Glover v. Stevenson

• Citation: 26 N.E. 486,126 Ind. 532
• Parties: Glover et al. v. Stevenson et al.
• Decision Date: 16 January 1891
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

126 Ind. 532

26 N.E. 486

Glover et al.

v.Stevenson et al.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 16, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Gibson county; O. M. Welborn, Judge.

Laud & Gamble and Handy, Armstrong & Cockrum, for appellants. McCullough & Miller, for appellees.

McBRIDE, J.

The only error assigned is that the court below erred in overruling appellants' motion for a new trial. Several reasons were assigned for a new trial, but only three are argued: (1) That the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law; (2) that the court erred in allowing the defendants to read in evidence a part of a certain letter; (3) that the court erred in refusing to allow plaintiffs to read in evidence certain mortgages. 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 plaintiffs' 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 cannot, 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: “A new trial should be granted unless it clearly appears that substantial justice has been done by the verdict.” Christy v. Holmes, 57 Ind. 315. This rule applies with special force when 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...