Gray v. Eaton
WILLIAM H. GRAY v. CORNELIUS J. EATON, and others
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Bryan, J., concurred.
The Chancellor directed certain issues to be determined by a jury. This he had the right to do, as it might aid to inform his conscience. By the finding he is not bound any more than in his sound judgment it is supported by the evidence. So in his decree he may be governed by it, or he may disregard it.
The application, therefore, of the defendants for a new trial upon the issues, was supererogatory; because the Judge had not yet decreed upon the verdict. But if he had, it was a matter in his mere discretion, to grant or refuse the application, which is not revisable.
The appeal is dismissed.
Cited by
- Duff v. Fisher · 1860-07-01