Noland v. R.I. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1910 |
| Citation | 30 R.I. 246,74 A. 914 |
| Parties | NOLAND v. RHODE ISLAND CO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Charles C. Mumford, Judge.
Action by Selena E. Noland against the Rhode Island Company. Verdict for plaintiff. Heard on exceptions of plaintiff to an order granting a new trial. Exceptions overruled, and new trial granted.
Waterman, Curran & Hunt, for plaintiff. Joseph C. Sweeney and Clifford Whipple, for defendant.
The general rule, laid down in Wilcox v. Rhode Island Co., 29 R. I. 292, 70 Atl. 913, is that the verdict of a jury, when approved by the justice who presided at the trial, will be sustained by this court, in the absence of anything to indicate that the jury were influenced in their finding by improper motives or that the judge erred in his ruling. Moreover, when the verdict of a jury has been disapproved by the judge who presided at the trial, and a motion for a new trial has been granted by him on the ground that the verdict fails to administer substantial justice, such exercise of his power will uot be disturbed by this court, unless it clearly appears that such conclusion of the trial judge is erroneous. Such error is not apparent in this case.
The plaintiff's exceptions are therefore overruled, and the case is remitted to the superior court for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barbato v. Epstein
...be applied by him were determined more than half a century ago in McMahon v. Rhode Island Co., 32 R.I. 237, 78 A. 1012, Noland v. Rhode Island Co., 30 R.I. 246, 74 A. 914, and Wilcox v. Rhode Island Co., 29 R.I. 292, 70 A. 913, and have many times been His duty is to consider in the exercis......
-
DiMaio v. Del Sesto
...in the discharge thereof, and reaffirmed the rule as laid down in McMahon v. Rhode Isldnd Co., 32 R.I. 237, 78 A. 1012, Noland v. Rhode Island Co., 30 R.I. 246, 74 A. 914, and Wilcox v. Rhode Island Co., 29 R.I. 292, 70 A. In the instant case, however, plaintiff misreads the import of the l......
-
Jefferds v. Chapman
...is that the verdict of the jury is against the fair preponderance of the evidence has been set forth in the cases of Noland v. R. I. Co., 30 R. I 246, 74 A. 914; McMahon v. R. I. Co., 32 R I. 237, 78 A. 1012, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 906 Barbour v. Hall, 32 R. I. 245, 78 A. 1041 Vervena v. White, 3......
-
Hamilton Co. v. Rosen
...substantial justice, such exercise of power by the trial justice will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. Noland v. Rhode Island Co., 30 R. I. 246, 74 A. 914; Surmeian v. Simons, 42 R. I. 334, 107 A. 229. We find no error in the decision of the trial justice granting said motio......