Case ID: iowa_39/html/0610-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cole, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Howell v. Snyder.
    1. Practice in the Supreme Court: record: new triad. The Supreme Court will not reverse the action of the court below, sustaining a motion for a new trial because the verdict is contrary to “the law as given, by the court,’’ when the abstract does not contain the instructions given upon the trial.
    2. New trial: practice. It requires a stronger showing to reverse an order granting, than one refusing, a new trial. (Freeman v. Rich, 1 Iowa, 504.)
    
      Appeal from Wayne District Cowrt.
    
    Friday, October 23.
    Action upon a promissory note, made by the defendant to The Iowa Southern Nail way ■ Company or order, for $104.20, dated' February 8, 1870, and payable one day after date. Defense, that the note was given in payment of a subscription made by tbe defendant to tbe railway company to aid in its construction, and upon certain conditions as to tbe line or route of its construction, the time of its completion, etc., etc.; that by false and fraudulent representations made to tbe defendant, by this plaintiff as one of- tbe officers of tbe Bailroad Company, as to the performance of such conditions the note was obtained; that in fact none of them were performed, and it is now impossible to perform them. Trial to a jury, who found for defendant. Upon motion of plaintiff, the verdict was, set aside and a new trial granted. Tbe defendant appeals.
    
      Tedford (& Miles, for appellant.
    
      Vermilion <& Haynes, for appellee.
   Cole, J.

Tbe abstract shows that tbe motion for a new trial “ coming on to be beard, is by the court sustained, for tbe reason that said verdict is contrary to tbe evidence and law as given by the court, and for no other cause.” Tbe abstract contains all tbe evidence, but does not contain any of tbe instructions or “ the law as given by tbe court.” Since we have not, therefore, all tbe record or facts before us, upon which tbe court below acted, we cannot properly review its action. Neither could we say upon tbe merits of tbe case as shown by tbe evidence alone, that tbe court erred in granting a new trial.' Dewey v. The C., & N. W. R’y Co., 31 Iowa, 373. Besides, it requires a stronger showing to reverse an order granting, than one refusing, a new trial. Freeman v. Rich, 1 Iowa, 504, and cases cited in note i of Cole’s Edition.

Affirmed.