Definition
A special finding is a jury's explicit determination of one or more specific facts that bear on, but do not by themselves resolve, the general issue submitted for decision. Rather than returning a general verdict — a simple declaration of "for plaintiff" or "for defendant" — the jury singles out a particular factual question, states its conclusion on that question, and leaves the legal consequences to the court.
The term encompasses two related but distinct procedural mechanisms:
1. Special finding of fact: A jury's written statement of its conclusion on a discrete factual issue — for example, whether a defendant had knowledge of a particular fact — extracted from the larger controversy.
2. Special finding under federal statute: Under the former federal practice codified in Revised Statutes § 700, courts could require juries to return findings on specific facts in lieu of or alongside a general verdict. Bouvier's notes that such a finding must state the ultimate facts that the evidence establishes, not a summary or recitation of the evidence itself. This requirement distinguishes a proper special finding from a mere evidentiary report.
In both uses, the defining characteristic is specificity: the jury speaks to a named fact, not to the case as a whole.
Common Confusion
SPECIAL FINDING vs. SPECIAL VERDICT: These terms are closely related and sometimes used interchangeably in older sources, but they are not identical. A special verdict resolves all factual issues in the case, leaving the court to apply law and enter judgment. A special finding resolves only one or more particular facts, which may exist alongside a general verdict or may be part of a larger special verdict framework. The distinction matters most when reading nineteenth-century federal practice materials, where the terms appear in close proximity and courts were not always precise in their usage.
SPECIAL FINDING vs. GENERAL VERDICT: A general verdict is an undifferentiated judgment for one party. A special finding surfaces specific facts from within the deliberation, making the jury's factual reasoning visible and reviewable. On appeal, a special finding can support or undercut a general verdict, which is precisely why practitioners sought them.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encounter this term most heavily in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century federal appellate records, where Revised Statutes § 700 governed the practice of directing juries to make written factual findings. When reading decisions from that period, the phrase "special finding" signals a procedural posture — the case likely came up on review of a discrete factual determination rather than a full verdict — and that posture shapes what questions the appellate court could and could not reach.
The term also appears in state practice, where its meaning and procedural context varied considerably. Some states treated special findings as equivalent to special verdicts; others maintained the distinction carefully. Reading a state court opinion that references a "special finding" without knowing that jurisdiction's procedural rules can produce significant misreading of the court's holding.
Modern federal practice under Rule 49 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure displaces the older Revised Statutes framework, replacing it with special verdicts (Rule 49(a)) and general verdicts with written questions (Rule 49(b)). Researchers moving between pre-1938 and post-1938 federal materials should treat "special finding" and "Rule 49 special verdict" as related but not interchangeable concepts: the underlying purpose is the same, but the governing procedural regime and the precise terminology differ.
One research trap: Bouvier's citation to "19 U.S. App." refers to United States Appeals Reports, a now-obscure series covering the federal circuit courts of appeals before the modern reporter system was standardized. Do not confuse this with Supreme Court or modern circuit court reporters.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Bouvier's definitions are consistent in their core: a special finding is a jury's determination of a specific fact that is part of, but does not encompass, the whole question before the court. Both sources situate the concept within the general verdict framework, treating the special finding as something extracted from the larger deliberative task rather than a substitute for it.
Bouvier's adds meaningful procedural specificity by tying the term to Revised Statutes § 700 and insisting that a proper special finding must state ultimate facts, not a recitation of evidence. This is a substantive distinction with appellate consequences: a finding that merely summarizes testimony would be treated as no finding at all for purposes of judicial review.
Neither source directly addresses the modern Rule 49 framework, which is expected given their publication dates. Neither source fully explores the tension that arises when a special finding is inconsistent with the general verdict returned in the same case — a live issue in both historical and modern practice that courts resolved in various ways.
Jurisdictional Note
Federal practice is now governed by Rule 49, which reorganizes this terrain without using the phrase "special finding" as a term of art. State courts vary: some retain the older terminology and associated doctrine, while others have adopted Rule 49-style frameworks. Researchers working in state courts should verify the applicable procedural rule before assuming that federal cases interpreting Rule 49 control the analysis.