Case ID: ill_46/html/0050-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William H. Underhill v. Henry Fake.
    
      1. New Trial—verdict against the evidence. Unless the verdict of the jury is manifestly against the weight of evidence, it will not be disturbed, although the evidence would have justified a different result.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Chicago.
    
      This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Superior Court of Chicago, by the appellee against the appellant, for services alleged to have been rendered by him as a traveling agent of appellant in soliciting business. The case was tried before the court, and a jury, who found a verdict for appellee for the sum of $1,245.84. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and judgment thereafter rendered on the verdict, to reverse which, the appellant has appealed to this court.
    Messrs. Eldridge. & Tourtellotte, for the appellant.
    Messrs. King, Scott & Clyde, for the appellee.
   Mr. Chief Justice

Breese delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is admitted by the counsel for appellant in the outset, that the questions presented by this record, are wholly questions of fact. An examination of the record, assures • us that such is the case.

It was a question fairly submitted to the jury, how much was a just compensation to the appellee fo" the services rendered by him as a traveling agent of appellant to solicit business for the commission house of appellant. The jury heard a great deal of testimony on the question, including that of both the parties. They had a much better opportunity to judge this evidence than we have. It was conflicting, and it was their province to extract the truth from it, and although we might not have found so large an amount due the plaintiff, we cannot say it is so exorbitantly excessive, or so obviously against the evidence, as to be referable to the prejudice or partiality of the jury, and in view of repeated rulings of this court on this subject, we do not- feel justified in interfering to disturb the finding.

The motion for a new trial was properly overruled, and the judgment on the verdict must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.