Carney v. Lydon, 31322.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | 31322. |
| Citation | 224 P.2d 634,36 Wn.2d 878 |
| Parties | CARNEY et ux. v. LYDON et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Kahin, Carmody & Horswill, and Erle W. Horswill, all of Seattle, for appellants.
Christ D. Lillions, Seattle, for respondents.
A departmental opinion in this case was filed August 1, 1950, and was published in 220 P.2d 894. We reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remanded the case to enter a judgment thereon.
We have recalled the remittitur so that we may review and determine the validity of the ruling of the trial court denying the motion of respondent for a new trial, as prescribed by Rule 14 of Rules of Pleading, Procedure and Practice, Rem.Supp.1945, § 308-14.
Our attention is called to some remarks made by the trial judge when he considered the motion for a new trial, from which it is argued that he must have been of the opinion that the jury was influenced by passion and prejudice and believed that the respondent should not have treated appellant for the disease with which she was suffering. Upon this basis respondent urges that we should accept the attitude of the trial judge and grant the motion for a new trial, notwithstanding the fact that even though he may have entertained such views he denied the motion. It is not our province to speculate on what the jurors may have had in mind, nor to consider views expressed by the trial judge when the motion for a new trial was Before the court. Our study of the record convinces us that no error was committed during the progress of the trial warranting a setting aside of the verdict of the jury. The evidence was sufficient from both a legal and factual standpoint to sustain the verdict, and nothing has been presented by respondent on his appeal requiring a reversal of the order.
The order of the trial court denying the motion for a new trial is affirmed, and the cause again remanded for the entry of judgment upon the verdict of the jury.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mostrom v. Pettibon
...to the standard of care of a reasonable chiropractor in the same circumstances. Carney v. Lydon, 36 Wash.2d 878, 880, 220 P.2d 894, 224 P.2d 634 (1950); 19 A.L.R.2d at 1192. See generally Hayes v. Hulswit, 73 Wash.2d 796, 797, 440 P.2d 849 The trial court found that the facts supported a fi......
-
State v. Kelsey
...supra; Martin v. Department of Social Security, 1942, 12 Wash.2d 329, 121 P.2d 394; Carney v. Lydon, 1950, 36 Wash.2d 878, 220 P.2d 894, 224 P.2d 634. In Kelly v. Carroll, 1950, 36 Wash.2d 482, 219 P.2d 79, 19 A.L.R.2d 1174, this court (a) Drugless healers are not doctors and are prohibited......
-
Hansen v. VIRGINIA MASON MEDICAL CENTER, 48156-8-I.
...method of treatment was designed to eliminate poison from the body and that should be followed by relief from the disease." Carney, 36 Wash.2d at 880, 224 P.2d 634. Finally, in 1958, the Court decided Carpenter v. Moore, a case against a dentist who had agreed to make partial plates for the......