Valois v. Warner
| Decision Date | 31 May 1827 |
| Citation | 1 Mo. 730 |
| Parties | VALOIS v. WARNER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ERROR FROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.
This was an action of trover, brought by the plaintiff, Valois, against the defendant, Warner, in the Circuit Court, for a billiard table. From the bill of exceptions it appears that one J. B. D. Valois (whose deposition was read in evidence), swore, that in the spring of 1824, the plaintiff loaned the billiard table in question, to one Maurice Laurent, to be set up and used by said Laurent on his own account, and for which he was to pay, or make no hire or remuneration to the plaintiff. It was also proved, that the billiard table in question had been attached, levied upon, and sold, as the property of said Laurent and one Francis X. Valois, who had possessed, used, and claimed it as their own, for upwards of twelve months. The plaintiff then offered to read the deposition of Laurent himself, which the Circuit Court would not permit, on the ground that he was an interested and incompetent witness. The plaintiff excepted to the opinion of the court; the jury found for the defendant, and the plaintiff moved for a new trial: First, because the verdict was against law and evidence; and second, because the deposition of Laurent was excluded. The motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment given for the defendant; to reverse which, the plaintiff has come into this court.
The Circuit Courts have a discretion in granting or refusing new trials, which they are bound to exercise soundly; and it is a good ground for reversing their judgments, whenever it appears to this court that they have failed to do so. In this case, the deposition of J. B. D. Valois had been twice taken, and his swearing is somewhat variant; this circumstance, with the nature of the property, the distance to which it was permitted to be taken (from St. Louis to Potosi), the acts of ownership exercised over it, and the relation of the parties, may have induced the jury to discredit the testimony of J. B. D. Valois, which it was their province to weigh and pass upon. There is nothing which forbids the belief, that they did so upon good grounds, and the Circuit Judge may well have exercised a sound discretion, in refusing a new trial on this point. On the second point, also, we think the Circuit Court decided correctly, in rejecting the deposition of Laurent. It has been contended that he stood indifferent, or balanced in interest, between the parties; but this court cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mavrakos v. Mavrakos Candy Co.
...discretion on granting a motion for new trial. Gottschalk v. Wells, 274 S.W. 399; Reichmuth v. Adler, 348 Mo. 812, 155 S.W.2d 181; Valois v. Warner, 1 Mo. 730; Beer Martel, 332 Mo. 53, 55 S.W.2d 482; Zesch v. Abrasive Co. of Philadelphia, 353 Mo. 558, 183 S.W.2d 140; Cameron v. Howerton, 17......
-
Mavrakos v. Mavrakos Candy Co., 41170.
...on granting a motion for new trial. Gottschalk v. Wells, 274 S.W. 399; Reichmuth v. Adler, 348 Mo. 812, 155 S.W. (2d) 181; Valois v. Warner, 1 Mo. 730; Beer v. Martel, 332 Mo. 53, 55 S.W. (2d) 482; Zesch v. Abrasive Co. of Philadelphia, 353 Mo. 558, 183 S.W. (2d) 140; Cameron v. Howerton, 1......
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Piepmeier v. Camren
......[McCullough v. The. Phoenix Insurance Co., 113 Mo. 606, 21 S.W. 207;. Nordmanser v. Hitchcock, 40 Mo. 178; Valois v. Warner, 1 Mo. 730; Lewis v. Frankle, 158. Mo.App. 262, 138 S.W. 64.]. . . Obviously. the question of what the court's ......
-
State ex rel. v. Camren
...clothed in that fashion. [McCullough v. The Phoenix Insurance Co., 113 Mo. 606, 21 S.W. 207; Nordmanser v. Hitchcock, 40 Mo. 178; Valois v. Warner, 1 Mo. 730; Lewis v. Frankle, 158 Mo. App. 262, 138 S.W. Obviously the question of what the court's discretion prompted it to do in the instance......