Lewis v. Healey
| Citation | 46 A. 869,73 Conn. 136 |
| Parties | LEWIS v. HEALEY. |
| Decision Date | 13 July 1900 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Appeal from court of common pleas, New Haven county; John P. Studley, Judge.
Action by Sarah J. Lewis against John E. Healey for work done by plaintiff at defendant's request. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff and granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
V. Munger, for appellant. Charles S. Hamilton, for appellee.
ANDREWS, C. J.This actjon was brought to recover for certain work alleged to have been done and performed by the plaintiff at the request of the defendant, and upon his undertaking and promise to pay for the same an agreed price. The performance of the work was not disputed, nor was the price disputed. The case was tried to the jury. The only contention was whether or not the work had been done upon the promise of the defendant, or of a corporation of which he was the president. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. "Thereupon the defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, because said verdict was against the evidence." This motion was filed on the 23d day of July, 1899. On the 5th day of March, 1900, the court allowed the motion, set aside the verdict, and granted a new trial. From that judgment this appeal is taken, pursuant to the statute (section 29, c. 194, p. 895, Acts 1897). That act provides that, when such an appeal is taken, "if the supreme court shall be of opinion that such decision setting aside the verdict was erroneous it shall reverse such decision and order judgment to be entered upon said verdict in the lower court in favor of the party for whom the said verdict was rendered." Upon such an appeal this court is acting primarily on the decision of the judge who set aside the verdict. But a trial judge has authority to set aside a verdict only when it is itself erroneous or clearly against the evidence. If a verdict is free from error or defect, then it is error for the judge to set it aside. So that the controlling question in such a case is, strictly, whether or not the verdict was erroneous. In this case the only ground on which the defendant, in his motion, asked that the verdict be set aside, was that it was against the evidence. As the court granted the motion, we must assume that it was for that cause, and no other, on which the court deemed the verdict defective. The jury is that tribunal which is regarded by the law as one especially fitted to decide controverted questions of fact upon evidence. The jury decides how much credibility is to be given to each witness, what weight justly belongs to the evidence, and, between the statements of hostile and contradictory witnesses, where the truth is. And if the verdict to which they have agreed is a conclusion to which 12 honest men, acting fairly and intelligently, might come, then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Corkey
...might come, then that verdict is final and cannot be disturbed. Porcello v. Finnan, 113 Conn. 730, 733, 156 A. 863; Lewis v. Healy, 73 Conn. 136, 137, 46 A. 869. The concurrence of the judgments of the judge and the jury who saw the witnesses and heard the testimony is a powerful argument f......
-
Goodhue v. Ballard
...negligence was a substantial factor in producing the collision. Their conclusion so reached, the court could not disturb. Lewis v. Healy, 73 Conn. 136, 138, 46 A. 869; Porcello v. Finnan, 113 Conn. 730, 733, 156 A. 863. Whether the jury could properly have found that the Goodhue car had the......
-
Zullo v. Zullo
...is the judge of the credibility of witnesses. This is true whether the contradiction is between different witnesses, as in Lewis v. Healy, 73 Conn. 136, 138, 46 A. 869, and Amellin v. Leone, supra, or between differing statements made by the same witness, as in Stitham v. LeWare, 134 Conn. ......
-
State v. Laudano
...verdict; but the controlling question in such cases is, after all, whether or not the verdict is against the evidence. Lewis v. Healy, 73 Conn. 136, 137, 46 Atl. 869. The principles to be applied in such cases are the same whether the case is of a civil or a criminal nature, and those princ......