Case ID: cal-unrep_1/html/0062-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BURNETT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN H. EASTERLING, Respondent, v. POWER & BLODGETT, Appellants.
    No. 1495;
    June 22, 1857.
    Appeal — Order Denying New Trial. — The Appellate Court is Reluctant to reverse the denial of a motion for a new trial made on the ground that the findings were contrary to the evidence.
    Appeal. — An Order Denying a Motion for a New Trial, where the evidence below was without material conflict and the findings by the court were contrary to the weight of it, is not to be sustained.
    
      APPEAL from Tenth Judicial District, Yuba County.
    John T. McCarty and C. IT. Bryan for respondent; E. D. "Wheeler for appellants.
   BURNETT, J.

— This cause was tried before the district court, by consent of parties, without a jury. The finding and judgment of the court were for the plaintiffs, and the defendants moved for a new trial upon the ground that the finding was contrary to the evidence. The court overruled the motion for a new trial and the defendants appealed.

It is always with great reluctance that this court will reverse the decision of the court below refusing a new trial upon the ground that the finding of the judge or the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence. But in a clear case it is our duty to do so.

In this case we can see no testimony to support th'e finding. The testimony, when carefully compared, does not materially conflict, and the weight of it is clearly with the defendants.

Judgment reversed, cause remanded, and a new trial ordered.

I concur: Murray, C. J.