Case ID: ill_1/html/0261-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Justice Smith.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph M. Street, Plaintiff in Error, v. Solomon Blue, Defendant in Error.
    ERROR TO GALLATIN.
    A refusal to grant a new trial can not be assigned as error.
    
      Hall, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Eddy, for defendant in error.
   Opinion of the Court by

Justice Smith.

This case comes before the court by way of exception to the opinion of the circuit court of Gallatin county, in refusing to grant a new trial. In the progress of the cause it appears that two new trials have already been had, and that the cause has been fully litigated before three several juries. The granting, or refusing a new trial, is a question to be determined in the sound discretion of the court to whom the application is addressed, and a refusal is no ground of error, as has been settled by the unanimous opinion of this court in the case of Clemson v. Kruper, ante, page 210, and other cases subsequent thereto.

There is nothing in the present case to authorize a departure from that decision, nor is it perceived but that entire justice has been rendered in the case. The jury, whose province it Was, have determined on the evidence, twice in favor of the plaintiff, and we can see no sufficient reason for unsettling their verdict, if it were even possible to exempt this case from the operation of the decisions of the court respecting new trials, the reasons for which have been heretofore given, and need not now be repeated.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed with costs. ,

Judgment affirmed. 
      
       Cases in relation to new trials. Sawyer v. Stevenson, p. 24. Cornelius v. Boucher, p. 32. Collins v. Claypole, p. 212. Clemson v. Kruper, p. 210.
      The refusal of a court to grant a new trial is not a matter for which a writ of error lies. Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat., 213. 5 Cranch, 11. Ibid., 187. 7 Wheat., 248.
     
      
       See note to Sawyer v. Stevenson, ante, p. 24.