Collins v. Fogg, 513.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 513.,513. |
| Citation | 199 A. 251 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | COLLINS v. FOGG. |
Exceptions from Franklin Municipal Court; P. L. Shangraw, Judge.
Action by Helena Collins against Chester Fogg for damages to plaintiff's automobile from the alleged negligence of defendant. A verdict for plaintiff for $200 was set aside, and a new trial granted on the issue of damages only, and defendant brings exceptions. Plaintiff moves to dismiss the exceptions.
Motion overruled, judgment affirmed, and cause remanded.
Argued before POWERS, C. J., and SLACK, MOULTON, SHERBURNE, and BUTTLES, JJ.
J. Boone Wilson, Charles F. Black, and Willsie E. Brisbin, all of Burlington, and Sylvester & Ready, of St. Albans, for plaintiff. William R. McFeeters, of St. Albans, for defendant.
The plaintiff seeks to recover the damages to her automobile resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant. A verdict of $200 in her favor has been set aside as to damages only, and a new trial granted on that issue only. To this ruling the defendant has excepted.
The plaintiff moves here that the defendant's exceptions be dismissed for the reason that the controversy has not ended below, and that no full and perfect judgment has been there rendered. The bill of exceptions states: "Exceptions allowed; cause passed to the Supreme Court." Hence we will assume, nothing appearing to the contrary, that the trial court acted under P. L. 2072, and in its discretion passed the exceptions to this court for determination before final judgment. In this, view of the matter, the question is before us for decision, and the plaintiff's motion must be overruled. Ryan v. Barrett, 105 Vt. 21, 162 A. 793; Hannah v. Hannah, 96 Vt. 469, 472, 120 A. 886. This last case, one where the ruling was upon a motion to set aside the verdict before judgment, is directly in point, whereas Beam v. Fish, 105 Vt. 96, 163 A. 591, cited by the plaintiff, presents a much different situation.
In support of her motion to set aside the verdict as to damages and for a new trial on that issue only, the plaintiff, among other things, pointed out "that the undisputed evidence in the case was that plaintiff's damages were $450.00." The defendant insists from this expression that the motion which the court granted was in effect that there was no evidence warranting, the verdict of $200. We do not so construe the language used. As a ground for the motion it merely pointed out that the verdict was grossly inadequate in view of the undisputed evidence. The motion was addressed to the court's discretion; and this court cannot reverse its action thereon, unless an abuse...
To continue reading
Request your trial