Studebaker Brothers Co. of Utah v. Harbert

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
• Writing for the Court: LEE, J.
• Citation: 207 P. 587,35 Idaho 490
• Decision Date: 31 May 1922
• Parties: STUDEBAKER BROTHERS COMPANY OF UTAH, a Corporation, Appellant, v. JOE A. HARBERT, Respondent

207 P. 587

35 Idaho 490

STUDEBAKER BROTHERS COMPANY OF UTAH, a Corporation, Appellant,
v.
JOE A. HARBERT, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 31, 1922

NEW TRIAL-NOTICE OF INTENTION-SHOULD CONTAIN SPECIFICATIONS OF INSUFFICIENCY-MOTION NEED NOT AND MAY BE ORAL OR IN WRITING-WHEN EVIDENCE INSUFFICENT.

1. Notice of motion for a new trial must specify the particulars in which the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, but such specification is not necessary in the motion, which follows the notice, and may be oral or in writing.

2. Where a verdict is without any substantial support in the evidence, it should be set aside.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, for Jefferson County. Hon. James G. Gwinn, Judge.

Action on a promissory note. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions for new trial.

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant.

C. W. Morrison, for Appellant.

"A verdict or finding of the jury must be based upon and conform to the evidence; and a verdict wholly unsupported by any evidence whatever should not be allowed to stand." (Abbott's Civil Jury Trials, 3d ed., p. 748; Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Yung, 113 Ind. 159, 3 Am. St. 630, 15 N.E. 220; Quinton v. Cutlip, 1 Okla. 302, 32 P. 269.)

That a verdict is palpably against the evidence is good ground for a new trial. (Western Ry. of Alabama v. Mutch, 97 Ala. 194, 38 Am. St. 179, 11 So. 894, 21 L. R. A. 316; 29 Cyc. 830.)

Where there is no substantial conflict in the testimony, and it appears that a jury misunderstood the evidence, or misapprehended its scope and effect, a new trial will be granted. (Rankin v. Thompson, 7 Colo. 381, 3 P. 719.)

A new trial should be granted where the alleged insufficiency of the evidence is convincingly shown. (Western Mining Supply Co. v. Melzner, 48 Mont. 174, 136 P. 44; Martini v. Oregon W. R. & Nav. Co., 73 Ore. 283, 144 P. 104; Johnson v. Domer, 76 Wash. 677, 136 P. 1169; Kester v. Wagner, 22 Wyo. 512, 145 P. 748; Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Reardon, 1 Kan. App. 114, 40 P. 931; Houghton v. Market St. Ry. Co., 1 Cal.App. 576, 82 P. 972; In re Caspar's Estate, 172 Cal. 147, 155 P. 631; James v. Hood, 19 N.M. 234, 142 P. 162; Hudson v. Riley, 104 Kan. 534, 180 P. 198; Hayne on New Trial and Appeal, sec. 288; Barnes v. Sabron, 10 Nev. 217; Watt v. Nevada Central R. Co., 23 Nev. 154, 62 Am. St. 772, 44 P. 423, 46 P. 52, 726; Quayle v. Ream, 15 Idaho 666, 99 P. 707.)

New trial may be granted where verdict is against the instructions of the court. Instructions, whether right or wrong, constitute the law of the case, and it is the duty of the jury to follow them. (Crane v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co., 74 Iowa 330, 7 Am. St. 479, 37 N.W. 397; Limburg v. German Fire Ins. Co., 90 Iowa 709, 48 Am. St. 468, 57 N.W. 626, 23 L. R. A. 99; 29 Cyc. 818, 819; Rippetoe v. Feely, 20 Idaho 619, 119 P. 465; Grisinger v. Hubbard, 21 Idaho 469, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 87, 122 P. 853; Doody v. Boston & Maine R. R., 77 N.H. 161, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 846, 89 A. 487.)

The motion for a new trial is a mere formality and is not required to state the grounds upon which it is made. (Lish v. Martin, 55 Mont. 582, 179 P. 826; Times Printing & P. Co. v. Babcock, 31 Idaho 770, 176 P. 776.)

C. A. Bandel, for Respondent.

A motion will be sustained to disregard a statement on motion for new trial when such statement does not specify wherein the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. (Robson v. Colson, 9 Idaho 215, 72 P. 951; Eddelbuttel v. Durrell, 55 Cal. 277; Swift v. Occidental Min. etc. Co., 7 Cal. Unrep. 23, 70 P. 470; Hayne on New Trial & Appeal, pp. 428-431.)

The granting of a new trial on the grounds of the insufficiency of the evidence is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and unless there be a clear abuse of such discretion the order will not be disturbed on appeal. (Wolfe v. Ridley, 17 Idaho 173, 20 Ann. Cas. 39, 104 P. 1014.)

This court will not disturb the judgment of a trial court because of conflict in the evidence when there is sufficient proof if uncontradicted to sustain it. (Spaulding v. Coeur d'Alene Ry. etc. , 5 Idaho 528, 51 P. 408; Pine v. Callahan, 8 Idaho 684, 71 P. 473; Stuart v. Hauser, 9 Idaho 53, 72 P. 719; Heckman v. Espey, 12 Idaho 755, 88 P. 80; City of Pocatello v. Bass, 15 Idaho 1, 96 P. 120; Hufton v. Hufton, 25 Idaho 96, 136 P. 605; Henry Gold Mining Co. v. Henry, 25 Idaho 333, 137 P. 523; Commercial Trust Co. v. Idaho Brick Co., 25...