TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Price v. Evans

Thomas D. Price and Henry A. Sherrill, in Error v. W. S. Evans and T. D. Evans, in Error

Price v. Evans, 49 Mo. 396 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 15, 1872
Judges
Adams, Bliss, Wagner
Citations
49 Mo. 396
Headnotes
1. Practice, civil — New trial — Verdict—Jury, conduct of. — The refusal of a court to grant a new trial, where a motion is based on alleged absence of any testimony to warrant a verdict, is not error unless the preponderance of evidence against the verdict is so strong as to raise a presumption of prejudice, corruption, or gross ignorance on the part of the jury. 2. Practice, civil — Evidence — Supreme Court. — This court will not review the facts when the evidence is conflicting.
Summary
Error to Linn Court of Common Pleas.

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

Opinion of the Court — Bliss

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

Bliss, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The petition contained two counts, one for $700 paid by plaintiffs as sureties for defendants, and one for a balance of account at their bank of $346. The answer averred payment of the note and a deposit to the plaintiffs’ credit of $1,200, for which defendants, after deducting the $346, asked judgment. The jury found for defendants on ' the first count, and gave the plaintiffs a verdict of $380 upon the second. The instructions were, correct, and we are asked to grant a new trial because there *397 was no evidence to sustain the verdict upon the first count. There is reason to believe that the verdict was wrong, and I think the trial court would have been justified in giving a new trial. Notwithstanding trial courts may thus act when they see the jury has been misled, yet if they refuse to do so, it is not error unless the preponderance of evidence against the verdict is so strong as to raise a presumption of prejudice, corruption, or gross ignorance on the part of the jury. Such has been our uniform holding, and any other would be impossible.

One of the grounds for the motion was newly-discovered evidence, but the affidavit shows that it was known before the trial but not deemed necessary. Defendants failed in saddling upon the plaintiffs the $1,200 deposit which had once been accounted for, but succeeded, and perhaps unjustly, with the $700. But owing to our well-settled and absolutely necessary rule of not reviewing facts when there is conflicting evidence, we cannot relieve them.

Judgment affirmed.

Judge Wagner .concurs. Judge Adams absent.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →
1876–1877: 11880–1881: 11884–1885: 11886–1887: 11888–1889: 41890–1891: 11892–1893: 11894–1895: 11898–1899: 21900–1901: 11902–1903: 31904–1905: 11906–1907: 11912–1913: 21914–1915: 11920–1921: 11928–1929: 118762026peak 1888 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. Kunkel17 Kan. 145 (1876)
  2. Chitty v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.49 S.W. 868 (Mo. 1899)
  3. Spohn v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.87 Mo. 74 (1885)
  4. Chouquette v. Southern Electric Railroad53 S.W. 897 (Mo. 1899)
  5. State v. McNamara100 Mo. 100 (1889) · Dissent
  6. State v. Primm98 Mo. 368 (1889)

Most recent

  1. Burston v. Fennewald2 S.W.2d 824 (Mo. Ct. App. 1928)
  2. Jones v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.228 S.W. 780 (Mo. 1921)
  3. Harper v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad172 S.W. 55 (Mo. Ct. App. 1914)
  4. Van Loon v. St. Joseph Railway, Light, Heat & Power Co.160 S.W. 63 (Mo. Ct. App. 1913)
  5. Kiel v. Ott151 S.W. 182 (Mo. Ct. App. 1912)
  6. Lehnick v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.94 S.W. 996 (Mo. Ct. App. 1906)

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