Whitney v. Marine Cent. R. Co.
Decision Date | 22 February 1879 |
Citation | 69 Me. 208 |
Parties | JACOB WHITNEY v. MAINE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON MOTION.
CASE for injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff on the 6th day of June, 1877. etc.
Plea general issue. The essential parts of the evidence are recited in the opinion.
The verdict was for the plaintiff for the sum of $500; whereupon the defendants moved that the verdict be set aside and a new trial granted, upon the ground that the verdict was against law, the evidence, and manifestly against the weight of evidence.
W. P. Frye, J. B. Cotton & W. H. White, for the defendants.
A. A. Strout & F. W. Dana, for the plaintiff, who contended:
That a verdict will not be set aside as being against evidence unless it so preponderates in favor of the losing party as to authorize the court to infer that the jury acted under improper motives. Williams v. Buker, 49 Me. 427.
Although the conclusion to which the jury arrives may be different from that of the court had the issue been submitted to them, the verdict will not be set aside unless it was most manifestly against the weight of evidence. Googins v. Gilmore, 47 Me. 9. Peabody?? v. Hewett, 52 Me. 33. Farnum v. Virgin, 52 Me. 576. Darby v. Hayford, 56 Me. 246.
When the evidence is conflicting upon points vital to the result, the conclusion of the jury will not be reversed, unless the preponderance against the verdict is such as to amount to a moral certainty that the jury erred. Inhabitants of Enfield v. Buswell, 62 Me. 128. Woodis v. Jordan, 62 Me. 490.
The law imposes the duty of determining the facts upon a jury who see and hear the witnesses, and not upon the court who has not those means of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co.
...and "is not responsible for injurious consequences ... unless [its] acts are negligently and improperly done"); Whitney v. Maine Central Railroad Co. (1879) 69 Me. 208, 211 ("having a chartered right to run their trains, the defendant corporation 'has necessarily the right to make all reaso......
-
Eliza Cole v. North Danville Cooperative Creamery Association
...v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 138 Ark. 329, 332, 211 S.W. 179, 4 A. L. R. 1341; Powers v. Grand Trnnk Ry. Co., 78 Vt. 436; Whitney v. Railroad Co., 69 Me. 208; Cook Rice Lake Milling Co., 146 Wis. 539, 130 N.W. 953, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1225. Searles & Graves for the plaintiff, The plaintiff w......
-
Miller v. Engle
...rehearing that the statute was complied with, and therefore no judgment could be based on that count of the petition. In Whitney v. Marine Central R. Co., 69 Me. 208, it was held that the purpose of requiring signals to be given of the approach to a crossing is to enable travelers on the hi......
-
Chicago & Erie Railway Company v. Cummings
... ... rattling of cars, or other necessary causes. Whitney ... v. Maine, etc., R. Co., 69 Me. 208. And they may ... thus operate their trains, although ... ...