Case ID: ri_20/html/0539-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nathaniel C. Peckham, Receiver, vs. Charles H. Armstrong et al.
    
    WASHINGTON
    MAY 24, 1898.
    Present : Matteson, C. J., Stiness and Tillinghast, JJ.
    A verdict is cqnclusive if reconcilable with, the evidence.
    When a jury has returned its verdict upon issues framed in an equity suit, the burden of proving that its findings are against the evidence is upon the party objecting to the entry of a decree thereon.
    Bill in Equity for an injunction, and to set aside conveyances alleged to have been made in fraud of creditors.
    Heard on motion to enter decree on a verdict upon issues of fact.
    
      
      John E. Conley and William J. Cronin, fór complainant.
    
      William B. Perce, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The court is of opinion that, under the rule laid down in Silver Spring Bleaching and Dyeing Co. v. Woolworth, 16 R. I. 729, the verdict is conclusive if reconcilable with the evidence. Under this rule, the burden would be upon the party objecting to the entry of the decree upon the issues found to satisfy the court that the findings of the jury were against the evidence. Nothing of this kind is shown, and consequently, the complainant is entitled to the entry of his decree.