Kelly v. Drumheller
| Decision Date | 06 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | 21429. |
| Citation | 272 P. 731,150 Wash. 185 |
| Parties | KELLY v. DRUMHELLER. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County; John B. Davidson Judge.
Action by May Kelly against George Drumheller. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Pedigo & Watson, of Walla Walla, for appellant.
Rummens & Griffin, of Seattle, and Earl W. Benson, of Walla Walla for respondent.
The plaintiff sued to recover damages for a breach of an alleged promise to marry. The action was tried to a jury and a verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff for $10,000. From a judgment on the verdict the defendant has appealed.
The assignments of error question only the ruling of the trial court in denying a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and entering judgment on the verdict.
The appellant cheerfully recognizes our well-settled rule that a motion for judgment n.o.v. invokes no element of discretion but only the judicial function, and can be granted only when the court can say as a matter of law that there is no substantial evidence, or reasonable inference from evidence to support the verdict. But it is contended and rightly so, that a mere scintilla of evidence is not sufficient to support a verdict as against such a motion, citing Jones v. Harris, 122 Wash. 69, 210 P. 22, and many other of our cases to the same effect.
With this rule clearly in mind, we have diligently studied the record, going frequently from the rather meager abstract and the supplemental abstract to the statement of facts, so as to get as clearly as possible the full meaning of the witnesses. It must be admitted that respondent did not undertake to say that at any certain time and place the appellant in formal language made an express and specific promise of marriage, but if the jury believed her testimony the could have no doubt that things were said and done between the two on more than one occasion which showed that both understood and agreed that a marriage between them should take place within a reasonable time.
In practical effect, appellant is now asking us to weigh the testimony of the respondent in the light of all of the other evidence in the case and to say that she testified falsely. To so find was the exclusive function of the jury. The trial court exclusive have granted a new trial if satisfied that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McUne v. Fuqua
...by disclaiming motivation. The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony is for the jury. Kelly v. Drumheller, 150 Wash. 185, 272 P. 731. Where, as here, the testimony comes from respondent himself, the jury has the right to discount his disavowal of motivation,......
-
First State Bank of Kellogg v. Merritt
... ... scintilla of evidence rule ( Jones v. Harris, 122 ... Wash. 69, 210 P. 22; Kelly v. Drumheller, 150 Wash ... 185, 272 P. 731), the judgment must be reversed as lacking ... substantial support in the record ... ...
-
Hansen v. Coldwell, 26826.
... ... 170] this ... court has held that 'a mere scintilla of evidence is not ... sufficient to support a verdict' ( Kelly v ... Drumheller, 150 Wash. 185, 272 P. 731), which rule has ... been frequently laid down in our decisions ... In the ... ...
-
Bilski v. Department of Labor and Industries, 28317.
...only affect the weight to be given to his testimony, and here, too, the courts are bound by the verdict of the jury. Kelly v. Drumheller, 150 Wash. 185, 272 P. 731. there was substantial evidence supporting the verdict of the jury, this court cannot disturb that verdict. The judgment is aff......