
    [Lancaster,
    June 7, 1824.]
    ROBERTS against HOPKINS.
    IN ERROR.
    IF the record show merely that a verdict was returned in the court below, in favour of the plaintiff, and assessing damages, “ subject to the opinion of the court on the facts proved” and judgment on the verdict, without more, the judgment is erroneous and must be reversed.
    The jury before whom this cause was tried in the District Court for the city and county of Lancaster, on the 7th January, 1822, returned a .verdict, finding “for the plaintiff 517 dollars damages, and six cents costs, Subject to the opinion of the court.”
    
    The court afterwards, on motion of the counsel for the plaintiff, which was opposed by the defendant’s counsel, directed the verdict to be amended, according to the entry made by the court at the time it was rendered, by adding to it the words, £‘ on the facts proved.” On the verdict thus amended, judgment was rendered.
    
      Wright and Ellmaker, for the plaintiff in error,
    insisted, that no judgment could be entered on the verdict rendered by the jury. Donner v. Lewis, M. S. C. decided at Lancaster May Term, 1822.
    ■2. If the verdict was intended as a special verdict, the facts are not sufficiently set forth, to enable the court to give judgment for either party. 2 Tidd. 808, 9.
    
      Hopkins, for the defendant in error,
    said that this writ of error ought to be quashed. The case was summitted to the court below, on the facts proved; and it must be presumed that the verdict was so taken by consent. Where the parties agree to submit a matter to the court, their decision upon it is not subject to review on writ of error. 3 El. Com. 378. 14 Johns. 215. Fuller v. 'Trevor, 8 Serg. fy Rawle, 529.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tilghman, C. J.

In this case the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 517 dollars damages, and six cents costs, <£subject to the opinion of the court on the facts proved. ” What these facts were, we know not; so that it is impossible for us to say, whether the judgment, was right or wrong. If such a verdict could be supported, the party against whom judgment was given, would be cut off from the benefit of a writ of error. The jury have no right to throw the facts and the law, on the court, though they may find the facts and submit the law. • But in such case, the facts appearing of record, either party may have a writ of error. In the present case, nothing is found absolutely. The damages are not assessed absolutely, but subject to the court’s opinion on facis which do not appear. It is an imperfect verdict. The parties may submit their cause to the court, in vvhat manner they please, by consent; and if they think proper to submit it, so as to preclude each other from a writ of error, it is all very well. But nothing of that kind appears here. We find nothing on the record but the verdict and judgment. In the case of Donner v. Lewis, at May Term, 1822, there was a verdict for the plaintiff in an ejectment, “ subject to the opinion of the court,” without any mention of facts. We reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. The. case before us falls within the same principle. A reference to facts proved, without stating these facts, is no better than if facts had not been mentioned at all. It is the opinion of the court, that the Judgment should be reversed and a venire de novo awarded.

Judgment.reversed and a venire facias de novo awarded.  