White v. Merrill

<p>Appeal — Record — Opinion of Court Below.— Review of Reasons for Decision. —The opinion of the court below upon any question before it, or upon the final determination of the cause, constitutes no part of the record on appeal. It may be cited by counsel in argument, but it is not an act upon which error may be assigned, nor are its reasons binding on appeal; but if the appellate court finds that upon any ground or for any reason the action of the court below was correct, its action will be affirmed, regardless of the reason which the court may have given for it.</p> <p>Id. — Review of Order Granting New Trial — Conflicting Evidence.— When a motion for new trial is based both upon errors of law assigned and upon the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, an order granting a new trial will be affirmed, regardless of the fact that errors of law only were assigned as the reasons for the order in the opinion of the court below, where the record shows a conflict in the evidence, in view of which the court below might properly have granted a new trial.</p> <p>Effect of Evidence — Pleading — Instructions — New Trial — Error of Law. — Evidence admitted without limitation as to purpose, though entitled to be considered for all purposes within the issues, is not entitled to be considered in connection with any question not involved in the issues; and an instruction authorizing the jury to consider such a question is an error of law for which a new trial may be granted.</p> <p>Action for Breach of Contract — Ratification of Breach —• Pleading — Evidence.—In an action for damages for a breach of contract, where the only issues presented are, whether there is such a contract as alleged, whether all indebtedness under the contract was paid, and whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations, evidence tending to show that the plaintiff had ratified certain acts relied upon as constituting a breach of the contract can only be considered upon the issue as to whether there was such a contract as alleged, and cannot be considered upon the question of ratification of the breach of contract, that question not being within the issues.</p> <p>Evidence — Admission op Party — Result op Former Trial. — It is competent to prove that after a former trial of the cause, resulting in a verdict for a large sum against several defendants, and in plaintiff’s favor, one of the defendants admitted that the verdict was a just and righteous one, the evidence being at least pertinent and competent as against him, and the exclusion of such evidence is error warranting a new trial.</p>