Blosser v. Harshbarger
| Decision Date | 18 August 1871 |
| Citation | 62 Va. 214 |
| Parties | BLOSSER v. HARSHBARGER. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
1. For the grounds on which new trials will be granted, see opinion of Christian, J.
2. A new trial asked on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, ought to be granted only in a case of plain deviation from right and justice; not in a doubtful case merely because the court, if on the jury, would have given a different verdict.
3. Where a case has been fairly submitted to a jury, and a verdict fairly rendered, it ought not to be interfered with by the court, unless manifest wrong and injustice has been done, or unless the verdict is plainly not warranted by the facts proved.
4. Where some evidence has been given which tends to prove the fact in issue; or the evidence consists of circumstances and presumptions, a new trial will not be granted merely because the court if upon the jury, would have given a different verdict. To warrant a new trial in such cases, the evidence should be plainly insufficient to warrant the finding of the jury. And this restriction applies a fortiori to an appellate court.
5. A holds the bond of B twelve years old, and she puts it into the hands of H for collection. They are all relations, and all members of the Menonist church, the rules of which forbid members to sue each other. H does not collect the money; and after the death of A, her administrator sues H for negligence in failing to collect the money. These are facts which may be considered by the jury on the question of negligence.
This was an action of assumpsit in the Circuit court of Rockingham county, brought in August 1866, by David Blosser, adm'r of Anna Blosser, deceased, against Joseph Harshbarger, to recover the amount of a bond executed by Jacob Blosser to Anna Blosser, which was placed by her in the hands of Harshbarger to be collected by him; and which he had failed to collect. The bond bore date the 26th of July 1842, and was for $1,362.73, payable with interest at the end of two years and was assigned to Harshbarger for collection, on the 6th of September 1856. There was a verdict for the defendant, and a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. This motion was overruled; and a judgment entered upon the verdict; and the plaintiff excepted; and obtained a supersedeas to the Special Court of appeals, at Winchester, and the case was transferred to this court. The facts are stated by Judge Christian in his opinion.
Woodson, for the appellant.
Fultz, for the appellee.
This is a supersedeas to a judgment of the Circuit court of Rockingham county. The only error assigned in the petition of the plaintiff in error, is the refusal of the court below to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
The rules of law under which a court is warranted in setting aside the verdict of a jury and granting a new trial, are too well settled and firmly established, by the decisions of this court, to admit of doubt, or even serious discussion.
A new trial asked on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, ought to be granted only in a case of plain deviation from right and justice; not in a doubtful case, merely because the court, if on the jury, would have given a different verdict. Where a case has been fairly submitted to a jury, and a verdict fairly rendered, it ought not to be interfered with by the court, unless manifest wrong and injustice has been done, or unless the verdict is plainly not warranted by the facts proved.
In Grayson's case, 6 Gra t. 712, Judge Scott, in an opinion remarkable for its clearness and brevity, has deduced from the decisions of this court and of the General court, the following leading principles which govern motions for new trials.
" A new trial will be granted:
I. Where the verdict is against law. This occurs where the issue involves both fact and law and the verdict is against the law of the case on the facts proved.
II. Where the verdict is contrary to the evidence. This occurs when the issue involves matter of fact only, and the facts proved required a different verdict from that found by the jury.
III. Where the verdict is without evidence to support it. This occurs when there has been no proof whatever of a material fact or not sufficient evidence of the fact or facts in issue. Where some evidence has been given which tends to prove the fact in issue, or the evidence consists of...
To continue reading
Request your trial