Bird v. Bradburn
| Decision Date | 16 December 1902 |
| Citation | 131 N.C. 488,42 S.E. 936 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BIRD. v. BRADBURN. |
SETTING ASIDE VERDICT—DISCRETION OP COURT—FINDINGS OP FACT—APPEAL.
1. Granting a motion to set aside a verdict, and ordering a new trial at the same term the verdict was rendered, is a matter of discretion, from which an appeal does not lie; and it is not necessary for the judge to find the facts on which he bases his ruling.
¶ 1. See Appeal and Error, vol. 2, Cent. Dig. § 588.
Appeal from superior court, Jackson county; Moore, Judge.
Action by J. W. Bird against J. F. Brad-burn. From an order setting aside a verdict for defendant and granting a new trial, defendant appeals. Dismissed.
Coleman C. Cowan, for appellant.
Walter E. Moore, for appellee.
On the coming In of the verdict in favor of defendant, the plaintiff's counsel moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. After argument of counsel, the court at the same term granted the motion, set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial, and the cause was continued. The defendant requested the court to find the facts, and state its reasons upon the record for setting aside the verdict. The court declined to do so, beyond stating that the verdict was "set aside in the exercise of the discretion which is vested in the court, in order that the case may be properly tried hereafter, and justice done to all the parties."
The power of the court to set aside a verdict as a matter of discretion has always been inherent, and is necessary to the proper administration of justice. The judge is not a mere moderator, but is an integral part of the trial; and, when he perceives that justice has not been done, it is his duty to set aside the verdict His discretion to doso is not limited to cases in which there has been a miscarriage of justice by reason of the verdict having been against the weight of the evidence, in which, of course, he will be reluctant to set his opinion against that of the 12; but he may perceive that there has been prejudice in the community, which has affected the jurors, possibly unknown to themselves, but perceptible to the judge, who is usually a stranger, or a very able lawyer has procured an advantage over an inferior one, —an advantage legitimate enough in him, but which has brought about a result which the judge sees is contrary to justice. In such and many other instances which would not furnish a legal ground to set aside the verdict, the discretion reposed in the trial judge should be brought to bear to secure the administration of exact justice. This being an exercise of discretion, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Justus v. Rosner
...reluctance." In re Will of Buck , 350 N.C. 621, 626, 516 S.E.2d 858, 861 (1999) (emphasis omitted); see also Bird v. Bradburn , 131 N.C. 488, 489, 42 S.E. 936, 937 (1902) (noting that a trial judge "will be reluctant to set his opinion against that of the twelve [jurors]" (parentheses omitt......
-
Finch v. Covil Corp.
...a result which the judge sees is contrary to justice." Worthington , 305 N.C. at 483, 290 S.E.2d at 603 (quoting Bird v. Bradburn , 131 N.C. 488, 489, 42 S.E. 936, 937 (1902) ).Similarly, in Greene v. Royster , the North Carolina Court of Appeals noted that the mere fact that a jury "conclu......
-
Goodman v. Goodman
...of the trial court. Bailey v. Mineral Co., 183 N.C. 525, 112 S.E. 29. Hence the appeal is without substance, and will be dismissed. Bird v. Bradburn, supra. dismissed. ...
-
Cameron v. Merisel Properties, Inc.
...absence of manifest abuse of discretion. Britt v. Allen, 291 N.C. 630, 634-35, 231 S.E.2d 607, 611 (1977) (quoting Bird v. Bradburn, 131 N.C. 488, 489, 42 S.E. 936 (1902); and Roberts v. Hill, 240 N.C. 373, 380, 82 S.E.2d 373, 380 (1954)). "Our review of a discretionary ruling denying a mot......