Warner

Warner v. F. Thomas Parisian Dyeing & Cleaning Works

Good Law
105 Cal. 409·1895 Cal. LEXIS 672·38 P. 960
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 3, 1895No. 15266California888 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

The complaint in this case contains two separate causes of action, and judgment is asked for the aggregate sum of thirteen hundred and twenty-one dollars. The case was tried before a jury, and the plaintiff recovered a verdict for the sum prayed for, on which judgment was entered. The defendant moved for a new trial upon the ground, among others, of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, and the court granted the motion upon that ground, as shown by its opinion found in the transcript, and in which the evidence is very thoroughly reviewed. The plaintiff appeals from the order thus made.

The rule is settled in this state that a motion for new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and its action in granting the motion will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it appears that there was a clear abuse of such discretion. It is also settled law that, when the evidence is conflicting, the trial court is authorized to review it, and if, in its opinion, the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, it is its duty to grant a new trial. (Bjorman v.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.