Case ID: ga_32/html/0464-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lumpkin, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Freeman McLendon, plaintiff in error, vs. Kelly & Sallee, defendants in error.
    1. Where a case has been fairly submitted to the jury upon the facts, and there is no question of law involved, and the presiding Judge refuses a new trial, this Court will not reverse the judgment, unless it appears that the jury acted from bias or prejudice, corruption or passion, or manifest mistake.
    Assumpsit, in Meriwether Superior Court. Tried before the Hon. O. A. Bull, at the August Term, 1860.
    This was an action brought by the firm of Kelly & Sallee against Freeman McClendon to recover $103 00, the value of certain pork which plaintiffs alleged they had sold to defendant, and for which he was indebted to them.
    The defendant simply pleaded the general issue.
    The proof on the trial was very brief, and showed that plaintiffs delivered to Samuel W. Moyer, about the 1st of January, 1857, fourteen hundred and seventy-two pounds of pork, at seven cents per pound, and charged it to defendant, by direction of Moyer; that plaintiffs had furnished to Moyer goods in the same way the year before, and charged them to defendant, who paid for them without objection; that Moyer was working in defendant’s shop, and boarding some of defendant’s hands at the time; that on two or three occasions the defendant was called on for payment of the account sued on, and he said it was all right, and that he would pay it; on another occasion the defendant was called on to pay the account, and complained of Moyer’s extravagance, and said he had no funds of the firm of McLendon & Moyer on hand, and that if the plaintiffs would get Moyer’s note for $50 00 he, defendant, would pay the balance; that plaintiffs had no direct authority, either verbal or written, to charge the goods to defendant, except the statements of Moyer as aforesaid.
    The jury found for the plaintiffs $103 00, with costs of suit, and counsel for defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground:
    
      1st. That the verdict was contrary to law, contrary to the testimony, and strongly and decidedly against the weight of the evidence in the case.
    The presiding Judge overruled the motion and refused the new trial, and that decision is the error complained of.
    B. H. Hill and Adams & Knight, for plaintiff in error.
    George A. Hall, for defendants in error.
   By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

There is no question of law involved in this case, and it has been fairly submitted upon the facts to the jury. They have found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Court has refused to grant a new trial. We do not feel called on to reverse the judgment.

Indeed, the argument of the facts in any case, with all the zeal and particularity of a jury trial, is felt by this Court to be a grievous burden, and unless we are satisfied that the jury acted from bias or prejudice, corruption or passion, or manifest mistake, we shall rarely feel it our duty to order a re-hearing upon the testimony, where it has been refused by the Circuit Judge.

Let the judgment be affirmed.