Talley v. Greear.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 3134A.,3134A. |
| Citation | 275 P. 378,34 N.M. 26 |
| Parties | TALLEYv.GREEAR. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
The verdict of a jury will not be disturbed in this court where it is supported by any substantial evidence.
Where plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, by introducing evidence which forms an issue to be submitted to the jury, and such evidence is not successfully controverted by defendant, it is not error to refuse to direct a verdict for defendant.
The record considered, and held insufficient to show a chance or quotient verdict.
Appeal from District Court, Curry County; Hatch, Judge.
Action by L. R. Talley against J. L. Greear, wherein defendant filed a counterclaim. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed and cause remanded, with directions.
The record considered, and held insufficient to show a cause or quotient verdict.
Fitzhugh & Fitzhugh, of Clovis, for appellant.
A. W. Hockenhull, of Clovis, and W. A. Gillenwater, of Santa Fé, for appellee.
Appellee (plaintiff) sued appellant (defendant) for damages for breach of a contract for the sale by appellant to appellee of certain real estate. The damages claimed by plaintiff's first cause of action was the difference between the contract price of the land and the market value thereof, and by the second cause of action $322.82 on account of taxes due on the land which plaintiff alleges he was induced to pay and which sum it was agreed should be credited upon the purchase price of the land upon the consummation of the trade. There were other damages claimed by plaintiff, but not submitted by the court to the jury, and therefore need not be considered. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that the plaintiff had breached the contract, and prayed for damages alleged to have been suffered as a result of such breach.
Upon the issues presented, the cause went to trial to a jury, which returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his first cause of action for $827.18 and for $322.82 on his second cause of action. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, the grounds of which, so far as argued here, were: First, that the verdict of the jury is what is known to the law as a quotient verdict and therefore should be set aside; second, that there is no evidence to support the verdict, particularly as to the damages awarded upon plaintiff's first cause of action; third, that the verdict is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This motion was overruled by the court and judgment rendered pursuant to the verdict.
The contentions of the appellant are that the court erred in overruling his motion for an instructed verdict in favor of the defendant at the close of the testimony of the defendant and in overruling a similar motion at the close of the case, that the verdict was erroneous because not supported by any substantial evidence, and because said verdict was contrary to the evidence, and that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial, and that the verdict was a quotient verdict and therefore illegal and should have been set aside.
[1][2] All but the last of these propositions turn on the sufficiency of the evidence at the various stages of the proceedings. We have examined the record, and find that the evidence at the close of plaintiff's case was sufficient to present a question for the jury, and that such evidence was not destroyed by the evidence brought forth by the defendant, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nevares.
...a juror may not thus impugn his verdict is firmly established in this state. Goldenberg v. Law, 17 N. M. 546, 131 P. 499; Talley v. Greear, 34 N. M. 26, 275 P. 378; State v. Taylor, 26 N. M. 429, 194 P. 368; State v. Analla, 34 N. M. 22, 276 P. 291; State v. Mersfelder, 34 N. M. 465, 284 P.......
-
Skeet v. Wilson
...been considered since. See State v. Taylor, 26 N.M. 429, 431, 194 P. 368; State v. Analla, 34 N.M. 22, 25, 276 P. 291; Talley v. Greear, 34 N.M. 26, 28, 275 P. 378; State v. Nevares, 36 N.M. 41, 46, 7 P.2d 933; Sena v. Sanders, 54 N.M. 83, 86, 214 P.2d 226; State v. Embrey, 62 N.M. 107, 110......
-
EL Farmer & Company v. Hooks, 5386.
...Tex. 594, 180 S.W.2d 616; Hamilton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353, 148 P. 648, L.R.A.1915E, 455; Talley v. Greear, 34 N.M. 26, 275 P. 378; Will v. Southern Pacific Co., 18 Cal.2d 468, 116 P.2d 44; Ehalt v. McCarthy, 104 Utah 110, 138 P.2d 639; Board of Commissioners......
-
Board of Com'rs of Dona Ana County v. Gardner
...will not be disturbed for lack of substantial evidence on this appeal. Flippo v. Martin, 1948, 52 N.M. 402, 200 P.2d 366; Talley v. Greear, 1928, 34 N.M. 26, 275 P. 378. Probably most serious challenge to the judgment in this case rests in the appellant's fourth and final argument. This is ......