Johnson v. Norton
| Citation | 64 Conn. 134,29 A. 242 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 19 February 1894 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. NORTON. |
Appeal from court of common pleas, New Haven county; Hotchkiss, Judge.
Action by Wallace E. Johnson against Samuel Norton, under Gen. St. § 1344, to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff's land caused by fire set by defendant on his own, and which he permitted to escape to plaintiff's, land, commenced in justice's court, and taken on appeal by defendant to the court of common pleas. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Henry F. Hall, for appellant. E. A. Merriman, for appellee.
The complaint in this case alleges that the plaintiff was, on the 1st day of April, 1892, the owner of a certain piece of land in the town of Cheshire, and that the defendant was the owner of a certain other piece of land in the same town; that, on the 19th day of that month, the defendant set fire on his own land, which ran upon the land of the plaintiff, and did damage. The action was first brought before a justice of the peace in the said town of Cheshire, where judgment was rendered for the plaintiff to recover the sum of $20. The defendant then appealed to the court of common pleas in New Haven county. In the latter court the cause was tried to a jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the same sum. The defendant thereupon moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence, and the court certified the evidence to this court After reading the whole evidence, and duly considering the same, we are convinced, not only that the verdict is not against the evidence, but that it is fully supported by the evidence, and expresses the only correct conclusion to which the jury could come.
In dismissing the motion, we think it necessary only to observe that while chapter 51 of the Public Acts of 1893, under the provisions of which this case comes before us, has made some changes in the mode of access to this court, it has made none in the principles which determine under what conditions a verdict may be set aside as against evidence. It still remains true that this relief will be granted only when manifest in justice has been done by the verdict, and the wrong is so plain and palpable as clearly to denote that some mistake was made by the jury in the application of legal principles, or as to justify the suspicion that they, or some of them, were influenced by corruption, prejudice, or partiality....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Buxton
...of innocence. The rule which must govern a trial judge in setting aside a verdict as against the evidence, stated in Johnson v. Norton, 64 Conn. 134, 29 Atl. 242, is too firmly settled by many decisions to be now questioned. "A verdict will be set aside only when manifest injustice has been......
-
State v. Laudano
...and clearly stated in the following cases in this court as to make further discussion or statement of them superfluous: Johnson v. Norton, 64 Conn. 134, 29 Atl. 242; Brooks' Appeal, 68 Conn. 294, 36 Atl. 47; State v. Lee, 69 Conn. 186. 37 Atl. 75; Loomis v. Perkins, 70 Conn. 444, 39 Atl. 79......
-
Smith v. Hall
...as to entitle the defendant to a new trial. Clark v. Pendleton, 20 Conn. 495, 509; Waters v. Bristol, 26 Conn. 398, 405; Johnson v. Norton, 64 Conn. 134, 29 Atl. 242; Brooks' Appeal, 68 Conn. 294, 36 Atl. Upon the appeal the reasons assigned are 28 in number, 12 of which relate to rulings u......
-
Burr v. Harty
...disclosed by that evidence. And so the decision of the trial court is entitled to weight in reaching our conclusion. Johnson v. Norton, 64 Conn. 134, 135, 29 Atl. 242; Brooks' Appeal, 68 Conn. 294, 297, 36 Atl. 47; Loomis v. Perkins, supra. This case is governed by these settled principles.......