. C. 402, 17 S. E. 9; or where the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict; Fruchey v. Eagleson, 15 Ind. App. 88, 43 N. E. 146; or where, after reserving a point on certain facts, other evidence is submitted to the jury, and it is uncertain on which evidence the jury found; Keifer v. Eldred Tp., 110 Pa. 1, 20 Atl. 592. It is not sufficient that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence; Manning v. Orleans, 42 Neb. 712, GO N. AV. 953: and the judgment can be entered only when the moving party is entitled to it upon the pleadings of the party who had the verdict; Gibbon v. Loan Ass’n, 43 Neb. 132, 61 N. AV. 126. In Ohio, judgment against a general verdict cannot be entered unless all the facts necessary to support such judgment are expressly found; Fairbank & Co. v. R. Co., 66 Fed. 471. In Indiana, a judgment non obstante will not be granted unless there is an irreconcilable conflict between the general verdict and the answer to the interrogatofinding of facts is inconsistent with the general verdict, the former controls the latter, and the court may give judgment accordingly; School Dist. v. I/und, 51 Kan. 731, 33 Pac. 595. In Oregon, there is a statutory provision authorizing judgment for the other party where the verdict does not correspond with pleadings, and it is held that that right is not impaired by failing to move for judgment before verdict; Benicia Agr. Works v. Creighton, 21 Or. 495, 28 Pac. 775, 30 Pac. 676. In Minnesota, sueli judgment can be given only to a party who, after the testimony, moved to direct a verdict in his favor; Ilemstad v. Hall, C>4 Minn. 136, 66 N. W. 366. In Kansas, by statute, such a judgment may be entered by the court in favor of the party against whom an adverse verdict has been rendered; Ft. Scott v. Brokerage Co., 117 Fed. 51, 54 C. O. A. 437. In many states there are statutes on the subject which must be considered in connection with the decisions. NON OMITTAS (Lat. more fully, non omittgs propter libertatern, do not omit on account of the liberty or franchise). There were districts or liberties in England in regard to which grants were formerly made by the crown to individuals, conferring on them or their bailiffs the exclusive privilege of executing legal process therein. When it became necessary to execute a writ in such a liberty, it was framed with a clause of non omittas specially authorizing the sheriff to enter; 2 Steph. Com. 683. This clause is now usually inserted in all processes addressed to sheriffs. Wharton, Lex.; 3 Chitty, Pr. 190, 310.

Notwithstanding the verdict. A judgment entered by order of court for the plaintiff, although there has been a verdict for the defendant, is so calied. German Ins Co. v. Frederick, 58 Fed. 144, 7 C. C. A. 122; Wqutworth v. Wentworth, 2 Minn. 282 (Gil. 238), 72 Am. Dec. 97; Hill v. Ragland, 114 Ky. 209, 70 S. W. 634.

Defined under Non Obstante in Black's Law Dictionary.