Weddle v. Stark
WEDDLE v. STARK
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stephen J. Field (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 — Field
Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court Terry, C. J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.
The motion for the new trial in this case was based upon two grounds-—insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, and error in law occurring at the trial, and excepted to by the defendants. The motion was granted, but it does not appear upon what ground. It may have been on the first; and, considering this to be the fact, there was no such abuse of discretion on the part of the County Court as to justify any interference with its order. The evidence is conflicting, and in such cases the granting or refusing of a new trial rests peculiarly in the discretion of the Court below. Had the motion been denied, our decision would have been the same.
Order affirmed.
Cited by
- Hall v. The Bark "Emily Banning" · 1867-10-15