Buchannan v. Lewis A. Hicks Co.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1913 |
| Citation | 66 Or. 503,134 P. 1191 |
| Parties | BUCHANNAN v. LEWIS A. HICKS CO. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
On petition for rehearing. Denied.
For former opinion, see 133 P. 780.
In a petition for rehearing it is contended by defendant's counsel that the verdict, awarding the plaintiff $1,500 for the slight injury which he suffered, is so excessive that an error was committed in refusing to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial. It is argued that a clause of the amendment of section 3 of article 7 of the Constitution of Oregon, ratified November 8, 1910, declaring that "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of this state, unless the court can affirmatively say that there is no evidence to support the verdict," should be interpreted in connection with another provision of the amendment, that "if, in any respect, the judgment appealed from should be changed, and the Supreme Court shall be of the opinion that it can determine what judgment should have been entered in the court below, it shall direct such judgment to be entered in the same manner and with like effect as decrees are now entered in equity cases on appeal to the Supreme Court" (Laws Or.1911, p 7) and when so construed this court should give judgment now for such a sum as the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Section 174, L.O.L., formerly permitted a judgment to be set aside and a new trial granted on the motion of the party aggrieved for the following causes, inter alia, to wit: (5) Excessive damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice; (6) insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or that it is against law." Pursuant to the provisions of that statute it had been the practice of many trial courts in Oregon, prior to the amendment of the Organic Law, parts of which have been quoted, to set aside judgments and grant new trials, when from a consideration of all the evidence given at the trial of an action, it was believed the verdict was excessive. In order to inhibit such practice and to uphold verdicts, the Constitution was amended so as to preclude a court from re-examining any fact that had been tried by a jury, when the verdict returned was based on any legal evidence. Consor v. Andrew, 61 Or. 483, 123 P. 46; State v Rader, 62 Or. 37, 124 P. 195; Forrest v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 129 P. 1050; Sullivan v Wakefield, 133 P. 641.
That part of section 3 of article 7 of the fundamental law, which prohibits a court from re-examining any fact tried by a jury, when the verdict is based on legal evidence properly admitted, should be so construed as to effectuate the purposes and objects that evidently induced the amendment.
In construing the provisions of a state Constitution as applicable to a cause tried by a court, the chief inquiry is to ascertain, if possible, the intent of the persons who formed that part of the fundamental law, and also the purposes of the legal voters who adopted it, and, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tenold v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
...by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of this State." Buchanan v. Lewis A. Hicks Co., 66 Or. 503, 510, 133 P. 780, 134 P. 1191 (1913), describes the problem that the amendment was intended to "Pursuant to the provisions of that statute [Lord's Oregon Laws, § 174] it had been......
-
Van Lom v. Schneiderman
...anew and see no reason to depart from that long line of decisions, beginning with Buchanan v. Lewis A. Hicks Co., 66 Or. 503, 133 P. 780, 134 P. 1191, through Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or. 24, 256 P. 770, down to Hust v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., supra, 180 Or. 409, 177 P.2d 429, which hold t......
-
State v. Mendez, 200324084.
...should be so construed as to effectuate the purposes and objects that evidently induced the amendment." Buchannan v. Lewis A. Hicks Co., 66 Or. 503, 510, 134 P. 1191 (1913) (citations In sum, the primary—and, perhaps, exclusive—purpose of the first sentence of Article VII (Amended), section......
-
Walker v. State
...by a jury, when the verdict returned was based on any legal evidence.’ Buchanan v. Lewis A. Hicks Co. , 66 Or 503, 510, 133 P. 780, 134 P. 1191 (1913)."Thus, the court recognized that Article VII (Amended), section 3, protects a jury's verdict in an action at law tried to the jury. It does ......