TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Barnes v. Merrick

ORVILLE BARNES, Appelant v. JERUSHA MERRICK, Ex.

Barnes v. Merrick, 6 Wis. 57 (1858)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1858
Judges
Cole
Citations
6 Wis. 57
Headnotes
A motion for a new trial is addressed to the discretion of the Gourt, and this court will not interfere by reversing the judgment, unless there has been a gross abuse of that discretion on the part of the court below.
Summary
APPEAL PROM THE RACINE CIRCUIT COURT. This was an action commenced before a Justice of the' Peace before whom a trial was held, a judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. Upon trial of the cause in the Circuit Court, the plaintiff again recovered, and the defendant moved a new trial, principally upon the ground of surprise — that three certain witnesses named in his affidavit, testified differently from what he had supposed they would, and at variance with the fact — which motion, upon argument, the Circuit Court overruled, and from this order overruling the motion for a new trial, the defendant appealed to this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Cole

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Cowrt, Cole J.

This court has so frequently decided the only question presented in this case, which is, that applications for new trials are mainly addressed to the sound dis *58 cretion of the court in which they are made, and that this court will not interfere and reverse a judgment on account of an alleged error in denying a motion for a new trial, unless there has been a gross abuse of this discretion on the part of the Circuit Court, that it would seem as if it was about time that this point at least was no longer open for argument here.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1868–1869: 21874–1875: 11894–1895: 118682026peak 1868 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rotting v. Cleman41 P. 907 (Wash. 1895)
  2. State v. Yellow Jacket Silver Mining Co.5 Nev. 415 (1868)
  3. Quint v. Ophir Silver Mining Co.4 Nev. 304 (1868)
  4. Warren v. Cummings37 Wis. 81 (1875)

Most recent

  1. Rotting v. Cleman41 P. 907 (Wash. 1895)
  2. Warren v. Cummings37 Wis. 81 (1875)
  3. Quint v. Ophir Silver Mining Co.4 Nev. 304 (1868)
  4. State v. Yellow Jacket Silver Mining Co.5 Nev. 415 (1868)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list