Gillespie v. Stone

• Decision Date: 28 February 1869
• Citation: 43 Mo. 350
• Parties: JAMES GILLESPIE, Appellant, v. FRANCIS E. STONE, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

43 Mo. 350

JAMES GILLESPIE, Appellant,

v.FRANCIS E. STONE, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February Term, 1869.

Appeal from Fourth District Court.

Burgess, for appellant.

When the evidence does not support the verdict, as in this case, the Supreme Court will reverse the judgment and grant a new trial. (Robbins v. Alton Ins. Co., 12 Mo. 380; Williams v. State, 9 Mo. 268; Allexander v. Harrison, 38 Mo. 258; Tiffin v. Forrester, 8 Mo. 642; Nelson v. Boland, 37 Mo. 432; Henry v. Forbes, 7 Mo. 455; State v. Burnside, 37 Mo. 343; Lackey v. Lane, 7 Mo. 220; Heyneman v. Garneau, 33 Mo. 565; Clemens v. Laveille, 4 Mo. 80; Scott v. Brockway, 7 Mo. 61; Bybee v. Kinote, 6 Mo. 53; Oldham v. Henderson, 4 Mo. 295; Mulliken v. Geer, 5 Mo. 489; Shobe v. Morris, 6 Mo. 489; Dooley v. Jenning, id. 61; Campbell v. Hood, id. 211; State v. Mansfield, 41 Mo. 470.) The rule of law is well established that in causes where the verdict of the jury has been given contrary to the evidence, or where there is no evidence at all to support the verdict, as in this case, a new trial will be granted. (Lowry v. Orr, 1 Gillm., Ill., 70; Scott v. Blumb, 2 Gillm. 595; Keagy v. Hite, 12 Ill. 99; Baker v. Pritchell, 16 Ill. 66.)

A. M. Mullins, for respondent.

The verdict of the jury should not be set aside because it may appear to be against the weight of the evidence in the cause. The jury are, from the very nature of things, the rightful and legitimate triers of the facts. (State v. Burnside, 37 Mo. 346; McAfee v. Ryan, 11 Mo. 364.)

CURRIER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff seeks to reverse the judgment below on the sole ground that the verdict rendered in the cause is not sustained by the evidence. In a civil cause, where the court trying it approves the verdict by refusing to set it aside, and there is not an entire want of evidence in its justification, as there is not here, this court will not interfere and reverse, although the verdict may seem to be greatly against the weight of evidence. This has been too often decided to require further comment. (11 Mo. 364; 19 Mo. 246; 37 Mo. 346; 41 Mo. 473.)

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

The other judges concur.