Glover v. Stevenson
| Decision Date | 16 January 1891 |
| Docket Number | 14,629 |
| Citation | 26 N.E. 486,126 Ind. 532 |
| Parties | Glover et al. v. Stevenson et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Gibson Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
J. B Handy, C. W. Armstrong, J. B. Cockrum, W. A. Land and J. B Gamble, for appellants.
J. E McCullough and J. H. Miller, for appellees.
The only error assigned is that the court below erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.
Several reasons were assigned for a new trial, but only three are argued:
The evidence is in the record, and we have read it with care. There was serious controversy on but one question of fact. Upon this question two witnesses for the plaintiffs testify to one state of facts, and two in behalf of defendants testify in direct opposition to them. It is a case where the burden, as to this fact, was upon the defendants, who are the appellees here. The circumstances surrounding the transaction seem to strongly corroborate the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, and if we were to decide the case upon what appears to us to be the weight of the evidence, we would be compelled to decide, unhesitatingly, in favor of the appellants. Under the well settled rule of this court, however, we can not, for this reason, reverse the case. Such questions must be met and settled by the nisi prius courts, for whose guidance this court has laid down the following salutary rule: "It must clearly appear that substantial justice has been done by the verdict, or a new trial should be granted." Christy v. Holmes, 57 Ind. 314. This rule applies with special force where the ground of the motion is that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, as in such cases, if there is a conflict in the evidence, this court can afford no relief.
Appellants insist that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence a part of a certain letter written by plaintiffs to their agent. A part of this letter had already been offered in evidence and, over the objection of appellees, admitted on the statement of appellants' counsel, afterwards proven, that it was read to the appellees pending negotiations which resulted in the execution of the note in suit.
Appellees then insisted that as a part of the letter had gone to the jury it should all go in evidence, and offered the entire letter. It was read to the jury, over appellants' objection. There was no error in this.
Appellants also complain because the court excluded certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial