Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

40 Ga. 157

Howser v. Evans

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided December 15, 1869

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1869-12-15

<p>The parties submitted certain matters, in controversy between them, to arbitration, and the arbitrators made an award against _one of the parties, for the sum of $287 50, in gold, which award was made thejudgment of the Court. After the passage of the Belief Act of 1868, the defendant made a motion in the Court to open thejudgment, under the provisions of that Act, which was allowed, and on the trial of the issue found thereon, the jury, after hearing the evidence on both sides, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $398 50, principal, and $16 78, interest; whereupon, the defendant moved for a new-trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and strongly and decidedly against the weight of the evidence, and the principles of equity and justice,' and against the charge of the Court. The motion for a new trial was refused: Held, that as there was no error alleged to the charge of the Court, that the verdict of the jury was right, under the law and the facts of the ease,, as shown by the record, the motion for new trial was properly overruled. " ✓</p> <p>Held, further, that this is a proper case in which damages should be awarded, as provided by the 4221st section- of the Code.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1928

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Warner, J.

¶1The error assigned to the judgment of the Court below, in this case, is in refusing to grant a new trial, on the ground that the verdict of the jury was strongly and decidedly against the weight of the evidence, and contrary to the charge of the Court. There is no error of law complained of in the rulings of the Court on the trial of the case. This Court has ruled at least one hundred times, that it would not control the discretion of the Court below, in refusing to grant a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, when there was evidence in the record to sustain the verdict, and no rule of law was violated. We think the verdict of the jury, in this case, is cjiearly sustained by the evidence in *160the record, and if parties will come here for the purpose of having the rule above stated re-affirmed, it is their legal right to do so, but it will be re-affirmed with ten per cent, damages, as provided by the 4221 section' of the Code, as the object in bringing it here, in view of the repeated rulings of this Court, must be for delay only.

¶2Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed, and damages awarded.

/40/ga/157 · .json · Public domain