Gray v. Fanning
| Decision Date | 13 July 1900 |
| Citation | 73 Conn. 115,46 A. 821 |
| Parties | GRAY v. FANNING. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, New London county; John M. Thayer, Judge.
Action by Enos M. Gray against George Fanning for malicious prosecution. From an order setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff, he appeals. Affirmed.
Donald G. Perkins, for appellant Jeremiah J. Desmond, for appellee.
TORRANCE, J.The jury in this case rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,000 damages. The defendant in due time made a motion that the verdict be set aside on the ground (1) that it was against the evidence; (2) that the damages were excessive; and the court granted the motion on the second ground stated in it, and set the verdict aside.
In granting defendant's motion upon the second ground alone, and not upon the first, the fair inference is, as claimed by the plaintiff, that the trial court was satisfied that that part of the verdict which finds the issues for the plaintiff was not against the weight of the evidence; so that the controlling question upon this appeal is whether the trial court erred in holding that the damages assessed were so excessive as to justify it in setting aside the verdict. The principles to be applied by this court in determining a question of this kind are stated very fully in the case of Loomis v. Perkins 70 Conn. 444, 39 Atl. 797, and need not be restated here. The record shows, among other things, that on the 9th of January, 1899, the defendant caused to be issued against the plaintiff a grand juror's cpm-plaint, together with a warrant for his arrest, founded on said complaint; both duly signed by competent authority. The complaint charged him with violating section 1445 of the General Statutes of this state, in cutting upon his own land, while it was mortgaged, standing wood and timber trees, with intent to defraud the owner of said mortgage and to lessen the value of the mortgaged premises. Upon this complaint and warrant the plaintiff was neither taken into custody, nor was he put under bonds for his appearance at the time and place of trial. He was merely notified to appear for trial at a certain time and place in the town where he resided. On the 20th of January, 1899, he appeared for trial, and was tried and acquitted. His total pecuniary loss caused by or arising in any way out of this prosecution and trial, including full compensation for his time spent in the matter, did not exceed $25. Upon a careful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MedValUSA Health Programs v. MEMBERWORKS
...by our case law and court practices, such as: a reviewing court's authority to overturn a jury award as excessive; see Gray v. Fanning, 73 Conn. 115, 117, 46 A. 831 (1900); a court's power to reduce the amount of a jury award; Practice Book § 17-3; the prohibition against jury awards of pun......
-
Doroszka v. Lavine
... ... Shea v. Berry, 93 Conn. 475, 106 A. 761; Verdi ... v. Donahue, 91 Conn. 448, 99 A. 1041; Hammond v ... Rowley, 86 Conn. 6, 84 A. 94; Gray v. Fanning, ... 73 Conn. 115, 46 A. 831; Valentine v. Pollak, 95 ... Conn. 556, 111 A. 869; Sheffield v. Beckwith, 90 ... Conn. 94, 96 A. 316; ... ...
-
Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, 18515.
...in cases where that discretion is unreasonably exercised” should this court reverse the judgment of the trial court. Gray v. Fanning, 73 Conn. 115, 117, 46 A. 831 (1900). The question, then, is not whether we would have ordered a remittitur on this evidence. Rather, our inquiry is whether t......
-
Goodwin v. Giovenelli
... ... so excessive as to be unreasonable and to amount to an ... injustice." Belsky v. Sheronas, 95 Conn. 693, ... 694, 112 A. 268; Gray v. Fanning, 73 Conn. 115, 117, ... 46 A. 831; Horsfall v. Foley, 111 Conn. 722, 723, ... 150 A. 64 ... In ... computing the damages, ... ...