Rheiner v. Stillwater Street Railway and Transfer Co.
Decision Date | 30 May 1882 |
Citation | 29 Minn. 147 |
Parties | ESAIAS RHEINER <I>vs.</I> STILLWATER STREET RAILWAY AND TRANSFER COMPANY. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
L. E. Thompson and John M. Gilman, for appellant.
Marsh & Searles and James N. Castle, for respondent.
This was a proceeding to condemn the real estate of appellant, for the purposes of respondent's railway. The only question for determination on the trial was the value of the property. The jury found a verdict for appellant for $23,500. The railway company moved for a new trial, upon the grounds that the damages were excessive, and that the verdict was not justified by the evidence. The court made an order granting a new trial, unless the appellant should within 10 days consent to reduce the verdict to $15,000, in which case a new trial would be denied. Appellant refused to reduce his verdict, and appealed from the order.
In determining this appeal we deem it unimportant that the new trial was only granted conditionally. If the court had no right to grant a new trial unconditionally, it had no right to grant it conditionally; and if it had a right to grant it unconditionally, this appellant would have no ground of complaint, because it was only granted conditionally. The case must therefore be considered and decided precisely as if the order had been absolute in the first instance, and, in considering it, the distinction must be kept in view between the position of the trial court in granting the new trial, and that of this court in reviewing that action. The rules that should govern a trial court in granting or refusing a new trial are here material only so far as they will aid in determining whether the court below has, in granting this order, violated any positive rule of law, or so abused its discretion as to require this court to reverse its action.
The matter of granting or refusing a new trial, on the ground that the verdict is against the evidence, is, within certain established rules, largely within the discretion of a trial court, and the power of reversing its action will be exercised by an appellate court with caution, and not unless the trial court has abused its discretion. This discretion was formerly so absolute that, when no positive rule of law was violated, the decisions of the trial court in respect to motions for new trials were not subject to revision in error. In England it was the usual practice to order a new trial when the judge who tried the case certified that he was not satisfied with the verdict. Of course any such rule or practice would be inconsistent with our statute giving a right of appeal from an order granting or refusing a new trial. But it illustrates the fact that the matter of granting a new trial has always been considered largely addressed to the judicial discretion of the trial court, and that appellate courts have always been cautious in the exercise of the power to reverse its action.
The reasons why this is so, and should be so, are apparent, and have been stated so often that it is unnecessary to again refer to them.
This court, in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434, laid down the following rules which would govern them in reviewing the action of a trial court in granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence: We there stated that we would not be warranted in reversing an order of this kind, simply because, if the judge below had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stillwater St. Ry. Transfer Co. v. Rheiner
...29 Minn. 14712 N.W. 449STILLWATER STREET RY. TRANSFER CO.vRHEINER.Supreme Court of Minnesota.Filed May 30, 1882 ... [12 N.W. 449]Appeal from order of district court, county of ... 450]MITCHELL, J.This was a proceeding to condemn the real estate of appellant for the purposes of respondent's railway. The only question for determination on the trial was the value of the property. The jury found a verdict for appellant for $23,500. The railway ... ...