Case ID: cal_51/html/0172-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 4245.]
    MEYER EHRLICH et al. v. EDWARD EWALD.
    New Trial.—The Supreme Court will not disturb an order of the court below granting a new trial on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict of a jury, if the evidence is conflicting.
    Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
    Action to recover the sum of eight thousand dollars, alleged to have been loaned. The plaintiffs had the verdict of a jury in their favor. The evidence was conflicting. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was granted. The plaintiff appealed from the order granting a new trial.
    
      G. F. & W. H. Sharp, for the Appellants.
    
      B. S. Brooks, for the Respondent.
   By the Court:

It seems from, the language of the order granting a*new trial that the court was not satisfied as to the sufficiency of the evidence upon an issue material to the plaintiffs’ recovery. In such cases we will not disturb the order of the court below, either granting or refusing a new trial.

Order affirmed.