Case ID: tex_6/html/0199-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Whbblek, ,J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Chevaillier v. Brewer.
    Where the testimony is conflicting this court has uniformly refused to disturb the verdict on the ground that it was contrary to the evidence.
    Appeal from Nacogdoches.’ This was a suit, brought by the appellee against the appellant before a justice of the peace in December,' 1844, upon an account for the sum of seven dollars and fifty cents for “board and horse feed.” The defendant claimed a set-oil'of three dollars and five cents. The case was tried in January, 1S45, and the justice gave judgment for the plaintiff for four dollars aud forty-five cents. The defendant appealed to the District Court. At the Fall Term, 1840, Lhe case was continued on affidavit of the defendant Che-vaillier. At theFall Term, 1848, when it was next called, it was again continued on the affidavit of the defendant. At .the Spring Term, 1849, the defendant filed another affidavit for a continuance, and the case was again continued. At the Fall Term of that year it was tried and resulted hi a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for two dollars and forty-five cents. And from this judgment, after an unsuccessful effort to obtain a new trial, the defendant appealed. The testimony was conflicting-.
    
      J. M. Ardrey, for appellant.
    
      Ochiltree Sr Jennings, for appellee.
   Whbblek, ,J.

We might feel ourselves justified in striking this appeal from the docket upon the principle of the ihaxim “De minimis non curat lex." A case presenting so striking a picture of causelessly-protracted, vexatious and -frivolous litigation has seldom been presented for tlie revision of a court of last resort.

In looking into the facts of the case, which detail a controversy too frivolous for repetition, we find the testimony conflicting. The conclusion to he drawn from it, therefore, as to tlie facts, was a question exclusively for the jury. In such a case we have uniformly refused to disturb tlie verdict. It was for siightly less than tlie judgment of tlie justice; but no presumption is thereby raised, under tlie circumstances, that his judgment was correct. We see no cause to be dissatisfied with the verdict. Tlie'judgment upon it is legal and correct.

There does not appear to have been tlie slightest ground for the appeal to this court, and it is time to put an end to this frivolous and vexatious controversy. Tlie judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.