St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Goodwin
| Decision Date | 14 January 1905 |
| Citation | 84 S.W. 728,73 Ark. 528 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. GOODWIN |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, ANTONIO B. GRACE, Judge.
Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
S. H West and J. M. & J. G. Taylor, for appellant.
The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. 29 Ark 365; 174 Mass. 43; 44 Ark. 39. A new trial should have been ordered on account of newly discovered evidence. S. & H Dig., § 5839; 20 Ark. 330.
A. T. Whitelaw, for appellee.
After property has been converted, and a tender of same has been made to the owner, such tender is no bar to the recovery of the value of the property so converted. 29 Ark. 365; 38 N.Y. 423; 17 Wend. 91; 24 Wend. 379. A party seeking a new trial for newly discovered evidence must state what the evidence is, and what diligence was used to obtain it. 2 Ark. 33, 45, 346; 11 Ark. 671; 26 Ark. 496; 13 Ark. 361; 28 Ark. 121. It should be shown that the newly discovered evidence would induce a different result at the trial. 15 Ark. 395; 41 Ark. 229; 25 Ark. 89; 65 Ark. 546. Such motions for a new trial are addressed to the discretion of the presiding judge. 41 Ark. 229; 54 Ark. 364.
Dora Perdue Goodwin, being in Camden, in this State, purchased a ticket of the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company for transportation over its road from that place to Pine Bluff, and at the same time delivered her trunk to the company to be checked and transported to the same place, and received a check for the same. Upon her arrival at Pine Bluff she called at the company's depot for her trunk, and was told that it could not be found. She called frequently, and always received the same answer. Finally, after waiting several weeks, and failing to get her trunk, or its value, she brought an action for the value of it and its contents, amounting to $ 166.60, against the company; and it denied the conversion of the trunk and its contents, and that they were of the value stated. The issues joined were tried before the trunk was found, and a judgment was rendered for the amount sued for, $ 166.60. Afterwards the trunk was found, and it was discovered that it did not contain all of the things for the value of which the judgment was in part rendered, and its contents were not of the value shown by the evidence adduced at the trial. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground of the newly discovered evidence. The motion was denied, and it appealed.
Motions for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court. They should show that reasonable diligence was used to discover the evidence. In this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caddo Central Oil & Refining Corporation v. Boatright & Cheesman
... ... drilling for oil under a contract with an oil company on a ... lease known as the Pratt lease. That at the same ... Ark. 308] trial on this account. St. Louis S.W ... Ry. Co. v. Goodwin, 73 Ark. 528, ... 84 S.W ... ...
- Bowman v. Frith
-
Bradley Lumber Co. v. Beasley
...appellee. No diligence was shown. Appellant had abundant opportunity to learn who was in the store at the time of the sale. 147 Ark. 378; 73 Ark. 528; 85 Ark. 179; 96 Ark. 400; 103 Ark. 589; Ark. 121. The sole purpose of obtaining the alleged newly- discovered evidence is to impeach the tes......
-
Cravens v. State
...is no ground for a new trial. 66 Ark. 523; 74 Ark. 377. The acts constituting due diligence must be specifically shown. 66 Ark. 314; 73 Ark. 528. Motions for a new trial on the of newly discovered evidence are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless that discretion ......