Wilson v. Manville
| Decision Date | 23 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 34609 |
| Citation | 188 N.W. 932,194 Iowa 26 |
| Parties | EDWIN B. WILSON, Appellee, v. B. E. MANVILLE, Guardian, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Johnson District Court.--R. G. POPHAM, Judge.
ACTION to recover attorney's fees in the sum of $ 883.40. Verdict of the jury finding for plaintiff in the sum of $ 85.70. This verdict on motion was set aside and new trial granted. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
W. J Baldwin. for appellant.
R.P Howell and Wilson & Evans, for appellee.
DE GRAFF, J.
This appeal is from the order of the trial court setting aside the verdict of the jury and granting a new trial. No other question of law or fact is presented. Plaintiff introduced his evidence proving and tending to prove the professional services rendered by him and the reasonable value thereof. The defendant offered no evidence tending to disprove that the specific services were rendered as claimed by plaintiff or that the amounts sought to be recovered were the reasonable value thereof. Notwithstanding this fact, it was still a question for the jury. Fowle v. Parsons 160 Iowa 454, 141 N.W. 1049.
It is the contention of the defendant and so alleged in his answer and reiterated in his brief and argument that the plaintiff never was employed on behalf of the party for whom the alleged services were rendered, and in fact he never rendered any services for said party. The verdict of the jury was for the plaintiff which determined that he was entitled to recover. The only question involved at this stage of the proceedings is the amount of such recovery.
It is said in Foley v. Brocksmit, 119 Iowa 457, 93 N.W. 344; "Suffice it to say that neither court nor jury is bound by a witness' estimate as to values, and, while the issue presented in this case is ordinarily for the jury, the case may be so plain that it is the duty of the court to interfere."
In Fowle v. Parsons, 160 Iowa 454, 141 N.W. 1049 it is said:
The primary grounds in plaintiff's motion for new trial are (1) that the verdict was contrary to the evidence (2) that the verdict is contrary to the law (3) that the verdict is grossly inadequate (4) that the verdict clearly shows that it is the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. We deem it unnecessary to incumber this opinion with the facts disclosed. The question involved is whether the record shows any reasonable ground on which the ruling granting a new trial can be sustained. White...
To continue reading
Request your trial