Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Neely

• Decision Date: 24 May 1899
• Citation: 52 S.W. 167,102 Tenn. 700
• Parties: NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. R. CO. v. NEELY.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

52 S.W. 167

102 Tenn. 700

NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. R. CO. v. NEELY.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

May 24, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; A. H. Munford, Judge.

Action by R. B. Neely against the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Hays & Biggs, for appellant.

S. J Everett, for appellee.

CALDWELL J.

R. B Neely brought this action against the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railroad Company to recover from it $15,000, as damages for personal injuries alleged to have been by it wrongfully and negligently inflicted upon him while rightfully and cautiously disembarking from one of its passenger trains at the end of his journey thereon. The jury trying the case returned a verdict for $7,500. The plaintiff remitted $5,500, the court pronounced judgment for $2,000 and the defendant appealed in error.

The bill of exceptions contains the following statement, namely "The defendant moved the court for a new trial upon the several grounds set out in the entry on the minutes, and after argument of counsel the court stated that he was satisfied that the verdict of the jury was excessive, and that the verdict should be set aside upon that ground; [and] that it was unnecessary to consider the ground that the verdict was not supported by the testimony and [was] contrary to the law and evidence. Thereupon the plaintiff requested the court to state what amount he thought would not be excessive, when the court stated [that], if the plaintiff was entitled to any amount, he was not entitled to more than $2,000, but that there could be no doubt but that $7,500 was excessive. Whereupon counsel for plaintiff stated that he would remit $5,500 of the verdict, making it $2,000. The court then overruled the motion for a new trial, stating that the facts in the case were considerably mixed, but that it was a rule of his to rarely invade the province of the jury in setting aside their verdicts, if there were any substantial facts to support the same. " The concluding part of this recital, which we have italicized, discloses erroneous action on the part of the court. It shows a misconception of the respective functions of the court and jury in regard to the evidence, and gives unwarranted weight to the verdict. It was incumbent on the trial judge, in passing upon the motion for a new trial, to weigh the evidence for himself, and decide...