Miles v. Saunders

Decision Date25 January 1887
Citation2 S.W. 676
PartiesMILES v. SAUNDERS.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from circuit court, Edmonson county.

Wright & McElroy, for appellant, Miles. P. F. Edwards, for appellee, Saunders.

HOLT, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case pointed out no particular error. It was based alone upon the ground that the verdict was unsustained by the evidence, and contrary to law. The only exception taken in the case was to the action of the court in overruling it, and this is the only error assigned. The evidence, as shown by the bill of exceptions, is meager, so much so that it is difficult to get a clear insight of the right of the case. It is, however, an action for trespass to realty. The evidence is conflicting as to the true location of the plaintiff's line, and whether he acquiesced in one of compromise; also as to the possession; and there is, in our opinion, testimony conducting to support the verdict. Unless the evidence is plainly against it,-- apparent at first blush,--and flagrantly so, the verdict of the jury cannot be disturbed. Such a state of a case is not shown by the record, and no other question is presented. Judgment affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Hawkins v. Pocatello Water Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1894
    ...v. Allen, 49 Ark. 122, 4 S.W. 201; English v. Korn, 73 Cal. 617, 15 P. 300; Beaubien v. Hindman, 38 Kan. 471, 15 P. 184; Miles v. Saunders, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 689, 2 S.W. 676; Schmidt v. Baumann, 36 Minn. 189, 30 N.W. Gordon v. Evans (Mo.), 4 S.W. 112; Barbor v. Boehm, 21 Neb. 450, 32 N.W. 221; ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT