Chevaillier v. Denson
| Decision Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Citation | 8 Tex. 439 |
| Parties | CHEVAILLIER v. DENSON. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
In case of a conflict of testimony the judgment of the District Court, overruling a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, will not be reversed. (Note 85.)
Appeal from Nacogdoches. This was an action by the appellee against the appellant to recover the freight for the carriage of a quantity of cotton. The defendant recovered for damages occasioned by injury done to the cotton by exposure during the voyage. The plaintiff proved his demand. The evidence in support of the defense was conflicting; the witnesses differed in their statements as to the condition of the cotton when delivered to the consignees at the termination of the voyage; there was testimony that it was delivered in a damaged condition; and other testimony conducing to prove that the damage was sustained in consequence of the cotton being suffered by the consignees to remain for some time during a rainy season exposed on the ground after its delivery at New Orleans. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff; a motion for a new trial overruled.
J. M. Ardrey, for appellant.
T. J. Jennings, for appellee.
The only ground for error relied on is the refusal of the court to grant a new trial.
The question submitted to the jury was one of fact. It became their duty to decide in a conflict of testimony. It was their peculiar and exclusive province to decide upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of evidence. In such a case it is well settled that the judgment of the District Court refusing a new trial will not be reversed on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
NOTE 85.--Russell v. Mason, ante, 226.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson
...Howard v. Ray, 25 Tex. 91; Baldridge v. Gordon, 24 Tex. 288; Anderson v. Anderson, 23 Tex. 640; Gamage v. Trawick, 19 Tex. 65; Chevallier v. Denson, 8 Tex. 439; Mitchell v. Matson, 7 Tex. 4; Briscoe v. Bronaugh, 1 Tex. While on the stand as a witness, Mrs. Johnson was asked by her counsel t......
-
Cuney v. Dupree
...contrary to or against evidence. Dallam, 376, 429, 618; 1 Tex. 326;2 Tex. 428, 490;4 Tex. 465;5 Tex. 93, 492;7 Tex. 3, 556, 561, 584;8 Tex. 439. It is submitted that the instructions of the court given to the jury, were as fair and equally balanced as they could have been under the proof, a......
-
Merriwether v. Dixon
...of an erroneous charge of the court below. For the law of the charge see Pas. Dig. art. 1464, note 562. 1 Tex. 326; 7 Tex. 556;8 Tex. 439;16 Tex. 94;22 Tex. 37;24 Tex. 288;28 Tex. 56. APPEAL from Hays. The case was tried before Hon. A. W. TERRELL, one of the district judges. On the 17th of ......
-
Powell v. Haley
...of it at the trial, the affidavit is insufficient. A verdict must be sustained unless it clearly appear to be wrong. 1 Tex. 326;7 Tex. 556;8 Tex. 439;16 Tex. 94;22 Tex. 37;24 Tex. 288; 28 Tex. 56. Whatever is sufficient to put a party on inquiry is notice. 25 Tex. 213. APPEAL from Navarro. ......