Ryan v. Topeka Bridge Co.

Practice — Motion for New Trial. Where error is alleged in sustaining-a motion for a new trial, it must appear affirmatively that none of the grounds of the motion are sufficient before a reversal can be had.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Ryan and another sued The Topeka Bridge Company to recover damages for injuries to a lot of cattle alleged to have been occasioned by reason of the neglect of the defendants to keep their bridge in proper and safe condition and repair. The plaintiffs had judgment, and defendants moved for a new trial, which was granted. Sev•eral grounds were stated in the motion for setting aside the verdict, in support of only one of which affidavits were offered. The record does not show on which ground the motion was sustained. The plaintiffs bring the case here, alleging that the order granting a new trial is erroneous. It is now the almost universally received doctrine, that the affidavits of jurors will not be received to impeach their verdict, and that a contrary doctrine would be dangerous in policy, and unwarranted upon principle. For cases parallel to the one at bar, (where the jury agree that each shall write down the damages he thinks the party is entitled to recover, the whole twelve amounts to be added together, and divided by twelve, the quotient to be the verdict, and the jury agreeing to abide by the result,) in' all of which the courts refused to disturb the verdict for such reason alone — see: Vaise v. Delavel, 1 Term R., 11; Owen v. Warburton, 4 Bos. & Pul., 326; Dana v. Tucker, 4 Johns., 487; Pleasants v. Heard, 15 Ark., 403; Darr v. Temo, 12 Pick., 524; Willing v. Swasey, 1 Brown, (Pa.,) 123; 8 Blackf., 32. The doctrine contained in the above decisions, is maintained, and a contrary opinion strongly condemned in the following cases : The People v. Columbia Com. Pleas, 1 Mad., 297; Basleyv. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 3 Grill & Johns., 473; Johnson v. State, 27 Texas, 769; Robins v. Wendover, 2 Tyler, 147; Glum v. Smith, 5 Hill, 560; Cook v. Cashier, 9 Cushing, 278; State v. Freeman, 5 Conn., 350; Smith v. Fames, 3 Scam., 76; State v. McLeod, 1 Hawks, 344; Clark v. Read, 2 Southw., 286. No brief filed.