TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Steamboat City v. Matthews

Steamboat City of Memphis v. Matthews

Steamboat City v. Matthews, 28 Mo. 248 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1859
Judges
Napton
Citations
28 Mo. 248
Headnotes
1. The supreme court ■will not grant new trials on the ground that verdicts are against the weight of evidence; it is the province of the jury to attach such credit to the testimony of witnesses as they may think it entitled to.
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit 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 — Napton

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

Napton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case falls within the principle decided by this court in McAfee v. Ryan, 11 Mo. 365 . The instructions were not excepted to, and indeed are admitted to bo a correct exposition of the law applicable to the facts in evidence. All the testimony was on one side, but the jury disregarded it, and the circuit court, who heard the witnesses, sanctioned the verdict of the jury. We must infer from this that the circuit court was satisfied with the course of the jury. The credit due to witnesses is a matter peculiarly for *249 a jury, and any control over tbe finding of a jury in this respect could bardly be judiciously exercised by this court, which, possesses no means of forming a correct opinion, and must be guided altogether by what appears on the face of the record. The circuit judge would not of course permit a verdict to stand against his own instructions, and as that court has virtually certified to us that the verdict was right we can not interfere. The cases of the State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340 , and Phillips v. Riley, 27 Mo. 386 , stand upon different principles. The other judges concurring, the judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1874–1875: 11882–1883: 11884–1885: 21892–1893: 11896–1897: 21902–1903: 11904–1905: 21910–1911: 11914–1915: 11916–1917: 11918–1919: 118742026peak 1884 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Guthrie v. Holmes198 S.W. 854 (Mo. 1917) · Dissent
  2. Gregory v. Chambers78 Mo. 294 (1883)
  3. Hipsley v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad88 Mo. 348 (1885)
  4. Peterson v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.178 S.W. 182 (Mo. 1915)
  5. Adams County Bank v. Hainline67 Mo. App. 483 (1896)
  6. E. U. Hugumin & Co. v. Hinds71 S.W. 479 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902)

Most recent

  1. Gebby v. Carrillo177 P. 894 (N.M. 1918)
  2. Guthrie v. Holmes198 S.W. 854 (Mo. 1917) · Dissent
  3. Peterson v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.178 S.W. 182 (Mo. 1915)
  4. Asbill v. City of Joplin124 S.W. 22 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)
  5. First National Bank v. Bennett114 Mo. App. 691 (1905)
  6. Dawson v. Wombles86 S.W. 271 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340 (1858) 18
Phillips v. Riley, 27 Mo. 386 (1858) 8

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