Case ID: cal-app_45/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LANGDON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civ. No. 3132.
    First Appellate District, Division Two.
    December 13, 1919.]
    AMERICAN MARINE PAINT CO. (a Corporation), Appellant, v. NYNO LINE, INC. (a Corporation), Respondent.
    
       Hew Trials—Insufficiency op Evidence—Presumption prom Statement in Order Granting.—The appellate court will not presume that the trial court was satisfied as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict because the latter court included in its order granting a new trial a statement that it would file a written opinion if the parties had not settled the ease within thirty days.
    
       Id.—Misleading and Confusing Instructions.—Where it appears from the questions of several of the jurors, after they had been deliberating for a time and were unable to reach a verdict, that they were confused and had no clear idea of the law applicable to the facts, the trial court is justified in granting a new trial on the ground that the instructions were misleading and confusing.
    
       Id.—Presumptions Where Order Granting General—Appeal.— Where the order granting a new trial is general in its terms, all presumptions are in its favor; and, on appeal, the entire record will be examined, and if there be found any ground that would have justified the order, it will be affirmed.
    
       Id.—Conflicting Evidence—Verdict not Conclusive on Trial Court.—The trial court is not bound by the decision of a jury because of a conflict in the evidence.
    
      
       Id.—Discretion of Trial Court—Appeal.—The granting of anew trial is a matter resting so largely in the discretion of a trial court that it will not be disturbed on appeal except upon an unmistakable abuse.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County granting a new trial. Curtis D. Wilbur, Judge. Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Ira S. Lillick and J. Arthur Olson for Appellant.
    W. G. Van Pelt and Bertin A. Weyl for Respondent.
   LANGDON, P. J.

The order granting a new trial was general in its terms and all presumptions are in its favor. The entire record upon which the order is based will be examined upon appeal, and if there be found any ground that would have justified the order, it will be affirmed. (Central Trust Co. v. Stoddard, 4 Cal. App. 647, [88 Pac. 806]; Morgan v. Robinson Co., 157 Cal. 348, [107 Pac. 695].) [4] The trial court is not bound by the decision of a jury because of a conflict in the evidence. In this respect its functions are different from those of an appellate court. (Pollitz v. Wickersham, 150 Cal. 238, [88 Pac. 911].) [5] The granting of a new trial is a matter resting so largely in the discretion of a trial court that it will not be disturbed except upon an unmistakable abuse. (Groppengiesser v. Lake, 103 Cal. 38, [36 Pac. 1036]; Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. Co., 116 Cal. 156, [47 Pac. 1019].)

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Brittain, J., and Nourse, J., concurred.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on February 9, 1920.

All the Justices concurred, except Wilbur, J., who did not participate.