Authier v. Gill

• Decision Date: 25 October 1910
• Citation: 127 N.W. 1033
• Parties: AUTHIER v. GILL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

127 N.W. 1033

AUTHIER

v.GILL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 25, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; William Hutchinson, Judge.

“Not to be officially reported.”

Order affirmed.

A. & J. A. Van Wagenen, for appellant.

Pitkin & Smith and Dickson & Yeaman, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Action for damages for an alleged breach of a contract of employment, in that the defendant wrongfully discharged the plaintiff from his employment before the expiration of the time contracted for. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which motion was sustained by the court and a new trial ordered. From such order granting a new trial plaintiff has appealed.

The motion for a new trial was based upon 11 numbered grounds, and challenged the entire record in the case. Such motion was sustained generally, without any specification by the court as to any specific ground. The argument of appellant is confined solely to the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. We have often held that a degree of discretion is conferred upon the trial court in the matter of granting a new trial. The latitude of such discretion is somewhat greater when exercised in favor of a new trial than the reverse. To put it in another way, we are more reluctant to interfere when a new trial has been granted than when it has been refused. The cases wherein we have overruled the trial court in the granting of a new trial are very rare. We see no abuse of discretion in the case at bar. The order of the trial court must therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.