Karnes v. Winn

• Decision Date: 02 December 1907
• Citation: 126 Mo. App. 712,105 S.W. 1098
• Parties: KARNES et al. v. WINN et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

105 S.W. 1098

126 Mo. A. 712

KARNES et al. v. WINN et al.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 2, 1907.

1. NEW TRIAL—GROUNDS—VERDICT CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE—ONE NEW TRIAL.

A trial court may in its discretion grant one new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence.

2. APPEAL — REVIEW — DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT—NEW TRIAL—WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.

Appellate courts will not interfere with the granting of a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, except where there has been an abuse of discretion, and they will not consider that there has been such an abuse if there is any substantial evidence against the verdict.

3. NEW TRIAL—GROUNDS—VERDICT CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE.

Where there is evidence and strong and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which tend to discredit the verdict, but there is sufficient evidence to uphold the refusal of a new trial, the trial court is at full liberty to exercise its discretion in either granting or refusing a new trial.

4. SAME — ORDER — SYMPATHY OF JURY CAUSING FAILURE OF JUSTICE.

Where a trial court grants a new trial on the ground that "sympathy of the jury caused a failure of justice," it is equivalent to saying that the verdict is against the weight of evidence.

5. SAME.

While the words of the statute may be most appropriate in stating the reasons for sustaining a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, other words which convey the same meaning are sufficient.

Appeal from Buchanan County Court; C. A. Mosman, Judge.

Action by John Karnes and others against Jennie Winn and others. From an order granting a new trial, after verdict for defendants, they appeal. Affirmed.

Charles F. Strop, James W. Boyd, and Eugene Silverman, for appellants. Neville & Grier and Mytton, Parkinson & Crow, for respondents.

ELLISON, J.

The plaintiffs, as representatives of the estate of George S. Karnes, deceased, brought an action against defendants on a promissory note for $988.30. The defendant Jennie Winn, who is a daughter of the deceased, denied the execution of the note, and also set up a counterclaim of $5,000 on account of domestic services alleged to have been rendered her father during his lifetime. The trial resulted in a verdict against plaintiffs on the note and for the defendant Jennie Winn on her counterclaim in the sum of $2,000. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, which was sustained by the trial court, and from that order defendant appealed.

The case has been well and earnestly argued by the respective counsel, and leaves us convinced that we cannot interfere with the order without disregarding established rules. The motion for new trial, among other grounds, set up that the verdict was against the evidence in the case and the weight of the evidence, and the jurors were influenced and controlled by sympathy. The court sustained the motion on the ground that "sympathy of the jury caused a failure of justice." It is well established in this state that a trial court may, in its discretion, grant...