Woodbury Co. v. Dougherty & Bryant Co.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1913 |
| Parties | THE WOODBURY COMPANY, Appellee, v. DOUGHERTY & BRYANT COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--HON. FRANK R. GAYNOR, Judge.
ACTION at law to recover the rent reserved in a lease for a certain building in Sioux City, Iowa. The lease was for five years from and after November 15, 1906, and at the agreed rental of $ 2,100 for the first year, and $ 2,400 for each succeeding one, during the term of the lease. The premises were occupied by defendant under the lease, down until January 17, 1911 when a fire occurred in the building, which caused considerable damage, and the rent was, by the terms of the lease, suspended until the demised premises were put in proper condition for use and occupation. Plaintiff contends that they were so repaired and put in condition, and defendant notified thereof, on the 13th day of May, 1911, but that defendant failed to reoccupy the building, or to pay the rent, from May 13, 1911, to the end of the lease. The defendant pleaded the partial destruction of the building by fire, and denied that it was put in proper condition for use and occupancy at any time during the remainder of the term created by the lease. On these issues the case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict for the defendant. On plaintiff's motion, the verdict was set aside and a new trial granted; the trial court assigning no reason therefor. The appeal is from the order on the motion.
Affirmed.
Sears & Snyder, for appellant.
Shull Farnsworth, Sammis & Stilwill, for appellee.
GAYNOR, J., taking no part.
OPINION
The issue was a narrow one, and the testimony was largely directed to this issue. The verdict was for defendant, and from an order sustaining a motion for a new trial, it appeals.
This motion was bottomed upon nine distinct grounds, among which were the stereotyped ones, regarding the sufficiency of the testimony, both at law and under the instructions, to justify the verdict, and also certain alleged errors of the court in the giving and refusing to give certain instructions asked. The order sustained the motion generally, and if there be any tenable grounds upon which it might have been sustained, it will not be disturbed.
The trial court is vested with a large discretion in passing upon motions for a new trial, and this discretion will not be interfered with, especially when a new trial is granted, unless it appears that there has been an abuse of this discretion. The reasons for this rule have so many times been given, that it is needless to do more than cite some of the cases in support thereof: Dewey v. Railroad Co., 31 Iowa 373; Royer v. Plaster Co., 147 Iowa 277, 126 N.W. 168; Holland v. Kelly, 149 Iowa 391, 128 N.W. 338.
Our reading of the record convinces us that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting this verdict aside, even if it were put upon the ground of the insufficiency of the testimony. In this regard a trial court exercises a somewhat different function than an appellate tribunal. A trial court is justified, indeed, it is its duty, to set aside a verdict which does not effectuate justice, although there may be a conflict in the testimony; and when this is done, appellate tribunals should be slow to interfere.
Defendant's case was based largely upon engineers' estimates which were uncertain, and which did not, in all cases, take into account the condition and carrying power of the building before the fire; while the testimony for plaintiff was more direct and certain and, in the opinion of the trial court, so manifestly preponderated over that offered for defendant that he might well have granted the motion on this ground alone.
II. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial