Scannell v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1911 |
| Citation | 94 N.E. 696,208 Mass. 513 |
| Parties | SCANNELL v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
T. J. Ahern and J. L. Keogh, for plaintiff.
E. P. Saltonstall and C. W. Blood, for defendant.
It is the right and duty of a judge presiding at the trial of a civil case to set aside the verdict of the jury when in his judgment it is so greatly against the weight of the evidence as to induce in his mind the strong belief that it was not due to a careful consideration of the evidence, but that it was the product of bias, misapprehension or prejudice. R. L. c. 173, § 112; Aiken v. Holyoke Street Railway, 180 Mass. 8, 11, 12, 61 N.E. 557. In the case at bar, the plaintiff herself was the only witness who testified to the happening of the accident by which she claimed to have been injured. If under the circumstances her story seemed to the judge to be so improbable and absurd that it could not command the credence of any right-minded men, he had the right in the exercise of his judicial discretion to set aside the verdict in her favor. We cannot revise the exercise of his discretion. Parker v. Griffith, 172 Mass. 87, 88, 51 N.E. 462; Hayward v. Langmaid, 181 Mass. 426, 427, 63 N.E. 912; Greene v. Farlow, 138 Mass. 146, 147; Welsh v. Milton Water Co., 200 Mass. 409, 411, 86 N.E. 779; Loveland v. Rand, 200 Mass. 142, 85 N.E. 948.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Mutina
... ... Decided Feb. 11, 1975 ... [366 Mass. 811] William P. Homans, Jr., Boston, for defendant ... Terence M. Troyer, Asst. Dist. Atty. (Bonnie H ... Gricus, 317 Mass. 403, 406, 58 N.E.2d 241, 243 (1944), quoting from Scannell v. Boston ... Page 298 ... Elev. Ry., 208 Mass. 513, 514, 94 N.E. 696 (1911). In light of ... ...
-
Com. v. Kostka
...of the evidence, but (rather) that it (may have been) the product of bias, misapprehension or prejudice,' Scannell v. Boston Elevated Ry., 208 Mass. 513, 514, 94 N.E. 696 (1911), quoted in Commonwealth v. Mutina, supra at --- c, 323 N.E.2d at 297. I think that justice would best be served b......
-
Commonwealth v. Gricus
...a careful consideration of the evidence, but that it was the product of bias, misapprehension or prejudice.’ Scannell v. Boston Elevated Railway, 208 Mass. 513, 514, 94 N.E. 696;Bartley v. Phillips, 317 Mass. 35, 41, 57 N.E.2d 26. ‘The governing rules of law as to motions for a new trial in......
-
Solimene v. B. Grauel & Co., K.G.
...careful consideration of the evidence, but that it was the product of bias, misapprehension or prejudice." Scannell v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 208 Mass. 513, 514, 94 N.E. 696 (1911). The judge's memorandum and order indicate a careful consideration of Grauel's claims. There is nothing in t......