Schabler v. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp., No. 20591
| Docket Nº | No. 1 |
| Citation | 142 Ind.App. 319, 234 N.E.2d 655 |
| Case Date | March 12, 1968 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 655
v.
INDIANAPOLIS MORRIS PLAN CORPORATION, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied April 24, 1968.
[142 Ind.App. 320]
Page 656
Michell Frieje, Albert W. Ewbank, Indianapolis, for appellants.Nisenbaum & Brown, Indianapolis, for appellee.
COOPER, Judge.
This cause of action was instituted below by the Appellee herein against the Appellants for the recovery of an alleged deficiency balance after repossession, on two [142 Ind.App. 321] conditional sales contracts. After the issues were closed, the cause was submitted to a jury. The jury found for the Appellee and assessed damages in the amount of Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Six dollars. Judgment was entered on the verdict and thereafter the Appellants filed their Motion for a New Trial. Said Motion was overruled by the trial court and that ruling is the assigned error on appeal.
The Appellants' first alleged error in their Motion for a New Trial is that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by
Page 657
sufficient evidence. We have reviewed the evidence in the record now before us, and find it is somewhat conflicting as to the material issues involved. The evidence in the record is voluminous and we do not deem it necessary, for the purposes of this opinion, to set it forth. In any case, both our Supreme Court and this Court have stated the settled and general rule of law that on appeal our Courts will not weigh the evidence.In the case of Deal v. State (1895) 140 Ind. 354, 358, 39 N.E. 930, 931, we find the following statement of said rule, which has been followed by both Courts since that time:
'The reason most frequently given in the decisions of this court for the rule that this court can not weigh the evidence, and therefore can not reverse for the reason that the preponderance of the evidence seems to be against the finding or verdict, is that the opportunities and means of the court and jury trying the cause are so vastly superior to those of this court--they being able to see the witnesses face to face, to observe their conduct, appearance, and demeanor on the witness stand, and thus judging of their intelligence, fairness, and candor, and many other means of weighing evidence that this court can not have--that it is deemed safer to leave that duty to be performed exclusively by them. * * *'
The Appellants' second alleged error in the Motion for a New Trial is that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law. It is the general rule that if the undisputed evidence entitled a litigant to a verdict which has been denied him, such verdict is contrary to law. On appeal, to [142 Ind.App. 322] determine this question, we may consider only the evidence most favorable to the appellee, together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Hinds, Executor of the estate of Sickels, deceased, etc., v. McNair et al. (1955) 235 Ind. 34, 41, 129 N.E.2d 553.
It is only where the evidence is without conflict and can lead to but one conclusion, and the trial court or jury has reached an opposite conclusion, that the decision of the trial court or the verdict of the jury will be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to law. Pokraka et al. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mamula v. Ford Motor Co., No. 371A49
...cause of action cannot be established by the drawing of such liberal inferences as would be necessary to take the case to the jury.' 234 N.E.2d at 655.' [150 Ind.App. 192] The majority herein places great reliance upon International Harvester Co. v. Sharoff (10th Cir. 1953), 202 F.2d 52, in......
-
Evans v. Palmeter, No. 34A02-8609-CV-347
...88, 92; Cato Enterprises, Inc. v. Fine (1971), 149 Ind.App. 163, 271 N.E.2d 146, 149; Schabler v. Indianapolis Morris Plan (1968), 142 Ind.App. 319, 234 N.E.2d 655, 657. The majority's opinion violates both these Since the burden was on Evans to prove Palmeter's negligence in the court belo......
-
Security Trust Co. of Rochester v. Thomas
...Page 514 is evidence of its true value in an action to recover a deficiency. Schabler v. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corporation, Ind., 142 Ind.App. 319, 234 N.E.2d 655 In Conti Causeway Ford v. Jarossy, supra, the court said (276 A.2d at 404-405), "In the situation where reasonable notice of ......
-
Lynch v. Keck, No. 568A87
...Pokraka v. Lummus Co. (1952) 230 Ind. 523, 532, 104 N.E.2d 669, (Rehearing Denied); Schabler v. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. (1968) 142 Ind.App. 319, 234 N.E.2d 655, 657, (Rehearing After having reviewed the evidence, we cannot say it was without conflict. In considering the evidence most......
-
Mamula v. Ford Motor Co., No. 371A49
...cause of action cannot be established by the drawing of such liberal inferences as would be necessary to take the case to the jury.' 234 N.E.2d at 655.' [150 Ind.App. 192] The majority herein places great reliance upon International Harvester Co. v. Sharoff (10th Cir. 1953), 202 F.2d 52, in......
-
Evans v. Palmeter, No. 34A02-8609-CV-347
...88, 92; Cato Enterprises, Inc. v. Fine (1971), 149 Ind.App. 163, 271 N.E.2d 146, 149; Schabler v. Indianapolis Morris Plan (1968), 142 Ind.App. 319, 234 N.E.2d 655, 657. The majority's opinion violates both these Since the burden was on Evans to prove Palmeter's negligence in the court belo......
-
Security Trust Co. of Rochester v. Thomas
...Page 514 is evidence of its true value in an action to recover a deficiency. Schabler v. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corporation, Ind., 142 Ind.App. 319, 234 N.E.2d 655 In Conti Causeway Ford v. Jarossy, supra, the court said (276 A.2d at 404-405), "In the situation where reasonable notic......
-
Lynch v. Keck, No. 568A87
...Pokraka v. Lummus Co. (1952) 230 Ind. 523, 532, 104 N.E.2d 669, (Rehearing Denied); Schabler v. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. (1968) 142 Ind.App. 319, 234 N.E.2d 655, 657, (Rehearing After having reviewed the evidence, we cannot say it was without conflict. In considering the evidence most......