Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 N.C. 329

Brink v. . Black

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1876

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1876-01-05

Civil AotioN for damages, tried at December (Special) Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of New HaNoveR county, his Honor, Judge Henry presiding. As the case is decided in this court upon a single point of law, it is deemed unnecessary to state all the facts as disclosed by the record. There was a verdict in favor of the defendant; whereupon the plaintiff moved the court for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“When a Judge presiding at a trial below grants or refuses to grant a new trial because of some question of "law or legal inference" which he decides, and either party is dissatisfied with his decision of that matter of law or legal inference, his decision may be appealed from, and we may review it. But when he is of the opinion that, considering the number of witnesses, their intelligence, their opportunity of knowing the truth, their character, their behavior on the examination, and all the circumstances on both sides, the weight of the evidence is clearly on one side, how is it practicable that we can review it, unless we had the same advantages? And even if we had, we cannot try facts.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Worthington v. Bynum

“because in his opinion it was against the weight of the evidence,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Worthington v. Bynum

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2017

12 state decisions

30187618801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Brade, J.

¶1 The defendant had a verdict, and the Judge set it aside and granted a new trial; because in his opinion, it was against the weight of the evidence. The defendant appealed, and the only question is, can we review his Honor’s order. We have so often said that we cannot, that it is a matter of some surprise that we should have the question presented again.

¶2 When a Judge presiding at a trial below, grants, or refuses to grant, a new trial because of some question of “ law or legal inference” which he decides, and either party is dissatisfied with his decision of that matter of law or legal inference, his decision may be appealed from, and we may review it. *330 But when he is of the opinion that, considering the number of witnesses, their intelligence, their opportunity of knowing the truth, their character, their behavior on the examination, and all the circumstances on both sides, the weight of the evidence is clearly on one side, how is it practicable that we can review it, unless we had the same advantages ? And even if we had, we cannot try facts, Vest v. Cooper, 68 N. C. Rep., 132; Watts v. Bell, 71 N. C. Rep., 405. And see, also, other cases cited in briefs of counsel on both sides, in which, when well considered, there is no conflict.

¶3 There is no error. This will be certified.

¶4 Per Curiam. Judgment aflSrmed.

/74/nc/329 · .json · Public domain